Suchergebnisse

Jurisdiction — Territorial — Presumption against extraterritorial application of legislation — Tax legislation — Scheme for the collection of income tax in respect of employment income — Employer required to deduct amounts due in respect of tax from payments to employees — Whether scheme applicable to foreign corporation employing persons to work in areas within State's continental shelf — Employees liable to income tax — Whether collection scheme automatically applicable if employees liable to income tax — Notion of corporation's tax presence within State — Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970Sea — Continental shelf — Status — Whether United Kingdom continental shelf part of the United Kingdom — Continental Shelf Act 1964 — Tax liability of foreign corporation operating on continental shelf — The law of England

The former majority shareholders of Industria Nacional de Clavos y Alambres de Puas, S.A. (INCA), a large Nicaraguan steel company, sought to recover from Harlow & Jones, Inc. (H & J), a U.S. steel company, the purchase price of a shipment of undelivered steel billets. Following the Sandinista revolution, the Nicaraguan Government had "intervened" in INCA and it, too, demanded the funds that H & J interpleaded into the court. The district court rejected the claim of the Sandinista Government and allocated the funds to the benefit of all parties who held shares in the company prior to the intervention. On cross-appeals by the claimants, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (per Kaufman, J.) affirmed in part and reversed in part, and held: the act of state doctrine does not bar judicial resolution of the dispute over the funds; the actions of the Sandinista Government amounted to a taking without compensation that will not be enforced by the U.S. courts; and the district court's allocation of pro rata shares for all of the preintervention stockholders, including minority interests, was equitable.

In Google v. Equustek, the Supreme Court of Canada ordered Google to delist all websites used by Datalink, a company that stole trade secrets from Equustek, a Canada-based information technology company. Google had agreed to do so in part, but with respect to searches that originated from google.ca only, the default browser for those in Canada. Equustek however, argued the takedowns needed to be global in order to be effective. It thus sought an injunction ordering Google to delist the allegedly infringing websites from all of Google's search engines—whether accessed from google.ca, google.com, or any other entry point. Google objected. The Canadian Supreme Court, along with the two lower Canadian courts that considered the issue, sided with Equustek (para. 54). The ruling sets up a potential showdown between Canadian and U.S. law and raises critically important questions about the appropriate geographic and substantive scope of takedown orders, the future of free speech online, and the role of intermediaries such as Google in preventing economic and other harms.

In the course of litigation against an ex-employee, Gould, Inc. (Gould) allegedly learned that its proprietary technical data had been improperly supplied to Mitsui Mining & Smelting Co., Ltd. (Mitsui) and Miyakoshi Machine Tools Co., Ltd. (Miyakoshi), which then used those trade secrets in a joint venture with Pechiney Ugine Kuhlmann, a French state-owned company, and its wholly owned subsidiary, Trefimetaux (Pechiney/Trefimetaux). Gould filed a civil lawsuit against Pechiney/Trefimetaux, together with Mitsui and Miyakoshi, in U.S. district court, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations provisions of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (18 U.S.C. §1961-1968 (1988)) (RICO). Gould's complaint also included claims of unfair competition and unjust enrichment based upon the defendants' alleged misappropriation of trade secrets. On the motion of Pechiney/Trefimetaux, the district court held that the civil RICO claim should be dismissed because, as "foreign states" under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (28 U.S.C. §1330, 1602-1611 (1988)) (FSIA), Pechiney and Trefimetaux were immune from criminal indictment for the acts alleged to have formed the basis for the RICO violation.

This article analyzes a series of litigations that began with the Aguinda v.
Texaco Inc. case as a site of production of new legal subjectivities for
indigenous communities in the region of the Ecuadorian Amazon polluted by
oil extraction activities. They engage in the transnational and local legal
structures, contribute to and generate legal and scientific knowledge and
expertise, and articulate multiple legal subjectivities that position them not only
as homogenous plaintiffs in a highly publicized lawsuit, but also as legal actors
in complex relation to each other, and to the state. Through such engagements
with this legal process, indigenous actors are recrafting their collective
representations in ways that challenge the 'ecoprimitive' stereotypes of
indigeneity, historically associated with the 'paradox of primitivism.'