The California Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act (RULLCA) was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown in September 2012. Intended to come into effect on January 1, 2014, RULLCA replaces the Beverly-Killea Limited Liability Company Act, and significantly revises the rules for formation and operation of Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) in the state of California. Most importantly, RULLCA applies retroactively to existing LLCs. There is no ability for existing California LLCs to “opt out” of RULLCA; it will apply and potentially “rewrite” substantive provisions of existing California LLC operating agreements. It, therefore, is important that the operating agreements of existing California LLCs now be reviewed with RULLCA in mind to identify provisions that will either be out of compliance with RULLCA or which may need revision prior to 2014 if RULLCA is not revised or repealed prior to its implementation.
Continue Reading California’s Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act

In Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Citigroup, Inc., No. 10-0722-cv(L) and 10-0867-cv(CON), 2013 WL 791397 (2d Cir. Mar. 5, 2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuitupheld the dismissal of two related class action complaints brought on behalf of purchasers of auction rate securities (“ARS”) and ARS issuers, respectively, against a number of large financial institutions. The complaints alleged that the financial institutions violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, by conspiring to stop purchasing ARS, thereby rendering ARS almost valueless and triggering the collapse of the ARS market. The Second Circuit based its holding upon a principle first announced by the United States Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) [see blog article here] — that antitrust complaints must allege sufficient factual matter to allow a fact-finder to plausibly infer that the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were the result of an unlawful conspiracy, rather than independent parallel business conduct.Continue Reading Second Circuit Rules That Putative Auction Rate Securities Class Action Complaints Failed to Adequately Plead Antitrust Conspiracy

In New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund v. Royal Bank of Scotland Group, PLC, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4317 (2d Cir. Mar. 1, 2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the dismissal of a claim for violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77k, 77l, holding that the plaintiff pleaded sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that defendants misstated mortgage underwriting guidelines to investors. This decision is notable for its application of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) pleading standard, as clarified by the United States Supreme Court in BellAtlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), to claims under the Securities Act.Continue Reading Second Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Section 11 and 12(a)(2) Claims, Holding that Plaintiff’s Allegations Were Sufficient to Plead a Reasonable Inference of Misrepresentations in a Prospectus

In Belmont v. MB Investment Partners, Inc., No. 12-1580, 2013 WL 646344 (3d Cir. Feb. 22, 2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a mere failure by corporate directors to oversee enforcement of compliance protocols which, if properly enforced, might have led to the directors’ knowledge of securities fraud by a corporate employee does not establish the directors’ “culpable participation” in the employee’s misconduct sufficient to support controlling person liability under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78t(a). Third Circuit held additionally that corporate directors may not be held personally liable for misconduct of corporate employers under a theory of negligent supervision. These rulings reinforce protections for directors from personal exposure to damages caused to third parties by harmful acts of employees, even where better corporate oversight might have been able to prevent the harm caused by the employees.Continue Reading Third Circuit Reinforces Limits to Directors’ Exposure for Misconduct by Corporate Employees

In Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, No. 11-1085, 2013 WL 691001 (U.S. Feb. 27, 2013), the United States Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding that a securities fraud plaintiff need not prove that the alleged false statements made by defendants were material in order to invoke the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance established by Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), at the class certification stage of the proceedings. The 6-3 majority opinion, written by Justice Ginsburg, resolved a split in the Circuits, which had pitted the First, Second, Fifth and, to a certain extent, Third Circuits against the Seventh and Ninth Circuits on this point. The Supreme Court’s decision deprives securities fraud defendants a means of limiting or effectively defeating a securities class action lawsuit at an early stage in the case before the bulk of fact discovery has begun.Continue Reading United States Supreme Court Holds that Class Action Securities Fraud Plaintiffs Need Not Prove the Materiality of the Alleged False Statements or Omissions to Support Certification of a Class, Resolving Circuit Split

In Gabelli v. Securities & Exchange Commission, No. 11-1274, 2013 WL 691002 (U.S. Feb. 27, 2013), the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, held that the five-year statute of limitations for the Securities & Exchange Commission (“SEC”) to bring a civil suit seeking penalties for securities fraud against investment advisers, codified in 28 U.S.C. § 2462 (“Section 2462”), begins to run when the alleged fraud occurs, not when it is discovered. In so holding, the Supreme Court refused to extend to Government civil penalty enforcement actions the “discovery rule,” which starts the clock on the statute of limitations for civil fraud actions when plaintiff should have reasonably discovered the fraud. The Supreme Court’s decision thus limits the authority of the SEC to seek civil penalties with respect to conduct that occurred more than five years before investigators took action.Continue Reading United States Supreme Court Declines to Apply the “Discovery Rule” to Extend the Five-Year Statute of Limitations for SEC Punitive Fraud Enforcement Actions

In Greb v. Diamond Int’l Corp., 2013 WL 628328 (Cal. Feb. 21, 2013), the California Supreme Court unequivocally and unanimously laid to rest the assertion that dissolved foreign corporations may be sued in California after the time of the statute of limitations provided by the laws under which the foreign corporations were incorporated. In so holding, the California Supreme Court affirmed the California Court of Appeal for the First District’s dismissal of a personal injury claim against a dissolved Delaware corporation, holding that the claim was filed more than three years after dissolution of the corporation in violation of Delaware General Corporation Law Section 278 [blog article here]. In deciding that the California survival statute did not apply to foreign corporations, the Supreme Court resolved a split among California appellate courts on the interpretation of California Corporations Code Section 2010 (“Section 2010”), which governs the winding-up and survival of dissolved corporations.Continue Reading California Supreme Court Resolves Court of Appeal Split, Holding that Section 2010 of the California Corporations Code — California’s “Survival Statute” — Does Not Apply to Foreign Corporations

As previously reported (click here), the payment of certain severance benefits may be exempt from FICA taxes. Under the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Quality Stores (click here), severance pay made in connection with an involuntary separation from employment due to a reduction in force, plant shutdown or similar condition (“supplemental unemployment compensation benefits”) are not subject to FICA taxes. The request by the IRS for an en banc review of the Quality Stores decision was denied by the Sixth Circuit last month.Continue Reading File for FICA Tax Refunds Before April 15

In Scheenstra v. California Dairies, Inc., No. F062768, ___ Cal. Rptr. 3d ___, 2013 WL 363148 (Cal. App. 5th Dist. Jan. 30, 2013), the California Court of Appeal, Fifth District, affirmed the judgment of the California Superior Court, Tulare County, that the board of directors of defendant California Dairies, Inc. (“Cal Dairies”), a milk marketing and processing cooperative, had exceeded its discretion when it adopted a quota system that breached its contractual obligations to its members and exceed the grant of power in Cal Dairies’ Bylaws. This decision highlights that a board of director’s discretion under the business judgment rule may be limited by contractual obligations the corporation undertakes with the corporation’s shareholders/members.Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Recognizes That Wide Discretion Granted to a Board of Directors Under the Business Judgment Rule May Be Tempered By a Corporation’s Private Contractual Obligations to Its Shareholders/Members

In Kleinman v. Elan Corporation, No. 11-3706-cv, 2013 WL 388006 (2d Cir. Feb. 1, 2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a securities class action lawsuit alleging that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Securities & Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder, by issuing a misleading press release describing the preliminary clinical trial results for an Alzheimer’s drug. The Second Circuit concluded that, in the context of the full presentation of details surrounding the study of the drug, nothing omitted from the press release rendered the release false or misleading to a reasonable investor. This decision reconfirms that in order to be actionable under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, an alleged omission must be misleading, not just material.Continue Reading Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Securities Fraud Claims Relating to Allegedly Misleading Press Release