John C. Coffee, Jr., the Adolf A. Berle professor of law at Columbia University Law School and director of its Center on Corporate Governance, writes: Bright line tests invariably prove both overinclusive and underinclusive. By definition, that is the nature of bright-line tests, and the Supreme Court's decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank seems no exception. In the year since the decision was issued, a torrent of case law has followed, but the bottom line is that some uncertainty persists and some comity problems remain.
Font Size: 
Corporate Update
The Gray Edges of 'Morrison'
New York Law Journal
May 19, 2011
This content is now available at LexisNexis®.
The ALM® and LexisNexis® Content Alliance
LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM’s legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM’s content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via lexis.com® and Nexis®. This includes content from The National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM’s other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.
ALM’s content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.
If you are not currently a LexisNexis subscriber, contact 1-800-227-4908 to find out more or click here to have a customer representative contact you directly.
