Website Heading

CALIFORNIA CORPORATE & SECURITIES LAW

Nevada’s Constitutional Limitation On Shareholder Liability

Article 8, Section 3 of the Nevada Constitution provides: Dues from corporations shall be secured by such means as may be prescribed by law; Provided that corporators in corporations formed under the laws of this State shall not be individually liable for the debts or liabilities of such corporation. Remarkably, the Nevada Supreme Court has…

Share on:

California Proposes To End Bylaw Amendment Reviews

Credit Unions got their start in Nineteenth Century Germany.  In 1909, Roman Catholic textile workers opened the first credit union in the United States, St. Mary’s Cooperative Credit Association (later, renamed La Caisse Populaire Ste.-Marie).  At first, the credit union operated out of the home of its first president, Joseph Boivin.  Today, that building is the site of America’s Credit Union Museum. …

Share on:

California Supreme Court Affirms Novel M&A Tax

Suppose Mr. Henry owns all of the outstanding shares of a Virginia corporation that owns all of the issued and outstanding shares of a Massachusetts corporation that owns, among other things, real property in Los Angeles, California.  Suppose further that Mr. Henry sells his shares in the Virginia corporation to a buyer in New York and that the transaction is…

Share on:

Even If Enacted, The CHOICE Act May Not Repeal The SEC’s Pay Ratio Rule

While prognosticators continue to place odds on whether the Financial CHOICE Act of 2017, H.R. 10, will be enacted, many commentators are claiming that it will “repeal” the Securities and Exchange Commission’s pay ratio rule.  Even if H.R. 10 is enacted, I’m not so sure that it would “repeal” the pay ratio rule. It is certainly true…

Share on:

Is A Racial Or Ethnic Group A “Person”?

Yesterday’s post concerned the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Matal v. Tam, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 3872 (June 19, 2017) that the “disparagement clause” of the Lanham Act violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.  As far as most legal commentators were concerned, that was the one and only headline holding of the case.  Before addressing…

Share on:

Incorporating Under A Disparaging Name

In Matal v. Tam, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 3872 (June 19, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court found the “disparagement clause” of the Lanham Act violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.  The “disparagement clause” prohibits the registration of trademarks that may “disparage . . . or bring . . . into contemp[t] or disrepute” any “persons,…

Share on:

The Taxpayer Transparency And Fairness Act Is Anything But

Recently, I wrote about the stealth with which the California legislature enacted AB 102, which it ironically named the Taxpayer Transparency and Fairness Act of 2017.  Having been birthed in opacity, AB 102 will operate with even less transparency. The bill transfers certain of the responsibilities of the State Board of Equalization to a newly…

Share on:

Does Work Product Belong To The Lawyer Or The Law Firm?

California has codified the attorney work product doctrine in Section 2018.030 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.  That statute establishes two categories of protected work product.   Under subdivision (a), a “writing that reflects an attorney’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories is not discoverable under any circumstances”.  Under subdivision (b), other work product of an…

Share on:

The Taxpayer Transparency and Fairness Act of 2017 – A Little Bill May Soon Make Big Changes

The talk of California tax practitioners over the last week has been all about the legislature’s passage of AB 102.  This may be surprising to those who read the bill when it was introduced on January 10 of this year, for the bill consisted of one sentence: It is the intent of the Legislature to…

Share on:

California Finders Rule May Soon Take Effect

Nearly one year ago, the California Department of Business Oversight proposed regulations to implement the provisions of AB 667 (Wagner).  The bill, which was enacted in 2015 and took effect last year, created a new exemption from the broker-dealer requirements for finders, or individuals who, for compensation, introduce potential investors and issuers of securities to each other.  The proposed regulations,…

Share on: