Corporate Update

The Gray Edges of 'Morrison'

, New York Law Journal


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.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to LexisAdvance®.

Continue to LexisAdvance®

Not a LexisAdvance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

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 LexisAdvance®. 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Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.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.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202494451848

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.