Английская Википедия:Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King

Материал из Онлайн справочника
Перейти к навигацииПерейти к поиску

Шаблон:Use mdy dates Шаблон:Infobox SCOTUS case

Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King, 533 U.S. 158 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the extent to which the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) applied to certain types of corporation-individual organizations. In this case, the Court decided unanimously to apply it to respondent Don King.

Background

Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd., a corporate promoter of boxing matches, sued Don King, the president and sole shareholder of a rival corporation, alleging that King had conducted his corporation's affairs in violation of RICO.[1] RICO makes it "unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise... to conduct or participate... in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity."[1] The District Court dismissed the complaint. In affirming the decision, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that RICO applies only where a plaintiff shows the existence of two separate entities, a "person" and a distinct "enterprise," the affairs of which that "person" improperly conducts.[2] The court concluded that King was part of the corporation, not a "person," distinct from the "enterprise," who allegedly improperly conducted the "enterprise's affairs."[3]

Opinion of the Court

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the decision of the Court, which unanimously reversed the appellate court.[4] The Court held that "the need for two distinct entities is satisfied; hence, the RICO provision... applies when a corporate employee unlawfully conducts the affairs of the corporation of which he is the sole owner -- whether he conducts those affairs within the scope, or beyond the scope, of corporate authority."[5] "The corporate owner/employee, a natural person, is distinct from the corporation itself, a legally different entity,"[5] Justice Breyer wrote. "A corporate employee who conducts the corporation's affairs through an unlawful RICO 'pattern... of activity,' uses that corporation as a 'vehicle' whether he is, or is not, its sole owner."[5] Under this reading of the statute, the Court of appeals' decision was reached in error; the case was sent back to them for future disposition of the case.[4]

See also

References

Шаблон:Reflist

External links

Партнерские ресурсы
Криптовалюты
Магазины
Хостинг
Разное

  1. ↑ 1,0 1,1 Ошибка цитирования Неверный тег <ref>; для сносок BACKGROUND не указан текст
  2. ↑ Шаблон:Cite court
  3. ↑ Ошибка цитирования Неверный тег <ref>; для сносок PRIOR не указан текст
  4. ↑ 4,0 4,1 Ошибка цитирования Неверный тег <ref>; для сносок RESULT не указан текст
  5. ↑ 5,0 5,1 5,2 Ошибка цитирования Неверный тег <ref>; для сносок DECISION не указан текст
Источник — http://wikihandbk.com/ruwiki/index.php?title=Английская_Википедия:Cedric_Kushner_Promotions,_Ltd._v._King&oldid=13822192