• HOME
  • SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
  • PROFILE
  • ALLEN MATKINS
  • CONTACT
Print Email Shortlink

Do You Have The Correct Authorized Number Of Directors?

By Keith Paul Bishop on January 27, 2012 in Corporate Governance

I frequently come across corporations with the wrong number of authorized directors.  California, unlike other states, has some very precise rules and these frequently seem to be missed.

The Bylaws of many California corporations establish a minimum and maximum number of directors and permit the board to fix the exact number within that range.  For example, the Bylaws might provide for a minimum of 3 directors and a maximum of 7.   Unfortunately, this is not permitted under Corporations Code Section 212(a) which requires that the maximum number of directors not be more than two times the minimum minus one.  Thus, if the minimum number is 3 then the maximum number must be no greater than 5 ((3*2) – 1).  Interestingly, when this rule is applied to determine the maximum permissible range, the number of possible authorized directors is equal to the minimum number in each case.  Thus, when there is a range of 3 t0 5, there are 3 possible authorized board sizes (3, 4, or 5); when the range is 4 to 7, there are 4 possible board sizes (4, 5, 6, or 7); ad infinitum. 

The rules are even more tricky when you want to have board comprised of 1 or 2 directors.  Whether it is possible to have only one or two authorized directors will depend upon whether shares have been issued and the number of shareholders.   See Corp. Code § 212(a).

Authorized number of directorsSection 212
  • Related Stories
  • Most Popular
  • Converting Rice May Be Easier Than Converting To A Flexible Purpose Corporation
  • Pension Funds And Fund Sponsors Promote Agenda To SEC
  • California Corporate Contribution Initiative Cleared For Circulation
  • Everything’s [Even More] Up-To-Date In Kansas City!
  • C&DIs And The APA
  • Is A Director An “Official At The Highest Level Of Corporate Management”?
  • Conflict Minerals Bill In Suspense File (For Now)
  • Concurrent Jurisdiction Found For Covered Class Actions
  • Nevada Supreme Court Adopts Delaware Approach To Fair Value Burden Of Proof
  • SEC Proposes John Wilkes Booth Rules
  • If I Were A Carpenter, I’d Build A Better Proxy
  • CalPERS’ Annus Horribilis: How Much Worse Will It Get?
← Previous Next →

AUTHOR

Keith Paul Bishop
Partner
(949) 553-1313
kbishop@allenmatkins.com
CONTACT ME

RECOGNITION

NEWSLETTER

TOPICS

  • Accountants
  • Attorney-Client Privilege/Work Product
  • Broker-Dealers
  • California Securities Laws
  • California Sui Generis
  • CalPERS/CalSTRS
  • Choice of Law/Conflict of Law
  • Corporate Governance
  • Department of Corporations
  • Derivative Suits
  • Enforcement & Investigations
  • Fairness Hearings
  • Finance Lenders
  • Financial Institutions
  • Investment Advisers
  • Legislation
  • Limited Liability Companies
  • Mergers & Acquisitions
  • Nevada Corporations
  • Non-Compete Agreements
  • Partnerships
  • Professional Responsibility
  • Pseudo-Foreign Corporations
  • Public Records Act/FOIA
  • Secretary of State
  • Securities Litigation
  • Uncategorized
  • Video

YOUTUBE

TWITTER

FACEBOOK

CALENDAR

January 2012
M T W T F S S
« Dec   Feb »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Copyright © 2012 California Corporate & Securities Law.

Powered by WordPress and News.

  • follow:follow:
  • Become my Facebook friend Become my Facebook friend
  • Connect with me Connect with me
  • RSS RSS
  • Tweet with me Tweet with me