Spreadsheet: 9734d461-6053-41de-a5bd-e00b19ee2b80
Sheet: Sheet1

[NAME] line case notes for Comparative Corporate Law: EU & US with [NAME], Spring 2006 - Book: [NAME] | Unnamed: 1 | Unnamed: 2 | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Unnamed: 7
CASE | ISSUE | Only if sorted on page # ! | Y |  | COURT |  | P.
 |  | EU Treaty Provisions
Costa v. ENEL |  | & Van Gend: Nat'l vs EU law: EU law wins | 1986 |  | Italy - Milan |  | 114
EC Commission v. Ireland |  | Failure to implement Directive & | 1993 |  | ECJ |  | 124
EC Commission v Belgium |  | consequent breach of EU law | 1983 |  | ECJ |  | 125
[NAME] v. Finanzamt |  | Vetical direct effect of directive | 1982 |  | ECJ |  | 129
 | Real seat (CA, [NAME] etc) want 'level playing field' & local (social) issues | Incorporation Doctrine
Arden-Mayfair v Louart | Min. s/h wants Cum. Voting (CA 708); CA 2115; state v. federal law | US D.Ct. holds that Del. state law controls -->Del inc.'n doct. | 1977 |  | US D.Ct. Del. |  | 434
[NAME] | s/h wants cum. voting (CA 708); CA 2115; 'significant contacts w/CA' | UTAH corp. not opts in cum. voting; Const. test: Cal. Wins | 1983 |  | Cal. CoA |  | 439
[NAME] | Dir's want to see books; (CA 1602); 'strong contacts' w/CA | CA vs DE: 3-prong test : CA law 'most impaired'-->wins | 1995 |  | Cal. CoA |  | 449
[NAME] v. Lewis | DE internal affairs doctrine dictates application of Panamean law to corp | State of inc. doctrine for for'n (non-US) corps | 1987 |  | Del. [NAME]. |  | 456
VantagePoint v. Examen | Pref s/h's want to vote as a class: cannot under Del law-->applies | Cal. Ct. stays case, waits for Del. Ct: Del. cont's 'int. affairs' | 2005 |  | [NAME]. |  | Suppl.
Expatriation of Ger. Company |  | Emigration of corp. seat --> corp. wound up in Ger | 1993 |  | German CoA |  | 469
Daily Mail | After Centros/Insp. Art: ECJ will be (much) less restrictive (4-factor test) | Can emigrate seat, but UK can decide terms (i.c. tax) | 1988 |  | ECJ |  | 473
Centros | Branch in Denmark: 2ndary est'ment? ECJ does not distinguish | Inc'n in UK to evade DK min.cap.req.:ok (caveat emptor!) | 1999 |  | ECJ |  | 483
Überseering | Prev. [NAME] case (liable p'ship) - violates freedom of est'ment | princ. place of bus.: NL->Ger: must accept NL corp. law | 2002 |  | ECJ |  | Suppl.
Inspire Art | Psdo-foreign corp. act - only if 46 (public pol/sec/health) / 4-factor test | NL cannot 'discriminate' foreign (EU) corps. (caveat emptor) | 2003 |  | ECJ |  | Suppl.
[NAME] |  | Federalization within Europe | 1829 |  | US S.Ct. |  | 581
 | RMBCA 2.04: if know that is no corp: liable (must have acted!) | Pre-inc. transactions - Gen. rule: prom'r liable
Goodman v. DDS | Prom'or signed K as pres. of corp 'in formation'->after default, files art's | Prom'or added to arbitr'on over pre-inc'n contract: gen rule wins | 1983 |  | Wash. S.Ct. |  | 674
[NAME] | K between prom'or & architect: corp accepted benefits + partly paid | Prom'or liable: corp. took over, but no (express) novation | 1980 |  | Nev. S.Ct. |  | 679
Cranson v. IBM | Defectively formed corp.: even of not de jure/de facto corp: estopped | No art's of  inc. filed, but can't sue D, since did busi's w/corp | 1964 |  | MD CoA |  | 683
Timberline | D alleges rentals are made to de facto corp: Ct: de facto corp doesn't exist | P not estop'd: def've art's of inc. + inc'r acted for corp: liable | 1973 |  | OR S.Ct. |  | 688
Micciche v. Billings | D corp. failed to file obligatory statement-> suspended from business | No liab. for offi'rs if corp. has susp. status but valid leg'l entity | 1986 |  | CO S.Ct. |  | 693
Ubbink | 3rd party could have found out corp not existed->NO 7 (caveat emptor) | 1st Council Dir: art 7 v. 11; corp 'io': NOT 7, yes 11 | 1988 |  | ECJ |  | 707
[NAME] |  | D purported to act for non-existing corp.:liable | 1987 |  | Eng. High Ct. |  | 717
 |  | Capital requirements
[NAME] v. Standard Gas & Electric Co. |  | Valuation of assets | 1949 |  | [NAME]. |  | 797
[NAME]’s |  | Impairing capital | 1997 |  | Del. [NAME]. |  | 806
Penington v. Commonwealth Hotel |  |  | 1931 |  | [NAME]. |  | 815
Sinclair Oil v. [NAME] |  | Dividends | 1971 |  | Del. [NAME]. |  | 821
[NAME] v. [NAME] |  | Nimble Dividends | 1955 |  | Del. [NAME]. |  | 823
Credit Man's Ass’n of SC v Federal Co. |  | Cal. 'modern approach' | 1985 |  | Cal. [NAME]. |  | 849
 |  | Conduct of manag's - Fiduciay duty
Bristol v. Mothew |  | UK | 1996 |  | Eng. CoA |  | 1140
Smith v. Van Gorkom | BoD NO 'informed business judgement'/not 'adequately informed' | US- Duty of care - Del. 102(b)7 in response-> does not overrule | 1985 |  | Del. [NAME]. |  | 1157
In re Equitable Fire Insurance |  | Business judgment rule | 1925 |  | Eng. Ch. Ct. |  | 1213