Corporations

Subscribe to Corporations via RSS

The Georgia Attorney General’s (AG) office is trying to make the case that the Georgia Pipeline Act does not allow any entity other than a corporation to use the statute’s eminent domain power.  Palmetto Pipeline is seeking a certificate for authorization to use that power, provided in GA Code § 22-3-82 (2014): 

(a) Subject to the provisions and restrictions of this article, pipeline companies are granted the right to acquire property or interests in property by eminent domain for the construction, reconstruction, operation, and maintenance of pipelines in this state . . . .

The state AG has argued that a pipeline company must be a corporation, and thus a limited liability company (LLC)  cannot use the statutory power.  The AG is right.  In the Pipeline Act’s definitions section, it provides, at GA Code § 22-3-81 (2014), 

As used in this article:

. . . .

(2) “Pipeline company” means a corporation organized under the laws of this state or which is organized under the laws of another state and is authorized to do business in this state and which is specifically authorized by its charter or articles of incorporation to construct and operate pipelines for the

…

Pat Haden is the athletic director at the University of Southern California. Until Friday, he was also a member of the College Football Playoff selection committee. And, according to this story in the L.A. Times, he is also a director of at least nine non-profits or foundations and three businesses.

According to the Times, Haden spends an average of 70 hours a week on his U.S.C. job. As a playoff selection committee member, he was expected to spend countless hours watching football games and evaluating teams.

So where does he find the time to serve as a board member? Not a problem, according to Haden. He has “never been to one meeting” of some of the nonprofits he serves. And he spends “very little” time on his board positions.

Haden’s attitude is representative of an earlier era when outside directors merely showed up at meetings and nodded their head to whatever the chairman said. Those days are long gone. Today, board members are expected to spend much more time on their board duties, at the risk of liability if they don’t.

Mr. Haden, a former Rhodes Scholar, is a very bright guy, but even bright guys can say…

I teach both Civil Procedure and Business Associations. As a former defense-side commercial and employment litigator, I teach civ pro as a strategy class. I tell my students that unfortunately (and cynically), the facts don’t really matter. As my civil procedure professor Arthur Miller drilled into my head 25 ago, if you have procedure on your side, you will win every time regardless of the facts. Last week I taught the seminal but somewhat inscrutable Iqbal and Twombly cases, which make it harder for plaintiffs to survive a motion to dismiss and to get their day in court. In some ways, it can deny access to justice if the plaintiff does not have the funds or the will to re-file properly. Next semester I will teach Transnational Business and Human Rights, which touches on access to justice for aggrieved stakeholders who seek redress from multinationals. The facts in those cases are literally a matter of life and death but after the Kiobel case, which started off as a business and human rights case but turned into a jurisdictional case at the Supreme Court, civil procedure once again “triumphed” and the doors to U.S. courthouses closed a bit tighter for litigants. …

Kent Greenfield, Professor of Law and Dean’s Research Scholar at Boston College Law School, recently posted a provocative piece on the CLS Blue Sky Blog (here) in which he argues, among other things, that progressives have “flipped” from supporting “corporate citizenship” pre-Citizens United, to supporting “shareholder primacy” post-Citizens United.  (Kent has stressed to me that he does not believe this characterization extends to progressive corporate law scholars.) The piece is short, so I recommend you go read it before continuing on to my comments below, because I will simply be taking some short excerpts from his post and providing some responses, which will likely benefit from the reader having reviewed Kent’s post first. As just one disclaimer, Kent’s post is based on his article, “Corporate Citizenship: Goal or Fear?” – and I have not yet read that paper. Also, I consider the following to be very much an in-progress, thinking-out-loud type of project, and thus welcome all comments.

1. In 2010, the Supreme Court decided Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, ruling that corporations had a First Amendment right to spend money from general treasury funds in support of political candidates.

I had the honor of being invited to speak at the annual symposium for the Wayne Law Review two weeks ago.  The event, which focused on Corporate Counsel as Gatekeepers, was well organized and attended–and also very stimulating.  Speakers included Tony West as a keynote, a few of us academics, and a bunch of current and former practitioners–prosecutors, in-house counsel, and outside counsel.

My presentation focused on a story that bugs me–a story built on an experience I had in practice.  In the story (which modifies the true facts), an executive flagrantly violates a securities trading compliance plan that I drafted in connection with a subsequent transaction that I worked on for the executive’s firm.  Specifically, the executive informs a friend about the transaction the day before it is announced, believing that the friend will never trade on the information.  The friend trades.  The incident results in a stock exchange and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) inquiries.  No enforcement is undertaken against the firm.  However, the executive signs a consent decree with–and pays a cash penalty to–the SEC and, together with the firm, suffers public humiliation via a front-page article in the local newspaper (since the SEC would not agree to forego a press release).  This fact pattern gnaws at me because I wonder whether there is anything more legal counsel can do to prevent an executive from violating a compliance policy to the detriment of himself and the firm . . . .

Earlier this month BLPB editor Ann Lipton wrote about the Delaware Supreme Court opinion in Sanchez regarding director independence (Delaware Supreme Court Discovers the Powers of Friendship).  On the same day as the Del. Sup. Ct. decided Sanchez, it affirmed the dismissal of KKR Financial Holdings shareholders’ challenge to directors’ approval of a buyout.  The transaction was a stock-for-stock merger between KKR & Co. L.P. (“KKR”) and KKR Financial Holdings LLC (“Financial Holdings”). Plaintiffs alleged that the entire fairness standard should apply because KKR was a controlling parent in Financial Holdings.  The controlling parent argument hinged on the facts that:

Financial Holdings’s primary business was financing KKR’s leveraged buyout activities, and instead of having employees manage the company’s day-to-day operations, Financial Holdings was managed by KKR Financial Advisors, an affiliate of KKR, under a contractual management agreement that could only be terminated by Financial Holdings if it paid a termination fee.

Chief Justice Strine, writing an en banc opinion for the Court,  upheld Chancellor Bouchard’s finding that KKR could not be considered a controlling parent where “KKR owned less than 1% of Financial Holdings’s stock, had no right to appoint any directors, and had no contractual right to veto any…

So, my rants about the problem of courts (and others) conflating LLCs and corporations are not new.  Unfortunately for the proper evolution of the law, but good fodder for my posts, I continue to get examples.  We now have a new one that raises the bar a bit.

 A recent case from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania continues the trend. The beauty, if one can call it that, of the case is that there are failures to recognize the difference between LLCs and corporations at multiple levels. 

 First, though, let’s recap what LLCs are.  LLCs are limited liability companies, and they are creatures of statute. See, e.g., 6 Del. C. § 18-101, et seq.  As such, they are not corporations, which are creatures of other statutes. Cf., e.g., 8 Del. Code § 101, et. seq. In contrast, LLCs, like corporations and other associations, can be people.  See, e.g.,  Dictionary Act, 1 U.S. Code § 1 (“[The wor[d] ‘person’ . . . include[s] corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.”).

Back to our newest example, which I think of as a…

Regular readers know that I write a lot about business and human rights and that I have posted about a number of lawsuits brought in California alleging violations of consumer protection statutes and false advertising claiming that companies fail to disclose the use of child slavery on their packaging. The complaints allege that consumers are deceived into “supporting” the child slave labor trade. The latest class action has been filed against Hershey, Mars, and Nestle. Back in 2001, these companies and several others signed the Engel-Harkin Protocol (drafted by Congressman Engel) in an effort to avoid actual FDA legislation regarding “slave-free” labeling. Nestle has touted its work with some of the world’s biggest NGOs to help clean up its supply chain for all of its human rights issues, not just in the cocoa industry. Nestle denies the allegations and actually has an extensive action plan related to child labor. Mars and Hershey also denied the allegations.

I am curious as to whether shareholders demand action from the boards of these companies or if the steady stream of litigation being filed in California causes companies to invest more in supply chain due diligence or to change where and how they source their…

Readers of this blog know how much I hate courts that call LLCs “corporations.” (If you’re a new reader, welcome. And now you know, too.)  I am also one who likes to remind people that entity choices come with both rights and obligations, as do choices about whether to have an entity at all. Recent events in Illinois touch on both of these issues. 

A recent news story from Chicago’s NBC affiliate laments a recent court decision in Illinois that requires entities to have counsel if they are to make an appeal, even in the administrative process related to a parking ticket.  The story can be found here.  The short story is this: if one registers a vehicle in the name of a corporation, then the corporation must be represented by counsel to contest the ticket.  The reason for this determination comes from a non-parking related decision from 2014. 

In that decision, Stone Street Partners LLC v. City of Chicago Department of Administrative Hearings, the court determined that “the City’s administrative hearings, like judicial proceedings, involve the admission of evidence and examination and cross-examination of sworn witnesses–all of which clearly constitute the practice of law.” 12 N.E.3d…

Like many of you, I have been discussing the Volkswagen emission scandal in my business law classes.

Yesterday, Michael Horn, President and CEO of Volkswagen Group of America testified before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Horn’s testimony is here. 

West Virginia University, home of co-blogger Joshua Fershee, is featured on the first page of the testimony as flagging possible non-compliance issues in the spring of 2014.

The testimony includes multiple apologies, acceptance of full responsibility, and the statement that these “events are fundamentally contrary to Volkswagen’s core principles of providing value to our customers, innovation, and responsibility to our communities and the environment.”

I plan to follow this story in my classes as the events continue to unfold.