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

Should The Articles Of Incorporation Define “Officers”?

By Keith Paul Bishop on November 9, 2012 in Corporate Governance

Today’s post is devoted to what may seem an unlikely question: should the articles of incorporation define “officers”?  This is an unlikely question because it is the bylaws that typically identify the titles of officers and their duties.  Cal. Corp. Code § 312(a).  Nevertheless, it occurs to me that in at least one circumstance, a corporation may wish to define who is and who isn’t an officer.

When a corporation includes a mandatory indemnification provision in its certificate of incorporation, that provision typically extends to directors and officers.  The reference to “directors” should in virtually all cases be beyond dispute.  There also isn’t likely to be a question about whether the President, Chief Financial Officer or Secretary are officers.  After all, Section 312(a)  requires that a corporation have these positions.  But what about inferior officers?  Some corporations, particularly those in the financial services industry, may have scores or even hundreds of vice presidents.  These corporations may want to consider whether it is necessary or desirable to mandate that each of these “officers” have the benefit of mandatory indemnification.

 

indemnificationindemnitymandatory indemnificationofficersSection 312
  • Related Stories
  • Most Popular
  • 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
  • California Requires Many Foreign Corporations To Send Annual Financial Statements To Shareholders
  • The Salon Sub Rosa And Nevada Corporate Law
  • 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

November 2012
M T W T F S S
« Oct   Dec »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

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