1) CLIENT ALERT
March 8, 2016
Supreme Court Severely Restricts Federal­ Court
Access for Non­ Corporate Entities, Including
Certain REITs and RICs
SPEED READ
The Supreme Court on Monday severely restricted federal­court access for business trusts, including many REITs, in Americold
Realty Trust v. Conagra Foods. Under Americold, business trusts are now citizens for diversity­jurisdiction purposes of every
state of which at least one of their shareholders is a citizen. For business trusts with wide shareholder bases, this ruling
significantly curtails the ability to invoke diversity jurisdiction to get into federal court except in certain class actions. Business
trusts involved in federal­court litigation should immediately assess whether the Americold decision affects the jurisdiction of the
court to continue to hear their cases. Business trusts should also consider whether the benefits of increased federal­court
access justify converting from a trust to a corporation.
Business trusts, statutory trusts and non­corporate real­estate investment trusts now face a significant jurisdictional barrier that will reduce
their access to the federal courts, following a March 7 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision, Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra
Foods, Inc., held that entities organized as Maryland non­corporate “real estate investment trusts” are citizens, for diversity­jurisdiction
purposes, of every state of which at least one of their shareholders is a citizen. The Americold decision rejected the position taken by many
U.S. Courts of Appeals, which had held that business trusts were citizens only of the states of which their trustees were citizens, and that the
citizenship of the shareholders was irrelevant. Although the ruling arose in the context of a real estate investment trust, the Court’s
reasoning also appears to apply to registered investment companies organized as Delaware statutory trusts, Massachusetts business
trusts, and similar state law trusts. (Congress has adopted a specific statutory exception for entities formed as corporations limiting
corporate citizenship to the state of incorporation and the state in which the firm’s principal place of business is located.)
As a practical matter, lawsuits are heard in federal court on one of two bases. Either the suit involves federal law (for example, the federal
securities laws) or the parties to the suit are “diverse,” meaning they are citizens of different states. Diversity jurisdiction allows the federal
courts to hear lawsuits that arise under state law, so long as no plaintiff and defendant have overlapping state citizenship.
Because the law requires “complete diversity,” except for certain class actions, if even one of the trust’s shareholders has the same state
citizenship as any one of the adverse parties, a state­law suit by or against the trust cannot proceed in federal court on diversity grounds. It
is common for business organizations to employ diversity jurisdiction to have legal disputes resolved in the federal court system. For
business trusts with wide shareholder bases (including non­corporate publicly traded real estate investment trusts), the Americold ruling
significantly curtails the ability to invoke diversity jurisdiction to get into federal court—either as a plaintiff or as a defendant removing a case
from state court.
This has always been true for partnerships, limited partnerships and labor unions. After Americold, it is now true for business trusts,
statutory trusts, and non­corporate real estate investment trusts. And while the Supreme Court has never addressed this question in the
context of LLCs, the Supreme Court’s broad and unanimous holding in Americold makes it likely that LLCs too will be subject to this rule,
as a number of U.S. Courts of Appeals already have held.
Entities organized as trusts under state law that are involved in active federal court litigation should immediately examine whether the
Americold decision affects the jurisdiction of the court to continue to hear their cases. Because the Supreme Court’s decision affects the
subject­matter jurisdiction of federal courts, a jurisdictional challenge on this basis cannot be waived and may be raised by either party at
any time during the litigation. Indeed, the issue arose in the Americold case when the appellate court held it lacked jurisdiction, even though
all parties wanted the court to find jurisdiction and hear the case.
The Supreme Court’s decision also affects the choice of a corporate versus a non­corporate form. Entities organized as trusts under state
law—particularly federally tax­qualified REITs organized as non­corporate real estate investment trusts under Maryland law—should
consider whether the benefits of increased federal­court access outweigh other considerations and justify a shift to the corporate form.
Goodwin Procter was co­counsel to the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts as amicus curiae in the Supreme Court case.
Watch for an invitation to an upcoming Goodwin Procter webinar addressing important litigation and business­structure issues arising from
the Americold decision.
Authors: William M. Jay, John O. Farley, David R. Fox
GET IN TOUCH
For more information about the contents of this alert,
please contact:
William Jay
Partner
+1 202 346 4190
wjay@goodwinprocter.com
John Farley
Partner
+1 212 459 7318
jfarley@goodwinprocter.com
2) David Fox
Associate
+1 617 570 3903
dfox@goodwinprocter.com
© 2016 Goodwin Procter LLP. All rights reserved. This informational piece, which may be considered advertising under the ethical rules of
certain jurisdictions, is provided with the understanding that it does not constitute the rendering of legal advice or other professional advice
by Goodwin Procter LLP, Goodwin Procter (UK) LLP or their attorneys. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcome.
Goodwin Procter LLP is a limited liability partnership which operates in the United States and has a principal law office located at 53 State
Street, Boston, MA 02109. Goodwin Procter (UK) LLP is a separate limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with
registered number OC362294. Its registered office is at Tower 42, 25 Old Broad Street, London EC2N 1HQ. A list of the names of the
members of Goodwin Procter (UK) LLP is available for inspection at the registered office. Goodwin Procter (UK) LLP is authorized and
regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
2