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

Can It Be So? Court Holds That A Nebraska Corporation Is Not A Corporation

By Keith Paul Bishop on October 26, 2012 in Choice of Law/Conflict of Law, Pseudo-Foreign Corporations

Section 2010(b) California Corporations Code provides that no action or proceeding to which a corporation is a party abates by dissolution of the corporation.  The statute imposes no time limit on suing dissolved corporations for pre-dissolution activities.

In Robinson v. SSW, Inc.,209 Cal. App. 4th 588 (2012), the Court of Appeal considered whether Corporations Code Section 2010 applies to a dissolved Nebraska corporation.  This was an issue because the cornhusker state imposes a five year limit on these suits and the plaintiff did not sue the defendant until after that five-year period had elapsed.  

In tackling this question, the Court of Appeal began by noting that California courts have not agreed on whether Section 2010 applies to foreign corporations.  See Riley v. Fitzgerald, 178 Cal. App. 3d 871 (1986) and North Am. Asbestos Corp. v. Superior Ct., 180 Cal. App. 3d 902 (1986).  The Court then reviewed Corporations Code’s definitions of “corporation” (Section 162) and noted that the definition required an understanding of when a corporation is “organized” under the General Corporation Law and what corporations are “subject to” the General Corporation Law under Section 102(a).  The Court then concluded that Section 2010 does not apply to foreign corporations.  If you’ve ever wondered what it means to organize a corporation, this is the case for you.

Corporations Code Section 2010dissolutionNorth American Asbestos v. Superior CourtRiley v. FitzgeraldRobinson v. SSWSection 102(a)Section 162suits against dissolved corporations
  • Related Stories
  • Most Popular
  • 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
  • Court Explicates Scope of Usury Exemption For Real Estate Brokers
  • Supreme Court To Decide If It Will Decide Whether Section 16 Plaintiff Has Constitutional Standing
  • But Wait, California May Require Even More In Annual Reports To Shareholders
  • 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

October 2012
M T W T F S S
« Sep   Nov »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

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