Section 17701.04(b) of the California Corporations Code provides:
A limited liability company may have any lawful purpose, regardless of whether for profit, except the banking business, the business of issuing policies of insurance and assuming insurance risks, or the trust company business. A domestic or foreign limited liability company may render services that may be lawfully rendered only pursuant to a license, certificate, or registration authorized by the Business and Professions Code, the Chiropractic Act, the Osteopathic Act, or the Yacht and Ship Brokers Act, if the applicable provisions of the Business and Professions Code, the Chiropractic Act, the Osteopathic Act, or the Yacht and Ship Brokers Act authorize a limited liability company or foreign limited liability company to hold that license, certificate, or registration.
The California Real Estate Law, which is part of the Business & Professions Code, presently allows only individuals and corporations to obtain a real estate brokers’ license. This has proved to be a source of frustration to many who prefer the tax attributes of a limited liability company. Now, some relief may be in sight. Last week, Senator John Moorlach introduced a bill, SB 1253, that would authorize an LLC to be licensed as a real estate broker. The author’s office said that it doesn’t yet have a sponsor for the bill is and it is a long and uncertain road to enactment. Even if enacted, the bill would not take effect until next year and then prospective licensees would have to wait until the Bureau of Real Estate adopted rules and procedures for licensing LLCs.
Update: After posting this blog, I received a call from Senator Moorlach’s office to explain that it doesn’t yet have a sponsor for the bill, not that it had refused to identify a sponsor as I had written. A bill’s sponsor is the member of the legislature, person or group that develops a bill and advocates for its passage. Sponsors are often identified in committee and floor analyses.
California Supreme Court denies review of SLUSA case
The question was state court jurisdiction over Section 11 claims, see this post from earlier this week. Below is the denouement (so far):