Amtrak HQs to Leave 60 Mass

[MikefromCrete]

Washington is the best place for Amtrak's headquarters. It is America's Railroad, after all, and should be close to those who hold the pursestrings.

Chicago used to be a center for railroad headquarters. but alas, outside of Metra, nobody is headquartered here anymore. Wisconsin Central was the last (and they were in Rosemont), but the sale to CN ended that. CN does have its U.S. headquarters in south suburban Homewood, but the main office is in Montreal.

 

[Ryan]

As I said before, I did not see anything about Headquarters, and that opinion has not changed.

You mean aside from where it flat out says "their main office is in DC." They don't exactly mince words.

That's not an accurate quote.

 

[Ryan]

Now that I'm home, here's what the law actually says....



As has already been mentioned upthread, the law is centered around process service and jurisdiction. Amtrak can do whatever functions they want, wherever they want, provided that there is someone to answer the phone and accept service in DC.

 

[jis]

As I said before, I did not see anything about Headquarters, and that opinion has not changed.

You mean aside from where it flat out says "their main office is in DC." They don't exactly mince words.
Also, have to put it in context: the government pays for it, ergo its headquarters goes where the government is. Its not an agency, but they're definitely treating it like one, as far as dictating where the headquarters falls, so that it fits in with all the government agencies that are required to have their headquarters in DC (unless you're the DoD, for some reason, and Arlington counts).

Misquoting is not going to help a pointless argument. As I have mentioned before, there are plenty of companies that are required to have their "principal office" in the state in which they are incorporated, and many of them do not have their so called "Headquarters" anywhere near their state of incorporation.

Incidentally, that language there is pretty standard corporate speak and appears in the charter of many private companies, with an appropriate city and state name inserted.

See Ryan's quote and explanation. If that won;t convince you nothing will, so at that point any further discussion of this issue with you would become pointless waste of time bashing ones head against a proverbial concrete wall.

Can I assume y'all spent plenty of time laughing at the glaring mistakes they didn't catch?

Not really. We just fixed the known editorial "errors" before sending in for final publication.

Some review groups wer4e extremely conscientious and others not so. Specially if there were Japanese or Chinese involved among the reviewers, they caught everything, since they had to make sure that they would be able to translate the text meaningfully.

 

[PRR 60]

Now that I'm home, here's what the law actually says....

Screen Shot 2016-12-29 at 3.23.14 PM.png

As has already been mentioned upthread, the law is centered around process service and jurisdiction. Amtrak can do whatever functions they want, wherever they want, provided that there is someone to answer the phone and accept service in DC.

Legally, that is not exactly correct. The law requires "Washington, District of Columbia" to be the "principal office and place of business" of Amtrak. Legally, than means considerably more than a phone and someone to answer it.

The specific meaning of "principle place of business" was decided by the Supreme Court in Hertz Corp. v Friend - 130 S.Ct. 1181 (2010). Basically, the court ruled that a corporation's "principle place of business" is, in fact, the corporation's "headquarters" or "nerve center." As decided unanimously;

...We conclude that “principal place of business” is best read as referring to the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities. It is the place that Courts of Appeals have called the corporation’s “nerve center.” And in practice it should normally be the place where the corporation maintains its headquarters—provided that the headquarters is the actual center of direction, control, and coordination, i.e. , the “nerve center,” and not simply an office where the corporation holds its board meetings (for example, attended by directors and officers who have traveled there for the occasion).

...

Although applied to a situation different than Amtrak, it would appear that the court defined what a "principal place of business" is, and it is not just an office and a phone. Applying that definition to Amtrak and the applicable law, it sure seems that Amtrak is required by law to maintain it's "headquarters" (as commonly defined) in the District of Columbia. If Amtrak decided to move out and only maintain a minimal presence within DC and the District pressed the issue in court, my strong suspicion is that Amtrak would lose based on the Hertz Corp. v Friend precedent.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Very interesting discussion!

We have several Lawyers in AUand I'm sure for the "proper fee" we could get a legal opinion that agrees that the Supreme Court decision that Bill mentions is legally binding on Amtrak!

 

[Ryan]

Agreed. Given that the case centered around what jurisdiction was appropriate, something that isn't at question for Amtrak, I'm not sure how applicable this case would be.

 

[jis]

Now that I'm home, here's what the law actually says....

Screen Shot 2016-12-29 at 3.23.14 PM.png

As has already been mentioned upthread, the law is centered around process service and jurisdiction. Amtrak can do whatever functions they want, wherever they want, provided that there is someone to answer the phone and accept service in DC.

Legally, that is not exactly correct. The law requires "Washington, District of Columbia" to be the "principal office and place of business" of Amtrak. Legally, than means considerably more than a phone and someone to answer it.

The specific meaning of "principle place of business" was decided by the Supreme Court in Hertz Corp. v Friend - 130 S.Ct. 1181 (2010). Basically, the court ruled that a corporation's "principle place of business" is, in fact, the corporation's "headquarters" or "nerve center." As decided unanimously;

...We conclude that “principal place of business” is best read as referring to the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities. It is the place that Courts of Appeals have called the corporation’s “nerve center.” And in practice it should normally be the place where the corporation maintains its headquarters—provided that the headquarters is the actual center of direction, control, and coordination, i.e. , the “nerve center,” and not simply an office where the corporation holds its board meetings (for example, attended by directors and officers who have traveled there for the occasion).

...

Although applied to a situation different than Amtrak, it would appear that the court defined what a "principal place of business" is, and it is not just an office and a phone. Applying that definition to Amtrak and the applicable law, it sure seems that Amtrak is required by law to maintain it's "headquarters" (as commonly defined) in the District of Columbia. If Amtrak decided to move out and only maintain a minimal presence within DC and the District pressed the issue in court, my strong suspicion is that Amtrak would lose based on the Hertz Corp. v Friend precedent.

I am sure it would be an interesting discussion as to what the minimal facility has to be. I doubt that Amtrak could get away with just keeping a desk and a clerk. OTOH I am also sure that the entire entourage of all VPs and their executive departments don't have to maintain their office in DC either.
BTW Bill, were all those "principle place of business" your contribution, or did the courts use that spelling of the "p" word?

Anyway, clearly, Amtrak's operational nerve center is already not in Washington DC.

 

[PRR 60]

Yikes! I messed up the "P" word again! That's what happens when you don't proof read before hitting "Add Reply."

 

[districtRich]

Amtrak headquarters is moving a block west to 1 Massachusetts Ave NW from Washington Union Station to an office building.

http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2017/02/22/exclusive-amtrak-inks-deal-for-new-headquarters.html

It'll definitely be interesting to see the new hotel being put into Amtrak's old office space in Union Station

 

[Bob Dylan]

Yep, it's bound to be a ritzy and pricey joint!

Hopefully it won't have a Trump sign to ruin the ambience.

 

[jis]

So it is going from 106,000 sq ft to 85,000 sq ft - around 20% downsizing in floor space.

 

[Cho Cho Charlie]

Just wondering. How much floor space is available at 30th Street, PHL?

 

[railiner]

I guess I haven't been keeping up with the history of Washington Union Station....I had thought that Amtrak owned it since it acquired the Washington Terminal Ry. Co. back in the mid seventies....I thought that they in turn leased the station building to the developer's that made a shopping mall out of it...

I guess that assumption is incorrect, or changed at some point?

 

[jis]

I thought the building was owned by Department of the Interior and was transferred to the Department of Transportation and is leased to the Ashke**** Group for eighty something years. It was never owned by Amtrak AFAIK.

The platform area and tracks are owned by Amtrak in some somewhat complicated way.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Can we merge this with the former topic?

Amtrak HQs to Leave 60 Mass

Thank you.

 

[Lonestar648]

Ownership reads complicated with the USDOT and AMTRAK owning various parts either separately or jointly, but the station is managed by the Union Station Redevelopment Corp, who set up the 84 year lease with the Ashkenazy Acquisition Company, who contracted management by another company, Jones Lang LaSalle. So was Amtrak paying rent for space they partially own?

 

[districtRich]

I thought Amtrak only owns the tracks and the servicing facilities and maybe the Claytor Concourse (which is the waiting area tacked on to the original concourse) which is now the shopping mall area. US DOT owns the original station (main hall and concourse) and leases it out to the company that runs the retail operations. I think but am probably wrong lol

 

[railiner]

Okay, so the station building was sold by the WTCo. to the Department of the Interior (I now recall the ill-fated "National Visitor's Center"), and then that was conveyed to the DOT, and the later lease to the development company and lessee's....while Amtrak acquired the remaining operational assets (tracks, platforms, etc. when it got the WTCo...

Does that sound about right?

As far as Amtrak moving away from offices in space that it may own....that can make economic sense, if they can get more income from that space than what it would cost them to relocate elsewhere....

 

[Lonestar648]

If they can move to less expensive real estate, use less square feet, then they can realize the increased revenue from the higher rent. They are out the relocation costs, but in the overall picture, those are minor.

 

[pennyk]

Can we merge this with the former topic?

Amtrak HQs to Leave 60 Mass

Thank you.

merged

 

[Ryan]

Thanks! Wasn't home yesterday to dig up the link to the other thread.

 

[jis]

I thought the building was owned by Department of the Interior and was transferred to the Department of Transportation and is leased to the Ashke**** Group for eighty something years. .

LOL! Idiotic filter in the App. Poor Ashkena'z'is. Ironical that they cannot even mention their name properly here.