Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a conflict among the federal circuits by establishing a uniform interpretation of the phrase “principal place of business” for determining corporate citizenship under 28 U.S.C. ' 1332(a), the federal diversity jurisdiction statute (the “Diversity Statute”). In Hertz Corp. v. Friend (130 S.Ct. 1181 (Feb. 23, 2010)), the Supreme Court ruled that corporate citizenship should be determined on the basis of the specific location of a corporation's “center of direction, control, and coordination” ' usually, but not always, the state in which its principal headquarters is located. This methodology is aptly labeled the “nerve center” test. To avoid potential “attempts at manipulation,” the Hertz Court explained that a nominal principal office consisting of “nothing more than a mail drop box, a bare office with a computer, or the location of an annual executive retreat” will not suffice to establish a corporation's nerve center.
Recently, in Brewer et al. v. SmithKline Beacham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline (Civ. Action No. 10-4443 et seq. (E.D. Pa., March 24, 2011)), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania applied Hertz in deciding the citizenship, for purposes of the Diversity Statute, of an operating entity organized as a limited liability company (“LLC”) within a corporate holding company structure. In a fact-specific ruling, the district court found that “for purposes of determining the citizenship of a limited liability company whose sole member is a holding company that does not direct or control the operations of the limited liability company, we look to the 'nerve center' of the limited liability company to which the holding company has delegated the operational decision-making.”
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
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.