News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of the United States › Foreign Corporations

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary... more +
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term.  The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -
Amundsen Davis LLC

A Year With Mallory: Revisiting The Concept of Consenting to General Personal Jurisdiction

Amundsen Davis LLC on

On June 27, 2023, Truck on highwaythe Supreme Court of the United States decided Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 600 U.S. 122 (2023). The divided Court upheld a Pennsylvania corporate registration statute which...more

Perkins Coie

Supreme Court Upholds Mandatory Repatriation Tax as Constitutional

Perkins Coie on

The U.S. Supreme Court held the Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT) constitutional in Moore v. United States, No. 22-800, 602 U.S. _, decided June 20, 2024. The MRT requires some American shareholders of American-controlled...more

Rivkin Radler LLP

The Supreme Court’s Non-Opinion On The “Realization” of Income – A Lost Opportunity?

Rivkin Radler LLP on

In less than four months, the citizens of the United States will be electing their next President to a four-year term. They will also be deciding which of the two major political parties will “control” the Senate, the House,...more

Freeman Law

Supreme Court Upholds Section 965 Mandatory Repatriation Tax

Freeman Law on

On June 20, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-anticipated decision in Moore v. United States, in which a 7-2 majority upheld the constitutionality of the mandatory repatriation tax (“MRT”) under section 965 of the...more

Gray Reed

SCOTUS Upholds MFT: Moore Et Ux v. US

Gray Reed on

On June 20, 2024, the Supreme Court released its opinion in Moore et ux v. US, authored by Kavanaugh, decided by 6-3 vote and marking a rare instance for the Court to interpret the 16th Amendment, upholding the...more

Burns & Levinson LLP

Client Advisory: Repatriation Tax on Shareholders | Moore v. U.S.

Burns & Levinson LLP on

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 amended the law to introduce a new, one-time, mandatory repatriation tax on trillions of dollars of accumulations held abroad by American-controlled foreign entities. The tax is imposed on...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Supreme Court Rules Against Taxpayers in IRC Section 965 Case

McDermott Will & Emery on

On June 20, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a 7-2 opinion in Moore v. United States, 602 U.S. __ (2024), ruling in favor of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)....more

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

SCOTUS Rejects Constitutional Challenge to Mandatory Repatriation Tax, Holding It Applies to Realized but Undistributed Income of...

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP on

In Moore v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to the Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT), holding that the MRT does tax income — the realized earnings of foreign corporations — and thus is...more

Epstein Becker & Green

Not the Day We Are Waiting For - SCOTUS Today

Epstein Becker & Green on

With a significant mass of cases left to decide and only a few weeks to issue the opinions, the U.S. Supreme Court has reduced the backlog by four yesterday. None of them, however, resolves the future of Chevron deference or...more

WilmerHale

3 Personal Jurisdiction Questions Mallory Leaves Unanswered

WilmerHale on

The due process framework that has cabined personal jurisdiction over nationwide and global businesses for the last eight decades — since the U.S. Supreme Court's 1945 ruling in International Shoe Co. v. Washington — looks...more

Rivkin Radler LLP

Supreme Court to Decide: No Realization Means No Moore Income Tax?

Rivkin Radler LLP on

Many of you, perhaps most, may have read about a case that will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court during its current term. The case, Moore v. United States, comes out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court...more

Benesch

Supreme Court Expands General Jurisdiction in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., Marking Departure from “At Home”...

Benesch on

The test for personal jurisdiction, which asks whether a defendant can be compelled to litigate in a particular state, has been extensively developed over the past several decades, and notably refined in the last fifteen...more

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.: Supreme Court Recognizes Existence of Consent-Based Theory of General Personal...

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP on

The US Supreme Court recently issued a decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co holding that a Pennsylvania statute requiring corporations to "consent" to suit in Pennsylvania courts in order to register to do...more

ArentFox Schiff

Shoe on the Other Foot? Fractured Supreme Court Blesses “Registration Jurisdiction” Statutes (Part Two)

ArentFox Schiff on

At the conclusion of its recent Term, the US Supreme Court finally released its long-anticipated opinion in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railroad, No. 21-1168. In our Part One alert from September 2022, we reported on the...more

Venable LLP

When International Shoe Doesn't Fit: Personal Jurisdiction After Mallory v. Norfolk Southern

Venable LLP on

Every first-year law student learns two ways that a court can have jurisdiction over a corporate defendant. If the defendant has "minimum contacts" with a state, and the plaintiff's injuries arise out of those contacts, then...more

Saul Ewing LLP

Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway—A Crossroads of Consent and Corporate Jurisdiction

Saul Ewing LLP on

​On June 27, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that states can require corporations registered in their state to consent to be sued in the state as a condition of doing business there—even if the facts of a lawsuit...more

Paul Hastings LLP

Public Company Watch: July 2023

Paul Hastings LLP on

In the July edition of our Public Company Watch, we cover key issues impacting public companies, including important reminders for companies’ upcoming Form 10-Q filings; the themes revealed by the 12 proxy contests that have...more

Lathrop GPM

Supreme Court Holds Corporation Waived Due Process Rights and Consented to General Personal Jurisdiction by Registering to do...

Lathrop GPM on

On June 27, 2023, the United States Supreme Court held in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern R. Co., No. 21-1168, 2023 WL 4187749, that Norfolk Southern submitted to the state of Pennsylvania’s general jurisdiction (that is, being...more

BakerHostetler

Corporate Consent Jurisdiction and the Supreme Court's Landmark Mallory Decision

BakerHostetler on

The Supreme Court has significantly expanded the possible grounds for personal jurisdiction against corporations, upholding Pennsylvania’s statute requiring foreign businesses registered in the Commonwealth to consent to...more

Mintz

Losing Your International Shoe: Corporations May Waive Contacts-Based Personal Jurisdiction in Consent-by-Registration States

Mintz on

Late last month the Supreme Court of the United States opened the door to a potential sea change in personal jurisdiction over corporate entities. In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, the Court held that any...more

Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires &...

Supreme Court Opens Door to Pennsylvania Lawsuits

Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires &... on

In its recent opinion in the case of Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, No. 21-1168 (June 27, 2023), the United States Supreme Court held that an out-of-state company with none of the traditionally recognized...more

Stinson LLP

Supreme Court Ruling Opens Door to Suits in States Where Companies are Registered

Stinson LLP on

In its June 27, 2023, Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a corporate defendant can be sued in Pennsylvania — regardless of whether the cause of action accrues in Pennsylvania or...more

Harris Beach PLLC

Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railroad: U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision on Jurisdiction

Harris Beach PLLC on

The United States Supreme Court reversed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., finding Pennsylvania’s consent to jurisdiction by corporate registration unconstitutional in a 5-4...more

Baker Donelson

United States Supreme Court Confirms Business Registration as Means for Consent to Personal Jurisdiction

Baker Donelson on

On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court held, in a fractured opinion in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway, that if a state requires a foreign entity to consent to personal jurisdiction through its business registration...more

Amundsen Davis LLC

U.S. Supreme Court Opens Door for Companies to Face Lawsuits in Any State They Are Registered to Do Business

Amundsen Davis LLC on

In a recent decision, Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door for companies to face lawsuits in the state where they have registered to do business. The ruling stems from a case...more

105 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 5
Next »

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide