Thanks. I read it. I didn't understand all of it, I am sure; but it was interesting. And I just now read that Firestone decision through. It does make a convincing argument. Of course, we cannot simple wish that one place was like another and then set laws that assume it. So here is an interesting question: What if the residency of a corporation was determined by where it had the most employees? To me, it's interesting that Firestone argued that: "...conduct by a corporation or any other entity that doesn’t have a heartbeat (we’ll use “corporation” to cover all such entities) can never be a violation of customary international law, no matter how heinous the conduct." And now in the US, we have the rise of corporate personhood regarding campaign financing. Maybe corporate residence should reflect more than where they take their mail?