翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ JPL (disambiguation)
・ JPL (Integrated Communications, Inc.)
・ JPL Horizons On-Line Ephemeris System
・ JPL Small-Body Database
・ JPlayer
・ JPM
・ JPM (band)
・ JPM 01 Médoc
・ JPM 03 Loiret
・ JPM Airport
・ JPM discography
・ JPMC
・ JPMorgan American Investment Trust
・ JPMorgan Asian Investment Trust
・ JPMorgan Chase
JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Traffic Stream (BVI) Infrastructure Ltd.
・ JPMorgan Chase Building (Houston)
・ JPMorgan Chase Building (San Francisco)
・ JPMorgan Chase Corporate Challenge
・ JPMorgan Chase Tower (Houston)
・ JPMorgan EMBI
・ JPMorgan Emerging Markets Investment Trust
・ JPMorgan European Fledgling Investment Trust
・ JPMorgan European Investment Trust
・ JPMorgan GBI-EM Index
・ JPMorgan Indian Investment Trust
・ JPMorgan Japanese Investment Trust
・ JPMorgan Russian Securities
・ JPN (album)
・ JPNSGRLS


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Traffic Stream (BVI) Infrastructure Ltd. : ウィキペディア英語版
JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Traffic Stream (BVI) Infrastructure Ltd.

''JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Traffic Stream (BVI) Infrastructure Ltd.'', , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a corporation organized under the laws of a British overseas territory is considered a "citizen or subject of a foreign state" for purposes of federal court jurisdiction.
== Background ==
Chase Manhattan Bank (which later became JP Morgan Chase) sued Traffic Stream (BVI) Infrastructure Ltd., a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, in a dispute over a financing. Chase filed the suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Federal jurisdiction was based on alienage under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(3), in that the suit was between a United States company and a "citizen or subject of a foreign state." The District Court ruled for Chase, and Traffic Stream appealed.
Although no jurisdictional issue had been raised in the District Court, on appeal the Second Circuit inquired ''sua sponte'' whether federal subject-matter jurisdiction existed over the action. The Second Circuit concluded that jurisdiction was lacking. The court reasoned that since the British Virgin Islands are a dependent territory rather than a "foreign state," a British Virgin Islands corporation was not a "citizen or subject of a foreign state." The Second Circuit panel relied on the Circuit's prior ''Matimak'' decision, which had reached the same conclusion concerning a citizen of Hong Kong prior to the transfer of Hong Kong from British to Chinese sovereignty.
Traffic Stream petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for ''certiorari'', with the support of an ''amicus curiae'' brief from the government of the United Kingdom. The Court agreed to hear the case.

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Traffic Stream (BVI) Infrastructure Ltd.」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.