Website Heading

CALIFORNIA CORPORATE & SECURITIES LAW

California Judge Honors Delaware Forum Selection Bylaw

In May, I wrote about Judge Peter H. Kirwan’s ruling in Drulias v. 1st Century Bancshares, Inc., (Cal. Super. Ct. Case No. 16-CV-294673, Nov. 18, 2016).  As readers may recall, Judge Kirwan declined to approve a disclosure only settlement based on In re Trulia, Inc. Stockholder Litig., 129 A.3d 884 (Del. Ch. Jan. 22, 2016).  Recently, Judge Brian C. Walsh…

Share on:

Can Pseudo-Foreign Corporations Exonerate Their Directors?

Corporations Code Section 2115 is not an easy read.  Fortunately, California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye has provided a more digestible overview of the statute: Section 2115 was enacted as part of a comprehensive revision of the Corporations Code in the mid-1970s.  The section addressed so-called pseudoforeign corporations—entities incorporated outside California, but that meet two…

Share on:

Officers Of Foreign Corporations And The California Courts

Yesterday’s post concerned Section 2116 of the California Corporations Code.  Courts sometimes describe Section 2116 as codifying the internal affairs doctrine.  See, e.g., Vaughn v. LJ Internat., Inc., 174 Cal. App. 4th 213, 223 (2009) and Voss v. Sutardja, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8795 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2015).  To the extent that Section 2116 codifies the…

Share on:

Enforceability Of Exclusive Forum Bylaw May Hinge On The Meaning Of “May”

No California appellate court has yet addressed the validity of forum selection bylaws in a published decision.  When the question comes before a California appellate court, the outcome may turn on the meaning of “may” in California Corporations Code Section 2116.  The statute in its entirety provides: The directors of a foreign corporation transacting intrastate…

Share on:

Dismissal Based On Forum Non Conveniens Does Not Trigger Fee Shifting

California generally follows the “American Rule” with respect to attorney’s fees.  Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th 274, 278 (1995).  Under the American Rule, each party to a lawsuit must ordinarily pay his own attorney’s fees.  A contract may provide, however, that the prevailing party to an action on the contract may recover attorney’s fees.  Sometimes these clauses are unilateral…

Share on:

Professor Bainbridge On My “Beef” With Gantler v. Stephens

Professor Stephen Bainbridge yesterday provided a well considered assessment of my “beef” with the Delaware Supreme Court’s holding in Gantler v. Stephens, 965 A.2d 695, 709 (Del. 2009) that “the fiduciary duties of officers are the same as those of directors”.  To the extent that Professor Bainbridge is saying that officers are not agents “pure and simple”. …

Share on:

What The Delaware Supreme Court Overlooked In Gantler v. Stephens

I have never been reconciled to the Delaware Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Gantler v. Stephens, 965 A.2d 695, 709 (Del. 2009) that “the fiduciary duties of officers are the same as those of directors”.  Officers are, as I’ve previously noted, agents of the corporation while directors are not.  This means that an officer’s duties are…

Share on:

Court Of Appeal Voids Jury Trial Waiver Notwithstanding New York Choice of Law

A New York state of mind, but California dreaming A sophisticated lender and borrower negotiate a loan agreement in New York, the lender disburses the loan proceeds in New York, and both parties agree that New York law governs.  This choice-of-law is memorialized in bold face type and capital letters in the loan agreement.  In…

Share on:

Court Rejects Challenge To Internal Affairs Doctrine

Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. is a publicly traded company that is incorporated in Bermuda.  Marvell’s U.S. operating subsidiary is based in California.  A year ago, an institutional stockholder filed a derivative suit against Marvell and several of its officers and directors.  The factual bases for the plaintiff’s suit were securities law violations but the plaintiff…

Share on:

More Silliness In California’s Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act

Readers will know that I have been a frequent critic of California’s Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act, Cal. Corp. Code § 17701.01 et seq. In many cases, it is simply hard to believe that the legislature really intended what it enacted. See, e.g., How Confused Is This? California Defines LLCs Subject To New Law To Include…

Share on: