in the U.S. and incurred an economic risk in the U.S.” could sue under section 10(b)). Similarly, the location of the harm to a plaintiff is independent of the location of the securities transaction that produced the harm. Just as the situs of a defendant’s allegedly deceptive conduct is irrelevant to the transactional test, see Morrison, 130 S.Ct. at 2883-84, 2886-87, so too is the situs of a plaintiff’s alleged injury. Given that “[n]ot deception alone, but deception with respect to certain purchases or sales is necessary for a violation of the statute,” id. at 2887 (emphasis added), there is no textual or logical basis for making injury a sufficient condition for the statute’s application without the existence of a domestic purchase or sale. See Cornwell I, 729 F.Supp.2d at 626 (<HOLDING>). The place from which Plumbers’ traders placed
holding that the lower courts erred in finding that the question of the extraterritorial reach of  10b of the securities and exchange act of 1934 was jurisdictional even though nothing in the analysis of the courts below turned on this mistake 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 purchase agreement for a foreign corporations stock is not subject to section 10b even if the closing occurred in the united states 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 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