Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Every first-year law student learns one of the canonical formulations of federal civil procedure: In order for a federal court to have subject matter jurisdiction over a case or controversy, the matter generally must either arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States (“federal question” jurisdiction); or the plaintiffs in an action based on state law must have complete diversity of state citizenship from all of the defendants, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000 (“diversity” jurisdiction). 28 U.S.C. ”' 1331; 1332. When the litigants are individuals ─ ”natural persons” ─ determinations of citizenship are simplified by the rule that a person has only one domicile, and by the well-tested standards that have evolved for identifying where that place may be. Where a corporation is a litigant, however, determinations of citizenship are complicated by the so-called “dual citizenship” doctrine, that holds a corporation is a citizen of both its state of incorporation and “of the State where it has its principal place of business[.]” 28 U.S.C. ” 1332(c)(1).
Exactly what this phrase means, however, has never been altogether clear since that second basis of state citizenship was codified in 1958. As the decades have progressed, the evolution of corporate structure and corporate commercial activity has rendered the application of this unarticulated standard a quagmire. What is the “principal place of business” of a multinational corporation that has corporate headquarters in New York, but enjoys relatively few sales in that state, and instead conducts business in all 50 states and 39 other nations? What about a corporation whose leadership team is spread across three offices in three separate states, and does roughly equal amounts of business in each of the states in which those offices are located? Is the proper locus of analysis whether there is a particular place within a state that can be said to be a corporation's “principal place of business,” or should a court look to which state has the greatest aggregate number of business-related contacts to the corporation in determining where the corporation's principal “place of business” lies?
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
A federal district court in Miami, FL, has ruled that former National Basketball Association star Shaquille O'Neal will have to face a lawsuit over his promotion of unregistered securities in the form of cryptocurrency tokens and that he was a "seller" of these unregistered securities.
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.
In recent years, there has been a growing number of dry cleaners claiming to be "organic," "green," or "eco-friendly." While that may be true with respect to some, many dry cleaners continue to use a cleaning method involving the use of a solvent called perchloroethylene, commonly known as perc. And, there seems to be an increasing number of lawsuits stemming from environmental problems associated with historic dry cleaning operations utilizing this chemical.