or in England. Plaintiffs’ arguments have already been rejected by other courts, and there is no justification for a different outcome here. Plaintiffs first attempt to distinguish this case based on the citizenship of the investors involved. But even Justice Stevens, who disagreed with the Morrison majority’s complete trouncing of the Second Circuit’s conduct and effects test, acknowledged that the addition of a U.S. investor to the Morrison scenario would be insufficient to create liability under section 10(b). In applying Morrison, a majority of district courts have found the citizenship of the investors involved or mere “listing” on the NYSE insufficient reasons to extend section 10(b) liability. See, e.g., Cornwell v. Credit Suisse Group, 729 F.Supp.2d 620, 623-24 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (<HOLDING>); In re Alstom SA Sec. Litig., 741 F.Supp.2d
holding that morrison precludes securities claims brought by us investors who purchase securities on a foreign exchange even where those securities are also listed on a us exchange holding that morrison precluded extraterritorial application of  10b to foreign securities transactions involving alleged wrongful conduct that could cause harm to american investors in the united states holding that a foreign representative may assert under  804 only those avoiding powers vested in him by the law applicable to the foreign estate holding that section 10b does not extend to foreign securities traded on foreign exchanges even if purchased or sold by us investors and even if the foreign issuer had adrs listed on us exchanges holding that a purchase agreement for a foreign corporations stock is not subject to section 10b even if the closing occurred in the united states