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

Elimination Of Exception’s Exception For Listed Companies Is In The Offing

By Keith Paul Bishop on March 2, 2012 in Mergers & Acquisitions

While many were thinking of love on Valentine’s Day, Assembly member Bob Wieckowski’s thoughts were turned to dissenters’ rights; for on that day he introduced AB 1680.  This bill would eliminate an exception to an exception from the definition of “dissenting shares” in Corporations Code Section 1300(b). 

Because dissenters’ rights are intended to allow a shareholder the opportunity to obtain the fair market value of her shares in specified corporate transactions if those shares are “dissenting shares”.  Excepted from the definition of “dissenting shares” are shares that were not immediately before the reorganization or other triggering transaction listed on a national securities exchange certified by the California Commissioner of Corporations pursuant to Section 25100(o).  The rationale for this exception is that these exchanges provide a liquid market and thus there is no need for dissenters’ rights. 

Life is not simple and neither is Section 1300(b).  Even if shares are listed on a certified national securities exchange,  a shareholder’s shares may nevertheless not be readily marketable.  Thus, the legislature created two exceptions to the exception.  The first exception obtains when any restriction on transfer (whether imposed by the corporation or by any law or regulation) exists.  The second exception arises when demands for payment are filed with respect to 5% or more of the outstanding shares of that class. 

Assembly member Wieckowski is now proposing to eliminate the second exception.  Thus, shares listed on a certified national securities exchange would not be dissenters’ shares unless a restriction on transfer exists.  The effect of the bill would be to reduce the number of circumstances in which dissenters’ rights will be available.  Note that to qualify as dissenting shares, shares must also meet the other three conditions set forth in Section 1300(b).

But wait!  There’s more.  AB 1680 would also provide that the fair market value shall be the most recent closing price per share prior to the first announcement of the terms of the transaction (rather than the day before the first announcement of the transaction). 

For more background on the significance of the Commissioner’s certification of national securities exchanges, see the following posts (n.b. - these are links to prior posts that have not been updated for any subsequent events):

  • California and the Certification of Stock Exchanges
  • Certification Pursuant to Section 25100(o) – Why it Still Matters (Part I)
  • Certification Pursuant to Section 25100(o) – Why it Still Matters (Part II) and a Comment on H.R. 2483
  • Why Section 25100(o) Certification Still Matters (Part III); Big Whistleblower Award by OSHA

P.S. – “Offing” is a nautical term that denotes the part of a distant sea that is visible from the shore.  Joseph Conrad began Heart of Darkness with this description of the ships at anchor in the Thames: “The sea-reach of the Thames stretched before us like the beginning of an interminable waterway.  In the offing the sea and the sky were welded together without a joint, and in the luminous space the tanned sails of the barges drifting up with the tide seemed to stand still in red clusters of canvas sharply peaked, with gleams of varnished sprits.”

 

ab 1680Bob Wieckowskicertified national securities exchangedissenters' rightsSection 1300Section 25100(o)
  • Related Stories
  • Most Popular
  • Court Holds Non-Parties May Enforce Arbitration Agreement Even Though The General Rule Is That They Can’t
  • Two Very Good Reasons To Visit The Department’s Website
  • Sealing A Contract May Mean Nothing Or 20 Years!
  • Ever Wonder What Money Is? California Has Some Answers And I Have Some Questions
  • Bitcoin And The Corporations Code
  • If You’re Relying On The Signature Of Two Officers, You May Want To Think Again
  • 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
  • Administrative Procedure
  • 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
  • JOBS Act
  • 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

March 2012
M T W T F S S
« Feb   Apr »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Copyright © 2013 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