http://uslegalresources.blogspot.com

Dictionaries etc.

Review

Review slides.

exam advice & tonight's lecture

exam advice: focus on what interests you, on things you think may be useful in your future.
imagine you were the professor; what would you ask? write yourself a
model exam. Better, bring it this weekend we will talk about that!

Tonight's lecture

TAXATION - *indicates *possible equivalent TERMS IN GERMAN*

Taxation in natura

User fee Verwaltungsgebuhr

Non-affectation principle


Value Added Tax = Mehrwertsteuer
Does not generally exist in the USA.
Advantages of VAT?
1) immigrant income.
2) Easy.
3) Non-Distortionary.

Sales tax: Like the VAT. Verkaufssteuer
Not all states have sales tax.

Excise Tax = a tax on a product Verbrauchssteuern - Indirekte Steuer
1) Alcohol.
2) Tobacco.
3) Gasoline.
*sin taxes

Is taxing power steuer- ermaechtigung *steuerprivileg* federal, state, or

concurrent?
Depends on the tax. Zoelle Customs duties are exclusively federal.
Ad valoram property taxes -- Grundsteuer are almost always local.

Income Tax Einkommensteuer
"Income from any source derived"
-Worldwide Income! - double taxation [tax treaties] Doppelbesteuerung
-Presumption Vermutung that a) it is income b) subject to taxation

Both Natural and Legal Persons Juristische Person are subject to federal

income tax.
Not all states have income tax

Tax deduction Steuerabzug
Tax credit Steuergutschrift
(Marginal) Tax Rate
-Grenzsteuersatz

Progressive
Flat / Proportional **
Regressive

Taxable income zu versteuerndes Einkommen
Gross Income Brutoeinkommen
Adjusted Gross Income Nettoeinkommen

Basis -
Realization -


Tax Deductions
*Ordinary and necessary business expenses
*Payments of interest on loans
-dividend payments are not business expenses!

Exclusions from Income
Uniforms, Meals at the workplace
Insurance payments
?Scholarships?
Life insurance payments
*Interest from federal bonds.
Capital Gains
Carry Forward

Depreciation Abschreibung
Straight Line Depreciation --Lineare
Double Declining depreciation -- Accelerated: *Degressive Abschreibung?
Life of product

*depreciated value is a deduction.

Abgeltungssteuer Taxes on Capital: Gift *Schenkungssteuer and Estate Tax

*Vermoegenssteuer?
*Due on death of the person
*Due on transfer of a gift to another person

Negative income tax

Tax avoidance steuervminderung
Tax evasion steuervermeidung -- steuerhinterziehung.
Tax deferral

Audit

Fiscal realism
Fictitious transactions Fiktive Geschaefte / Transaktionen

Offshore

Fiscal transparency
Double taxation Doppelbesteuerung


Taxable Entity --Steuerobjekt?
*Natural Person
--not a partnership!
*Corporation
--exception closely held subchapter S corporation
*Trust


Tax Exemption
Tax exempt organization - 501(c)(3)
Charitable purpose

Laffer curve
Revenue - Verdienst Einnahme government's receipts
Tax Rate - Steuersatz
Budget - Haushalt - Etat
Interest rate Zins

Standard of proof
Burden of Proof = Beweislast
Burden of Production = Beweisfuehrungslast

Tonight's lecture - antitrust; Model Exam

Powerpoint for tonight's lecture on antitrust

Direct action

Derivative action

Shareholder's right of inspection

Corporate opportunities doctrine

estoppel

dividend

common stock

preferred stock

convertible stock

bond

tax transparency

double taxation

lifting/piercing the corporate veil

proxy fight/proxy contest

injunction

equity

fraud

jurisdiction to adjudicate

jurisdiction to enforce

jurisdiction to prescribe

in rem jurisdiction

in personam jurisdiction

extraterritorial jurisdiction

http://lexnet.bravepages.com/tortdict.htm

ABSOLUTE LIABILITY / STRICT LIABILITY

Burden of production / burden of going forward with the evidence

Burden Of Proof

LEGAL CAPACITY

Cause, Proximate

CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT

Cause in fact

FELLOW SERVANT RULE

FORESEEBILITY

MASTER AND SERVANT

PRIVITY OF CONTRACT

STANDARD OF PROOF

STARE DECISIS

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

Ultra vires

void contract

voidable contract

jurisdiction to adjudicate

jurisdiction to prescribe

jurisdiction to enforce

affidavit

equity jurisdiction

equitable maxims

in personam

in rem

multi factor balancing test

judicial parsimony

judicial economy

burden of proof

burden of production

proportionality

dicta

holding

authorized shares

issued shares

common stock

preferred stock

voting trust

shareholders agreement

trust

piercing/lifting corporate veil

respondeat superior

fellow servant doctrine

joint liability

several liability

joint and several liability

imputed negligence

strict liability

Widgets, Inc. is a corporation, chartered in New York. It has 2 million shares authorized, and issued 1 million shares of common stock at 1 dollar per share. Each common share has 1 vote. It has 1000 shares of preferred stock which issue a dividend of 1000 dollars per share and are non-voting. Widgets It has debts of 1 million dollars.

Widgets wishes to outsource manufacture of its products. To do so it enters into a partnership with Bobbits, an LL.C., as a limited partner. Bobbits hires Craneco, S.A., a South American corporation to build a factory for it. Bobbits also hires SimCo, LL.P., a management consultant to run its operations in the South American factory. SimCo hires contract laborers. The contract labor is badly paid, unhappy, and often shows up to work late or drunk, resulting in pay being docked. At a labor strike on site Jorge lights a match to smoke a cigarette. Dangerous chemicals explode. SimCo claims the accident is Jorge's fault and was deliberate sabotage.

Manolo, represented by Humanitas, a human rights advocacy group, is a worker at the factory in South America. Humanitas, on behalf of Manolo sues Widgets, Bobbits, Craneco, and SimCo in the U.S. Federal Court, Southern District, New York. What result?

Readings

Basic

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=485&invol=224



http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/corporations/corporations-keyed-to-klein/the-duties-of-officers-directors-and-other-insiders/basic-inc-v-levinson/


Chiarella

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/445/222/case.html





http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/corporations/corporations-keyed-to-hamilton/transactions-in-shares-rule-10b-5-insider-trading-and-securities-fraud/chiarella-v-united-states/



Dirks

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/463/646/





http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/corporations/corporations-keyed-to-klein/the-duties-of-officers-directors-and-other-insiders/dirks-v-securities-and-exchange-commission/


FORMS
Affidavit

http://www.lectlaw.com/forms/f041.htm


Partnership

http://www.lectlaw.com/forms/f068.htm


Trust

http://www.lectlaw.com/forms/f178.htm


Corporation - Charter

http://www.lectlaw.com/forms/f163.htm


Corporation - Bylaws

http://www.lectlaw.com/forms/f151.htm


Joint Venture Agreement

http://www.lectlaw.com/forms/f083.htm


Amicus curiae brief

http://harvardhumanrights.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/kiobelbrieftosc.pdf


--------------

Dear Students,

Our first session in January is on the 24th (constitutional law) and the 25th (corporate law). I believe that means I miss exactly three sessions, which we will have to reschedule.
This is why I have been going over time during our lectures.

I suggest: Saturday, 11 a.m. on the 28th of January and 4th February then lunch at 1, then an afternoon session with break. (Constitutional law)

And then the 11th and 12th, also starting at 11 a.m. and going into the afternoon for company law.

Our examination is currently scheduled for the 14th and 15th of February. It will consist of vocabulary, which you must define in English in a sentence or three. You may refer to the same concepts in your own language. The objective there is to make certain you understand basic legal terminology. The other part will be a case which you must resolve.

Merry Christmas!

Here are your readings.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1020517


http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1271868


http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1020457


http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1702470

Readings for next time (last lesson in December)

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1191.pdf

http://blog.internationalpractice.org/international-practice/rico-held-not-to-apply-extraterritorially-following-morrison.html

The powerpoint from last night.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BwMRRQXBqVxjMjJmYjllYjYtZDczOS00N2E4LWI2ZDgtMDcxZWJmYTE1YTA5&hl=en_US

Corporate Social Responsibility

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1020517

Powerpoint for wednesday.

‎CorporateCounsel.ppt

Readings for next time

First, read this, it is not complex, read it lightly.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1424693

Then this
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1020470
ignore the parts about computer science. Just focus on the RICO.

Read this case:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/2nd/977867v2.html

Read this case:
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=6&xmldoc=19961146100F3d1046_11004.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006&SizeDisp=7

We will talk about Shaffer v. Heitner but only very briefly. Ok?

Readings for next week

Read this

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=1955477309NY168_1449.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985

then 

http://supreme.justia.com/us/433/186/case.html

then this

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1655983

To be clear: we look at the cases which are in the readings to reinforce the learning and to learn how to read cases (issue, rules & rationale, application, conclusion). I sometimes do the case before the reading, sometimes after the reading, I think doing the case after the reading is more effective at teaching the rules but less effective at teaching how to ignore irrelevant information and find relevant information. 

Tonights ppt.

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BwMRRQXBqVxjNzkwOTk1YzMtOWJmOS00NzQyLWI4ZjItNzM4MjQxNjY0NDk0

Read this for next time:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1020505

Cases: In order

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/104/450

http://supreme.justia.com/us/199/148/case.html

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=396&invol=531

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=1955477309NY168_1449.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985

Tonight's notes.

*de minimis non curat lex* the law does not concern itself with trifles.
damnum sine injuria. damages, without injury.
*INJURY IN FACT.
IF Dodge v. Ford were litigated today
Rules:

*Charitable activities? *FORD
--company insurance for health is tax deductible a permissible charitable purpose.
--education

1) Direct benefit -- schools, hospitals for employees
2) Princeton -- indirect benefit also allowed
3) Anything tax exempt.

*Business judgement rule* FORD
--no second guessing
my decision to issue dividends is business judgement.

Shareholder oppression
rules
--that the majority cannot dominate or abuse the minority shareholders
***starving the dodge brothers of capital
as a form of unfair competition.

Work of common law lawyer =
find relevant cases
and make analogies.


================================

Ultra vires
If an act is not indicated as within the corporation's powers in the corporate charter then the act is ultra vires.

Ultra vires acts are void or voidable.

Void = nichtig, ab initio, the act never occurred.

Voidable = the wronged part can avoid the legal consequences of the act.

Recall the charitable donation in the case last week. The plaintiff were arguing that the donation was ultra vires.

Ultra vires transactions may not be ratified by the shareholders even if they want to.

A party may be estopped from denying the legality of a completed transaction which would otherwise be ultra vires "in the interests of justice".
Estoppel is an equitable remedy.
Equitable remedies are Discretionary: courts may grant them, but do not have to.

Contemporary corporations usually indicate that the corporation is empowered to undertake "all lawful activity".

What can shareholders who are unhappy with management do?
They can sue
-- in their own name: a 'direct' cause of action.
-- in the name of the company, i.e. on behalf of the corporation itself as a representative of the corporation's interest. This is called a derivative site.


To make a derivative suit one must first exhaust their remedies at the corporation prior to going to the court.
The plaintiff must make a demand of the board first. If the board refuses the request the plaintiff has exhausted their corporate remedy and may now go to court.
Failure to make a demand may be excused where the demand would be futile.

The theory of the derivitive suit is that the plaintiff is representing the corporation.

==========================
Tort (Fahrlässige oder Vorsatzliche Delikt)
For every customary crime (common law)
[criminal burden of proof]
there is a corresponding customary negligent tort.
[civil burden of proof]

Elements

Duty (Pflicht)

Breach (Pflichtverletzung

Causation (Verursachung; Kausalität)

--a)Cause in fact (Haftungsbegrundende Kausalität
[syn. but for causality] (Causa Condicio sine qua non)

--b)Proximate cause (Haftungsausfuellende Kausalität)

Damages (Schaden)


Fraud =
misrepresentation +
of a material fact +
made with knowledge of falsehood + [proof?]
intended to induce reliance +
which does induce reliance +

Lecture notes for tonight.

Ultra vires
If an act is not indicated as within the corporation's powers in the corporate charter then the act is ultra vires.

Ultra vires acts are void or voidable.

Void = nichtig, ab initio, the act never occurred.

Voidable = the wronged part can avoid the legal consequences of the act.

Recall the charitable donation in the case last week. The plaintiff were arguing that the donation was ultra vires.

Ultra vires transactions may not be ratified by the shareholders even if they want to.

A party may be estopped from denying the legality of a completed transaction which would otherwise be ultra vires "in the interests of justice".
Estoppel is an equitable remedy.
Equitable remedies are Discretionary: courts may grant them, but do not have to.

Contemporary corporations usually indicate that the corporation is empowered to undertake "all lawful activity".

What can shareholders who are unhappy with management do?
They can sue
-- in their own name: a 'direct' cause of action.
-- in the name of the company, i.e. on behalf of the corporation itself as a representative of the corporation's interest. This is called a derivative site.


To make a derivative suit one must first exhaust their remedies at the corporation prior to going to the court.
The plaintiff must make a demand of the board first. If the board refuses the request the plaintiff has exhausted their corporate remedy and may now go to court.
Failure to make a demand may be excused where the demand would be futile.

The theory of the derivitive suit is that the plaintiff is representing the corporation.

Free Online Law Dictionaries.

I just updated the sources and methods to include FREE ONLINE LAW DICTIONARIES.

You can download one of them (bouviers) for offline use (will be faster).

Use them! Law has a specialist vocabulary. Knowing it will teach you concepts - it is a basic and necessary lawyering skill!

http://uslegalresources.blogspot.com/

Tonights powerpoints.

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0BwMRRQXBqVxjNmMzNTgzZTQtZGNiNi00NjUzLTk4N2ItYWU3M2NhYTI2Yjhh&hl=en_US

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0BwMRRQXBqVxjYTNkMDcyYTYtY2NkNy00OGMyLWFiMTUtOWNhNjNmOTZlMTRk&hl=en_US

Cases for my forthcoming book on corporations.

Dear Students,

Download jureeka add on for firefox or chrome (I don't know if it is available for explorer or opera).
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/jureeka-6636/
zomg, free U$ Ca$elaw! =)

Here is the list of cases I cited in my forthcoming book on corporate law. We will likely use Some of them. Feel free to glance through them to see if any address topics which interest you.

A.P. Smith Mfg. Co. v. Barlow, 98 A.2d 581 (1953).
Abdel-Fattah v. Pepsico, Inc., 948 S.W.2d 381 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. 1997).
Adler v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 219 F.3d 869 (9th Cir. 2000).
Alfadda v. Fenn, 935 F.2d 475 (2d Cir. 1991).
Aliota v Graham 984 F2d 1350 (3d Cir. 1993), cert. Den. (US) 126 L Ed 2d 37, 114 S. Ct. 68 
Alpine v. Friend Bros., Inc., 244 Mass. 164, 138 N.E. 553. 
American Fuel Corp. v. Utah Energy Development Co., Inc., 122 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 1997).
Aronson v. Price, 644 N.E.2d 864,  (Ind. 1994) 
Bank of Heflin v Miles (1975) 294 Ala 462, 318 So 2d 697.
Barr v. Wackman, 36 N.Y.2d 371, 329 N.E.2d 180, 185-86, 368 N.Y.S.2d 497 (1975) 
Basic Inc. v. Levinson 485 U.S. 224, 108 S.Ct. 978 U.S.,1988.
Beanal v. Freeport-McMoran, Inc., 197 F.3d 161 (5th Cir. 1999)
Beck v. Prupis, 529 U.S. 494 (2000).
Bench v. Sheldon, 14 Barb. 66 (N.Y. App. Div. 1852)
Berberet v. Myers, 240 Mo. 58, 144 S.W. 824 (Mo. 1912).
Bersch v. Drexel Firestone, Inc., 519 F.2d 974 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1018 (1975)
Board of Trustees, Sheet Metal Workers’ Nat. Pension Fund v. Elite Erectors, Inc., 212 F.3d 1031 (7th Cir. 2000).
Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Foil, 284 N.C. 740, 202 S.E.2d 591 (1974)
Carbonella & Desarbo, Inc. v. Dealer’s Quest, Inc. et al. 2003 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1539, 11* (2003) (Superior Court, Connecticut, unreported) 
Cedric Kushner Promotions v. King, 533 U.S. 158 (2001).
Chiarella v. United States 445 U.S. 222 (1980).
Chock Full O’Nuts Corp. v. Finkelstein, 548 F. Supp. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). 
Cicippio v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 18 F. Supp. 2d 62 (D.D.C. 1998).
Cislaw v Southland Corp. 4 Cal App 4th 1284, 6 Cal Rptr 2d 386, 92 CDOS 2631, 92 Daily Journal DAR 4136 (1992, Cal. App.).
Consol. Gold Fields PLC v. Minorco, S.A., 871 F.2d 252 (2d Cir. 1989).
Consolidated Sun Ray, Inc. v Oppenstein 335 F2d 801 (Mo. Ct. App. 1964).
Credit Bureau Reports, Inc. v. Credit Bureau of St. Paul, Inc., 290 A.2d 691 (Del. 1972).
CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am., 481 U.S. 69 (1987). 
Daimler-Benz Aktiengesellschaft v. Olson, 21 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. App. Austin 2000).
Dan River, Inc. v. Icahn, 701 F.2d 278 (4th Cir. 1983).
Daniel L. Schilling, vs. Emerald Green International, 2001 Minn. App. LEXIS 1041 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001) 
Daniel M. Williams, v. Rep Corporation, 302 F.3d 660; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 17275, *4;CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P16,399 (7th. Cir 2002).
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593 (1993) 
Davis v John R. Thompson Co. 239 Ill App 469 (1926).
De Falco v. Dirie, 923 F. Supp. 473 (S.D. N.Y. 1996).
Debra F. Fink, D.M.D., MS, PC v. Ricoh Corp., 365 N.J.Super. 520 ; 839 A.2d 942 (N.J.Super.L.,2003).
Delfina Kaczorowska, v. National Envelope Corporation - East 342 N.J. Super. 580;777 A.2d 941 (N.J. Sup. Ct. 2001).
Deuchar v Foland Ranch, 410 NW2d 177 (S.Ct., S.Dak.1987).
Dewey v. Lutz, 462 N.W.2d 435 (N.D. 1990)
Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646, 103 S.Ct. 3255, 77 L.Ed.2d 911 (1983).
Discon, Inc. v. NYNEX Corp., 93 F.3d 1055 (2d Cir. 1996), rev’d on other grounds, 525 U.S. 128 (1998).  
Divco-Wayne Sales Financial Corp. v Martin Vehicle Sales, 45 Ill App 2d 192, 195 NE2d 287 (Ill. App. 1963).
Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., 170 N.W. 668 (Mich. 1919) 
Doe v. Unocal Corp., 963 F. Supp. 880, 883 (C.D. Cal. 1997).
Doe v. Unocal Corp., 110 F.Supp.2d 1294, 1311 (C.D. Cal. 2000).
Doe v. Unocal Corp., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13327 (9th Cir., 2002).
Doe v. Unocal Corp., No. 00-56603, 2002 WL 31063976 (9th Cir. (Cal.) Sept. 18, 2002), vacated on other grounds, Doe v. Unocal Corp., No. 00-56603, 2003 WL 359787 (9th Cir. (Cal.) Feb. 14, 2003) 
California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. Coulter, 2002 Del. Ch. LEXIS 144.
Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 631-40 (1982).
Edward A. Swan, Sr. v. New Orleans Terminal Company, 745 So. 2D 52.
Env’t Tectonics v. W.S. Kirkpatrick, Inc., 847 F.2d 1052 (3d Cir. 1988).
Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185 (1976) 
Ex parte Union Camp Corporation (Re: Joel Cobb v. Union Camp Corporation) 816 So. 2d 1039 (Sup. Ct. Ala. 2001).
Eye Site, Inc. v. Blackburn, 796 SW2d 160 (Tex 1990).
Favorito v Pannell 27 F3d 716, 720 (CA1 RI).
Financial Indus. Fund, Inc. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 474 F.2d 514 (10th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1973).
First Nationwide Bank v. Gelt Funding Corp., 27 F.3d 763 (2d Cir. 1994).
Fish v East 114 F2d 177 (Colo. Ct. App. 1940).
Fisser v International Bank 282 F2d 231 (2d. Cir., 1960).
Freeman v. Decio 584 F.2d 186 (C.A.Ind.,1978).
Friedman v Altoona Pipe & Steel Supply Co. (1972, CA3 Pa) 460 F2d 1212 (applying Pennsylvania law).
Garcia v. Halsett, 3 Cal. App. 3d 319, 325; 82 Cal. Rptr. 420, 423 (Cal. App. 1970).
Giant Food, Inc. v Scherry, 51 Md App 586, 444 A2d 483, 29 ALR4th 134 (1982). 
Green v Equitable Powder Mfg. Co. (1951, DC Ark) 95 F Supp 127, 121. 
Green v. Hamilton Internat’l Corp., 437 F.Supp. 723 (S.D.N.Y.1977).
Gruber v. Price Waterhouse, 117 F.R.D. 75 (E.D.Pa.1987).
Guthrie v. Harkness, 199 U.S. 148 (1905).
H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (1989).
H.L. Bolton (Eng’g.) Co. Ltd. v. Graham & Sons Ltd., (1957) 1 Q.B..
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 125 L. Ed. 2d 612, 509 U.S. 764 (1993).
Hawes v. City of Oakland, 104 U.S. 450, (1882).
Hecht v. Commerce Clearing House, 897 F.2d 21 (2d Cir. 1990).
Heilbronn v. Kendall, 775 F. Supp. 1020 (W.D. Mich. 1991).
Hellman v. Thiele, 413 N.W.2d 321 (N.D. 1987).
Hemming v. Alfin Fragrances, Inc., 690 F. Supp. 239, 244-45 (S.D.N.Y. 1988),
Henderson v Rounds & Porter Lumber Co. (DC Ark) 99 F Supp 376
Herald Co. v. Seawell, 472 F.2d 1081 (10th Cir. 1972).
Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U.S. 375  (1983) 
Hersey v. Lonrho, Inc., 73 Conn. App. 78, 807 A.2d 1009 (Conn. App. 2002).
In re Albano, 143 BR 323 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1992).
In re Audre, Inc., 216 B.R. 19 (Bankr. 9th Cir. 1997).
In re Cady, Roberts & Co., 40 S.E.C. 907 (1961)
In re Carter-Wallace Inc. Sec. Litig., 150 F.3d at 156
In re PolyMedica Corp. Securities Litigation 224 F.R.D. 27 (D. Mass., 2004) 
In re Union Carbide Corp. Gas Plant Disaster at Bhopal, India 634 F. Supp. 842 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). 
In re Worlds of Wonder Securities Litigation, Not Reported in F.Supp., 1990 WL 260675 (N.D.Cal.,1990).
International Brotherhood. of Teamsters General Fund. v. Fleming Companies, Inc. No. CIV-96-1650-A, 1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 2980 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 24 1997)
Itoba Ltd. v. LEP Group PLC, 54 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 1995).
ITT v. Vencap, Ltd., 519 F.2d 1001 (2d Cir. 1975).
Jose v. M/V Fir Grove, 801 F. Supp. 349 (D. Or. 1991).                                           
Joseph R. Foard Co. v Maryland 219 F 827 (Ct. App. Md. 1914).
Jota v. Texaco, Inc., 157 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 1998).
Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1051 (1983).
Kasel v. Remington Arms Company, Inc., Defendant and Respondent (Cal. App. 1972) 101 Cal.Rptr. 314, 24 Cal.App.3d 711. 
Kasky v. Nike Inc., 45 P.3d 243, 248 (Cal. 2002), cert. dismissed, 539 U.S. 654 (2003).
Kaufman v. i-Stat Corp. 165 N.J. 94, 113-116. 754 A.2d 1188 (N.J.,2000). 
Kern County Land Co. v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 411 U.S. 582 (1973).
Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 90 Cal. App. 4th 902, 909 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001).
Krivo Indus. Supply Co. v. National Distillers & Chem. Corp., 483 F.2d 1098 (5th Cir. 1973).
Kuchta v. Allied Builders Corp. 21 Cal.App.3d 541; 98 Cal.Rptr. 588 (1971).
Lamb v. Phillip Morris, Inc., 915 F.2d 1024 (6th Cir. 1990).
Lauritzen v. Larsen 345 U.S. 571;73 S. Ct. 921;97 L. Ed. 1254;1953 U.S. LEXIS 2533 (U.S. S. Ct. 1953).
Leasco Data Processing Equipment Corp. v. Maxwell, 468 F.2d 1326, 1334 (2d Cir. 1972).
Lehman v National Ben. Ins. Co. (1952) 243 Iowa 1348, 53 NW2d 872.
Leming v. Oilfields Trucking Co., 44 Cal. 2d 343, 282 P.2d 23, 51 A.L.R.2d 107 (Cal. S. Ct. 1955).
Lennard’s Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co 32 [1915] AC 705.
Madanes v. Madanes, 981 F. Supp. 241 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
Martin v D. B. Martin Co. (1913) 10 Del Ch 211, 88 A 612, 102 A 373.
Martin v Development Co. of America 240 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1917).
Mason v Kenyon Zero Storage, 71 Wash App 5, 856 P2d 410 (Wash. App., 1993).
McCarthy v. Brockton National Bank, 314 Mass. 318; 50 N.E.2d 196.
Medical Committee for Human Rights v. SEC, 139 U. S. App. D. C. 226, 229, 432 F.2d 659 (1970) 
Mejdrech v. Met-Coil Sys. Corp., 319 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2003) 
Mid-Missouri Telephone Co. v. Alma Telephone Co., 18 S.W.3d 578 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 2000).
Milgo Electronic Corp. v United Business Communications, 623 F2d 645, cert den (1980) 449 US 1066, 66 L Ed 2d 610, 101 S Ct 794.
N. S. Fin. Corp. v. Al-Turki, 100 F.3d 1046 (2d Cir. 1996).
N. X., v. Cabrini Medical Center, 97 N.Y.2d 247;765 N.E.2d 844;739 N.Y.S.2d 348 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002).
Nat’l Bank of Canada v. Interbank Card Ass’n., 666 F.2d 6, 8 (2d Cir. 1981).
Nat’l Coalition Gov’t of Union of Burma v. Unocal, Inc., 176 F.R.D. 329, 360 (C.D. Cal. 1997).
Nerox Power Systems, et al. v. M-B Contracting Company et al. 54 P.3d 791
New York Trust Co. v Carpenter  250 F 668 (Ohio, Ct. App.).
News-Journal Corp. v State (1939) 136 Fla 620, 187 So 271.
O’Hagan, 521 U.S. at 652, 117 S.Ct. 2199.
Orion Tire Corp. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 22506, 268 F.3d 1133.
Otis-Hidden Co. v Scheirich (1920) 187 Ky 423, 219 SW 191, 22 ALR 19.
Pappalardo v. Richfield Hospitality Services, 790 So. 2d 1226
Peck v. Greyhound Corp. 97 F. Supp. 679 (S.D.N.Y. 1951).
Peters v. Welsh Dev. Agency, No. 86 C 2646, 1991 WL 172950, *7 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 29, 1991).
Petrocco v. At&T Teletype, Inc., 273 N.J. Super. 613, 642 A.2d 1072 (Law Div. 1994):
Phoenix Canada Oil Co. Ltd. v. Texaco, Inc., 658 F. Supp. 1061, 1084 (D. Del. 1978) .
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Big Apple Indus. Bldgs., Inc., 879 F.2d 10, 15 (2d Cir. 1989).
Prosecutor v.Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, para. 245 (Int’l Crim. Trib. for Former Yugoslavia Dec. 10, 1998).
Prosecutor v. Kupreskic, Case No. IT-95-16-A, para. 256, 304 (Int’l Crim. Trib. for Former 28 July, 2004).
Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. ICTY-94-1-T, para. 688 (Int’l Crim. Trib. for Former Yugoslavia May 7, 1997).
Psimenos v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 722 F.2d 1041, 1046 (2d Cir. 1983).
PT United Can Co. v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 138 F.3d 65, 74 (2d Cir. 1998).
Real Estate Investors Four, v. American Design Group Inc., 46 S.W.3d 51 (Mo. App. 2001).
Reed, 601 F.Supp. At 706.
Regina v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate And Others, Ex Parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 3) (24 March, 1999) 1 A.C. 147, 154 (House of Lords, 2000).
Riviello v Waldron, 47 NY2d 297, 302.
Robichaud v. Owens- Illinois Glass Co., 313 Mass. 583, 48 N.E.2d 672. 
Rosenfeld v. Fairchild Engine & Airplane Corp., 309 N.Y. 168,  128 N.E.2d 291 (1955).
Ross v. Bernhard (1970) 396 US 531, 90 S.Ct. 733.
Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531 (1970). 
Sa Majeste la Reine c. Rejean Parent, Intime et Le procureur général de l’Ontario, [2001] S.C.R. 761 (Can.).
Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 65 (1997).
San-Dar Associates v. MDO Development Corp., N.Y.L.J., July 22, 1997, at 22, col. 4 (Sup. Ct., Bronx County 1997)
Sandra Jean Hersey v. Lonrho, Inc., 73 Conn. App. 78.
Saphir v. Neustadt, 177 Conn. 191, 210; 413 A.2d 843 (1979).
Scandinavian Satellite System, AS v. Prime TV Ltd., 291 F.3d 839 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
Scientific Drilling Int’l, Inc. v. Gyrodata, 215 F.3d 1351 (C.A. Fed 1999).
SEC v. Marcus Schloss & Co., Inc. 714 F.Supp. 100, 101 (S.D.N.Y.,1989).
SEC v. Medical Comm. for Human Rights, 404 U.S. 403, 406 (1972).
SEC v. Montedison, S.p.A., SEC Lit. Release No. 15164, 3 FCPA Rptr. 699.450 (D.D.C. 1996).
SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., 401 F.2d 833, 849 (2d Cir. 1968) 
SEC v. Warde, 151 F.3d 42, 48-49. (2d Cir.1998).
SEC v. World-Wide Coin Invs., Ltd., 567 F. Supp. 724, 747 (N.D. Ga. 1983).
Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Stratton Oakmont, Inc., 234 B.R. 293, 321 (S.D. N.Y. 1999)
Sedima S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479, 496 (1985).
See, e.g., Pappalardo v. Richfield Hospitality Services, 790 So. 2d 1226;2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 11092;26 Fla. L. Weekly D 1927 (Fla. App. 2001).
Shaw v. Agri-Mark, Inc., 67 F3d 18 (CA2 1995).
Smith v Flynn 275 Ala 392, 155 So 2d 497 (1963).
Sonora Diamond Corp., v. The Superior Court Of Tuolumne County, 2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 695,*21;83 Cal. App. 4th 523; 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 824;2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 7375 (Cal. App., 2000).
Sonora Diamond Corp., v. The Superior Court Of Tuolumne County, 2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 695,*21; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 7375 (Cal. App., 2000).
Soros v. France (application no. 50425/06) (15.09.2010) (ECtHR)
Speed v. Transamerica Corp., 99 F. Supp. 808, (D. Del. 1951) 
State ex rel. Lowell Wiper Supply Co. v Helen Shop, Inc. 211 Tenn 107, 362 SW2d 787 (1962).
State ex rel. Pillsbury v. Honeywell, Inc. 291 Minn. 322, 191 N.W.2d 406, 50 A.L.R.3d 1046 (1971).
State of New York v. Easton, 169 Misc. 2d 282 (Sup. Ct., Albany County 1995).
State v. Mandelker, 197 Wis 518, 222 NW 786
State v. Werra Aluminum Foundry Co., 173.
Steinberg v. Adams, 90 F. Supp. 604 (S.D.N.Y. 1950). 
Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags AB v. Commission, Case C-286/98 P, 2000 E.C.R. I-09925.
Tasty Baking Co. v. Ralston Purina, Inc. 653 F.Supp. 1250, (E.D.Pa.,1987).
Tomasso v. Armor Construction & Paving, Inc., 187 Conn. 544 A.2d 406 (1982).
Tooley v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, Inc., 845 A2d 1031 (Del 2004). 
Townley v. Emerson Elec. Co., 178 Misc. 2d 740, 681 N.Y.S.2d 741 (Sup. Ct. 1998).
TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 426 U.S. 438, 96 S.Ct. 2126, 48 L.Ed.2d 757 (1976).
Tucson Gas & Electric Co. v Schantz (1967) 5 Ariz App 511, 428 P2d 686.
Tylka v. Gerber Prods. Co, 178 F.R.D. 493 (N.D. Ill. 1998) 
U.S.  v. Noriega, 746 F. Supp. 1506 (S.D. Fla. 1990).
U.S.  v. Young & Rubicam, Inc., 741 F. Supp. 334 (D. Conn. 1990)
U.S. v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945)
U.S. v. Angelilli, 660 F.2d 23 (2d Cir. 1981).
U.S. v. Approximately $25,829,681.80 in Funds (plus Interest) in the Court Registry Investment System, 1999 WL 1080370 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). 
U.S. v. Bagaric 706 F.2d 42 (2d Cir. 1983), abrogated  510 U.S. 249 (1994).
U.S. v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94 (1922).
U.S. v. Carillo, 229 F.3d 177 (2nd Cir. 2000).
U.S. v. Chestman 947 F.2d 551, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,259, 60 USLW 2245 (U.S.Ct.App. 2d. Cir., 1991) (en banc).
U.S. v. Chiarella, 588 F.2d 1358 Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶96608, 3 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1347 (2d Cir. 1978) 
U.S. v. Coonan, 938 F.2d 1553 (2d Cir. 1991).
U.S. v. Krauch, et. al, The I.G. Farben Case, VIII Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals, iii-iv (1952)
U.S. v. Krupp and Others, 10 War Crimes Reports 69 (1948).
U.S. v. Lang 766 F.Supp. 389 (D.Md.,1991).
U.S. v. Layton, 509 F. Supp. 212 (N.D. Cal. 1981).
U.S. v. Lee 937 F.2d 1388 (9th Cir. Wash., 1991).
U.S. v. Marcus Schloss & Co., Inc. 724 F.Supp. 1123 (S.D.N.Y.,1989)
U.S. v. O’Hagan, 521 U.S. 642 (1997).
U.S. v. Pac. & Arctic Ry. & Navigation Co., 228 U.S. 87 (1913).
U.S. v. Parness 408 F.Supp. 440 D.C.N.Y. (1975).
U.S. v. Persky, 520 F.2d 283, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶95209 (2d Cir. 1975)
U.S. v. Svoboda 347 F.3d 471 (C.A.2 (N.Y.),2003).
U.S. v. von Weizsaecker (The Ministries Case), 14 Control Council Law No. 10 Trials, 621-22 (1952) (U.S. Mil. Trib. III 1948).
U.S. v. Willis, 737 F.Supp. 269 (S.D.N.Y. 1990).
U.S. v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2003).
U.S. v. Zichettello, 208 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2000).
USX Corp. v. U.S. 12 C.I.T. 205, 682 F.Supp. 60 (CIT,1988). 
Veranda Beach Club Ltd. Partnership v Western Sur. Co. (CA1 Mass) 936 F2d 1364, 1373; 33 Fed Rules Evid Serv 809, 20 FR Serv 3d 409 (1st. Cir. 1991).
Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. Icahn, 747 F. Supp. 205 (S.D.N.Y. 1990).
Wallace v Tulsa Yellow Cab Taxi & Baggage Co., 178 Okla 15 P2d 645 (Sup. Ct. Okla. 1936).
Wallace v. Wood, 752 A.2d 1175 (Del. Ch., 1999).
Williams v. Geier, 671 A.2d 1368 (1996).
Wilson v Joma, 537 A2d 187 (S. Ct. Del. 1988).
Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 226 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2000); 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 23274. (2d Cir. 2000).
Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, 2002 WL 319887 (S.D. N.Y. Feb. 28, 2002).
Wong Buck Kam v Lee Chee 29 Hawaii 508 (1926).

IP Links

We will do a session on IP either tonight or next week. Here are the readings, this is the start there may be more.


https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BwMRRQXBqVxjMzFkNzczYzAtNDU1MS00MjljLWJiMGEtODA5MjE2NDIyN2Nl



https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BwMRRQXBqVxjN2U5YTFlOWUtOTA2ZS00ODJmLWEzMTctYTJjNTM1MzU2MjVk


As always, if a link doesn't work by clicking copy it and past it into your browser's address bar.

Assignments

We will be spending the next 2 or 3 sessions on the cases in the reading which follows

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BwMRRQXBqVxjZGFjNjUzNmItMTcyZS00MjY0LThhZDAtNDQxYzdmYjg5ZDhj&hl=en_US

read everything in there, and take notes on the cases. Figure out the issue, the rule, the arguments made, the reason arguments were rejected or not, and also the conclusion to the case (IRAC)

This reading is mandatory important and must be your first task!


Optional Background Introductory Material:
This is what we talked about in the first lecture. You should read it at your convenience.
You should read this, if you want to learn about corporation law.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BwMRRQXBqVxjNTFmMzJmNzEtNGQ5ZS00YmQzLWFjNTgtNGJlM2QzOWE1ZTFh&hl=en_US



Our Advanced Case Reader - We will get to these cases later, and I will assign them.
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0BwMRRQXBqVxjMDc0NTk0NjAtOGFkOC00YzA1LWJiNjItNDIzMTAzOGU4NWM5&hl=en_US

We will get to this as well but also later:

Agency:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BwMRRQXBqVxjYzc5MWJhYTgtMmM3YS00Yjg0LTlhMjAtMWM4NmY5MDIxZGQz&hl=en_US

You now have the basic readings for the course. There may be others, but these should be all the case we will discuss.