In Morrical v. Rogers, No. A137011, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 811 (Cal. App. Oct. 10, 2013), the California Court of Appeal, First District, held that the summary procedures set forth in California Corporations Code § 709 may be used to contest corporate elections predicated upon complex and substantive allegations of corporate or directorial misconduct, such as conflicts of interest and breaches of fiduciary duty.  The Court rejected defendants’ argument that the California Legislature intended to limit Section 709 proceedings to challenges predicated upon technical or procedural irregularities in the corporate election process.  This decision reinforces the broad authority of California state courts to adjudicate even complex matters in summary proceedings in order to determine the validity of corporate elections.
Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Holds That Challenges to Corporate Elections Under Corporations Code Section 709 May be Predicated Upon Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Conflict of Interest Allegations

On October 24, 2013, in accordance with Title III of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (the “JOBS Act”), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) issued a press release and published long-awaited proposed rules (Release Nos. 33-9470; 34-70741) (the “Proposed Rules”) to permit companies to offer and sell securities through crowdfunding (“Regulation Crowdfunding”).
Continue Reading Crowdfunding Moves Forward: The SEC Issues Proposed Rules on Crowdfunding

In United States v. Vilar, Case Nos. 10-521(L), 10-580(CON), 10-4639(CON), 2013 WL 4608948 (2d Cir. Aug. 30, 2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Securities & Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder, do not apply to extraterritorial conduct in both the civil and criminal context.  In so holding, the Second Circuit made clear that the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010) [blog article here], that civil liability under Section 10(b) does not apply extraterritorially, extends to criminal conduct as well.  In light of that ruling, a criminal conviction for securities fraud can only be found if the defendant “engaged in fraud in connection with (1) a security listed on a U.S. exchange, or (2) a security purchased or sold in the United States.”  While this holding did not disturb the defendants’ convictions in this case, the ruling provides guidance for future prosecutions under Section 10(b), which now require proof of a domestic sale or listing as a necessary element for conviction.
Continue Reading Second Circuit Applies Morrison to Criminal Prosecution Under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5

In Trezziova v. Kohn (In re Herald, Primeo & Thema Sec. Litig.), No. 12-156-cv, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19132 (2d Cir. Sept. 16, 2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of state law class action claims alleging, among other claims, that defendants had aided and abetted Bernard Madoff Investment Securities’ (“BMIS”) Ponzi scheme.  Plaintiffs were investors in the defendant investment companies and funds, which had, in turn, invested large sums of money in BMIS.  The Court held the claims were precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”), 15 U.S.C. § 78bb(f), even though plaintiffs did not actually purchase any “covered securities” under SLUSA and did not style their claims as securities fraud allegations.  The fact that plaintiffs’ allegations centered on purported sales of covered securities by BMIS was sufficient to trigger SLUSA.
Continue Reading Second Circuit Clarifies Scope of SLUSA Preclusion

In Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers v. Mortgage Asset Securitization Transactions, Inc., No. 12-3454, 2013 WL 5184064 (3d Cir. Sept. 17, 2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit joined the Seventh, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, holding that Section 13 of the Securities Act of 1933 (“1933 Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 77m, does not require plaintiffs asserting a claim under the 1933 Act to plead with particularity compliance with the statute of limitations.  In doing so, the Third Circuit split from the First, Eighth and Tenth Circuits, potentially triggering review by the United States Supreme Court.
Continue Reading Third Circuit Joins With the Seventh, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits in Holding That Plaintiffs Asserting 1933 Act Claims Need Not Plead Compliance With the Statute of Limitations, Splitting With the First, Eighth and Tenth Circuits

In United States v. McKye, No. 12-6108, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17297 (10th Cir. Aug. 20, 2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the conviction of Brian William McKye for securities fraud in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b).  The Tenth Circuit held that in a criminal action for securities fraud, the jury must be permitted to determine whether a “security” actually exists.  The Tenth Circuit held that the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma erred in not leaving this issue for the jury to decide and instead giving the jury an instruction that “notes” are “securities.”
Continue Reading Tenth Circuit Finds that Jury Must Determine Whether “Notes Are Securities” in a Securities Fraud Action

On Friday October 3, 2013, Governor Brown signed into law AB 1412, which provides full relief for individuals affected by the decision in Cutler v. Franchise Tax Board, where the California Court of Appeal held that the California tax incentives relating to the sale of qualified small business stock discriminated against interstate commerce and were therefore unconstitutional.

Continue Reading California Tax Relief for Sellers of Qualified Small Business Stock

The recent United States Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Windsor (see prior blog article here) invalidated Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which had defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.  The ruling greatly expands the estate and tax planning techniques available for married same-sex couples who live in a state like California that recognizes same-sex marriage.Continue Reading IRS Issues Guidance Regarding Tax Treatment of Married Same-Sex Couples

In almost all corporate transactions, the first piece of written documentation the parties exchange and execute (after a non-disclosure agreement) is a letter of intent or term sheet (“LOI”), which is intended to summarize the main deal points. And as many corporate transactions involve entities organized in Delaware, these documents often select Delaware as the governing law.Continue Reading When Is a Non-Binding Term Sheet or Letter of Intent Enforced as a Binding Contract?

The Delaware General Corporation Law, 8 Del. Code (the “DGCL”), has been amended to add a new Section 251(h) providing for, subject to certain conditions, a more expeditious and less costly closing of a two-step transaction. This new section will simplify and streamline the going private process by eliminating the need for stockholder approval in the second step of a two-step merger transaction. Under this new rule, completing a going private transaction in Delaware will be faster, more efficient and less costly than before.Continue Reading Delaware General Corporation Law Amended to Speed Up the Consummation of Two-Step Merger Transactions