(3d Cir. 1990). By way of example, in Reliance Ins. Co. v. Barron’s, 442 F.Supp. 1341, 1348 (S.D.N.Y. 1977), the court held that an insurance company — regulated by state insurance law and required to file reports with the SEC — whose “shares [we]re traded on the New York Stock Exchange,” possessed “more than a billion dollars in assets,” and “offered to sell its stock to the public,” had “voluntarily thrust[ed] itself into the public arena, at least as to all issues affecting that proposed stock sale,” and was, therefore, to be treated as a public figure “with respect to issues involving its offering of securities to the public.” There remains a lack of clarity since our Supreme Court expressed uncertainty about this thirty years ago. Dairy Stores, supra, 104 N.J. at 139, 516 A.2d 220 (<HOLDING>). But we need not delve further into this area.
recognizing products liability concepts as part of general maritime law recognizing that the constitutional concepts do not comfortably fit the activities or products of a corporation holding that claims of corporation vest in corporation recognizing products liability and products actions based on negligence as part of the general maritime law recognizing that in the overwhelming majority of cases a guidelines sentence will fall comfortably within the broad range of sentences that would be reasonable in the particular circumstances