The interconnectedness of global economies and capital markets, as well as the prevalence of international trade, has significant implications for both domestic and international law and policy. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit acknowledged, "[w]e live in an age of international commerce, where decisions reached in one corner of the world can reverberate around the globe in less time than it takes to tell the tale." These global reverberations can have adverse effects in numerous jurisdictions. The potential for distinctly foreign conduct to injure persons in both the United States and a foreign jurisdiction raises a question in two principal areas of U.S. law, antitrust and securities fraud: Does U.S. law apply to foreign plaintiffs' claims that originate from conduct occurring wholly outside of the United States that has adverse effects on domestic purchasers and markets?

In both the antitrust and securities fraud contexts, foreign plaintiffs, injured by foreign defendants in foreign territories, seek to bring claims arising under U.S. law in U.S. federal courts. I refer to the antitrust versions of these claims as "global market cases" because the alleged link between the foreign plaintiff's claim and the United States is the existence of a global market reaching across national boundaries. In the securities context, I refer to these cases as "f-cubed cases" because they involve foreign investors bringing actions against foreign issuers concerning transactions taking place on a foreign exchange. This Note contends that the two classes of claims are uniquely analogous in implicating the extraterritorial reach of U.S. law because both involve foreign plaintiffs seeking to establish jurisdiction in U.S. federal court on the grounds that their foreign injury is connected to an adverse U.S. domestic effect.