Website Heading

CALIFORNIA CORPORATE & SECURITIES LAW

The Limited Liability Company Agreement That Has No Name

Practitioners under California’s Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act will be familiar with the concept of an “operating agreement” (Cal. Corp. Code § 17701.02(s)).  Indeed, I expect that nearly every LLC formed under the CARULLCA has, or will have, some form of operating agreement.  Practitioners, however, may be unaware that the CARULLCA also contemplates the existence of…

Share on:

District Court Rules Plaintiff Failed To Plead Real Estate Investment Was A “Security”

Both the Securities Act of 1933 and the California Corporate Securities Law of 1968 provide similar, but not the same, definitions of a “security”.  See Making A List Of Securities And Checking It Twice.  Although these lists are expansive, courts continue to explain why some items on the lists are not securities and why some…

Share on:

Buying Assets? Have You Considered This Secretary’s Certificate?

California Corporations Code Section 1001 requires approval by the outstanding shares (Corp. Code § 152) of the principal terms of a sale of all or substantially all of a corporation’s assets (unless the transaction is in the usual and regular course of business).  Presumably, corporate sellers are in a good position to determine whether Section 1001…

Share on:

Court Rules Indirect Purchaser Claims Against Theranos May Proceed

Theranos’ anni horrorum began in October 2015 with the publication of a story by investigative reporter John Carreyrou at The Wall Street Journal.  Lawsuits and government investigations ensued.  Although the Theranos recently announced agreements with the Arizona Attorney General and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins last week dealt a setback to the…

Share on:

Court of Appeal Defines Good Faith Defense Under The UFTA

In 2015, the California legislature refurbished the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act and rechristened it as the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act.  2015 Cal. Stats. Ch. 44 (SB 161 (Vidak)).  The UFTA has not left the stage entirely as courts continue to address disputes arising under the former law. In Nautilus, Inc. v. Yang, 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS…

Share on:

Looking For A Deceased Celebrity’s Successor-In-Interest? The Secretary Of State Has An Answer

The California Secretary of State’s office is the repository for a vast a disparate number of filings.  Few people, for example, may be aware that they may register with the Secretary of State’s office as a successor-in-interest to a deceased personality pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3344.1.  A person registering as a successor-in-interest must provide…

Share on:

Alter Ego and the Nevada LLC

California’s version of the Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act expressly subjects members to potential alter ego liability:  A member of a limited liability company shall be subject to liability under the common law governing alter ego liability, and shall also be personally liable under a judgment of a court or for any debt, obligation,…

Share on:

California And The “Entitled To Vote” Standard

Recently, I came across a proxy statement for a California corporation that stated the vote required for shareholder action on several proposals was “the affirmative vote of the majority of the shares represented at the Annual Meeting and entitled to vote on such matter”.  While this statement was consistent with the voting standard enunciated in…

Share on:

Failure To Return Shares Subject To Repurchase Right Supports Conversion Claim

Closely held issuers often include a repurchase right in their equity award agreements.  I expect that in most cases, shareholders will comply with these provisions.  When a shareholder doesn’t, the company’s most obvious cause of action will be for breach of contract.  Conversion is a less obvious cause, but according to the California Court of Appeal, a viable claim nonetheless. …

Share on:

Continuing Confusion About Shareholder Approval Requirements

I continue to read confused statements in proxy statements about the vote required for shareholder action.  The default voting rule in Delaware is found in Section 216(2) of the Delaware General Corporation Law: In all matters other than the election of directors, the affirmative vote of the majority of shares present in person or represented by…

Share on: