Recently, I’ve written about the “absolute” right of shareholders to inspect the shareholders list pursuant to California Corporations Code Section 1600. Readers at, or representing, foreign corporations may have skipped these posts as inapposite to their circumstances. That could be a mistake. A foreign corporation may be subject to Section 1600 if it meets the conditions set
The last two sentences of Section 1101 of the Corporations Code can be an unwonted surprise to some practitioners. They are intended to ensure fair treatment of shareholders in a merger by imposing two requirements: Each share of the same class or series of any constituent corporation must be treated equally with respect to the distribution of
In yesterday’s post, I commented on a recent ruling by former Vice Chancellor John W. Noble to the effect that “Delaware disclosure law which generally does not require disclosures to shareholders unless shareholder action is sought”. The Ravenswood Investment Company, L.P. v. Winmill & Co. Inc., C.A. No. 7048-VCN (Transcript) (Del. Ch. Feb. 25, 2016).
Francis Pileggi in his Delaware Corporate & Commercial Litigation Blog recently wrote that there is no per se duty on the part of a closely held company to disclose financial statements . In The Ravenswood Investment Company, L.P. v. Winmill & Co. Inc., C.A. No. 7048-VCN (Transcript) (Del. Ch. Feb. 25, 2016), former Vice Chancellor John W. Noble wrote:
Section 2110 of the California Corporations Code governs service of process on a foreign corporation. One means of valid service under the statute is by delivering process by hand to the corporation’s general manager in California. The California General Corporation Law, however does not define “general manager”. In Miller v. The Public Warehousing Company KSC
Recently, I gave a brief presentation concerning various provisions of the California General Corporation Law that could apply to corporations incorporated outside of California. I emphasized that the CGCL defines the terms “corporation”, “domestic corporation”, “foreign corporation” and “foreign association” and that it is important to pay attention to these definitions when reading the CGCL.
I noticed the following description of California’s principal “pseudo-foreign” corporation statute in a recently filed registration statement: Section 2115(b) of the California Corporations Code imposes certain requirements of California corporate law on corporations organized outside California that, in general, are doing more than 50% of their business in California and have more than 50% of
I have often written about numerous provisions of the California Corporations Code that expressly apply to foreign corporations meeting specified tests. The most famous, but not the only, statute of this breed is Section 2115. Although Section 2115 entraps many foreign corporations, I continue to be surprised by corporations that mistakenly claim to be subject
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent holding in Sender v. Franklin Res., Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10113 (9th Cir. Cal. June 16, 2015) is reasonably clear and yet there is much about the case that puzzles me. The case involved the seemingly quixotic quest of Mr. Sender to obtain stock certificates that he allegedly
California continues to hemorrhage corporate charters to Delaware and Nevada. The most recent potential emigrant is SJW Corp. which filed this proxy statement last week seeking shareholder approval of a reincorporation from California to Delaware. Can California and other states stanch the flow by offering licenses only to domestic corporations? Surely, there must be some