Business
Associations Class Notes
The
Why
did the plaintiff make the argument that he did? In the trust area, if you’re a trustee or an
executor or administrator of an estate, and you do something ultra vires, the
trust rule generally is that of absolute liability without fault. That rule is related to a rule on conflicts
of interest. Unless a trust instrument
provides otherwise, a trustee who sells stock to the trust which later goes
down in value has absolute liability.
Fault need not be shown. In the corporate
world, if (1) a conflict of interest is fully and fairly disclosed up front,
(2) there’s no injury to creditors and (3) what the director or officer did was
reasonable then there is a defense. It
can be hard to show those three things.
Why
is there a difference between the corporate arena and the law of trust? The law of trust and executors and
administrators is designed to deal with the conservation
of capital, and the law of business associations deals with the same
thing. However, the law of business
associations is more entrepreneurial in that it also takes into consideration
reasonable risk taking and growth of capital.
We’ll see this again in Wills, Trusts, and Estates. The ultra vires stuff is important. What is the lawyer’s role? What are their possible liabilities?
In
a major corporate transaction, the third party dealing with the corporation
will usually ask his counsel and the
lawyer for the corporation whether the contract has been duly and validly adopted by the corporation and is binding on the corporation in accordance
with the terms of the contract. This
includes, if needed, the approval of the board of directors, and, if needed,
the approval of shareholders, but most transactions, even if fairly large, don’t
require board and/or shareholder approval.
The officers of the company can do a lot by themselves. We will see more on the authority of
officers. The lawyer will have to draw
up a memo saying whether shareholder
approval is needed, whether it has been obtained,
if the shareholders are entitled to
appraisal rights, whether you need the approval
of the board of directors, whether there has been a validly called meeting, whether papers
have been circulated, whether you have the right vote, and finally whether the officers have the authority to do what they’re purported to do.
The
attorney for the corporation may want to strike the word “duly” and leave “validly”. The two terms are not synonyms! If they were synonymous, they wouldn’t both
be used. “Validly” means that “the holy
water may not have been sprinkled on right, but it’s still a valid transaction.” When you add “duly”, it means that it’s been
performed “in a way that would please a grand hall monitor, superintendent of
an authoritarian school; square corners have been turned and everything has
been done right.” You have to get the
right papers at closing! You can have
big headaches in court in the future, even if you win!
In
the last 15 years, the Silverado accords have become a big deal. Some lawyers had a retreat and talked about
how opinions ought to be worded. If you’re
asked to give an opinion subject to the Silverado accords, don’t sign it right
away! Double check the definitions! They’re “wacky!” Careful lawyers will add reservations related
to environmental laws, RICO, equity orders, and doctrines of good faith and
commercial reasonableness. They will
also add a section dealing with fraudulent conveyance statutes. “They are murder!” Sometimes you can’t get around this stuff,
though. To limit costs, sometimes the
other side will accept an opinion of the corporate counsel if, to the best of
their knowledge (not having audited or anything like that), “X, Y, and Z are
true”. Then there will be a paragraph
that describes when the firm is on notice
of certain facts. The point is that this
is tough stuff. In opinions, you’ll
always have to consider ultra vires.
Some
big limiting factors on corporate power are loan agreements, mortgages, notes,
and other instruments that you’ve signed with creditors. The other side will ask for an opinion saying
that these old agreements don’t run against the new one. So ultra vires is a big deal! Pay attention to it! It’s very important in practice!
Organizing the company
The
naming of corporations and LLCs is getting sticky! It’s mostly a matter of state law, but not
entirely. There are two or three things
you can do. In most states, you can pay
$10 or $15 to reserve a name for
30-60 days. Shipman says this is
wise! It makes sure that no one else has
a name similar to what you’re reserving.
What if you’re a
Trademarks,
service marks, and trade dress overlap with local statutes somewhat. There is also the Lanham Act that allows many
of these suits to be brought in federal court.
These statutes are distant relatives of the patent and copyright statutes. They’re sort of types of intellectual
property statutes.
In
all states, when you authorize the issuance of stock, you must describe it as
either common or preferred stock and you must give the par value for the stock. In
Regulations and bylaws
What
we call regulations in
In
There’s
a lot of work in advance that goes into forming a corporation. There are tax factors, licensing, zoning,
permits, bank account forms, insurance, and all kinds of other things. “The biggie not covered yet in the casebook
is compliance with
Lastly,
all states have provisions concerning foreign
corporation (meaning out-of-state) qualifying to do business in that state,
e.g. R.C. Chapter 1703. Why do we have
these? (1) They’re a big aid to the tax
authorities to know who to tax. (2) One
of the requirements of these statutes is to designate a registered agent for
service of process. Let’s say a
Why
do people resist this so much? The
consent to service of process statutes don’t stop with torts in
Bendix was a case regarding Chapter
1703 and also a separate tolling statute
in
So Bendix
was an
Pre-incorporation contracts –
Stanley
J. How & Assoc., Inc. v. Boss
What’s
involved here? Check out the signature
lines! Ed Boss signs for a
What
happens if the corporation is formed? If
the corporation is formed and you have a highly formal document, namely, a
3-way novation agreement, then it will clearly be valid. A novation is a recognized “animal” of contract
law. But things usually aren’t that
simple!
The
McArthur case talks about
ratification and adoption, which are agency terms both in tort and in contract. In torts, we learn that even if there is no
authorization up front and even if respondeat superior doesn’t apply, if the principal
ratifies the tort afterwards, then
you may sue the actual tortfeasor and
the principal. For example, if you’re a
bus company superintendent and a driver comes in saying: “I socked this dude on
the bus to teach him a lesson because he was annoying me”, and then the
superintendent says: “I woulda hit him three times”, then that is implied ratification, and the company
will be liable. Ratification can be implied.
How
does this come up in the context of pre-incorporation contracts? In McArthur,
we’re in
What’s
wrong here? In the old days, and the new
days in some states, partial performance doesn’t take a contract outside of the
statute of frauds. At the time, there
was no strong partial performance doctrine!
The employee says that this was ratified
by the board of directors, and therefore the corporation is bound. The corporation gives two defenses: (1) under
British law and many American states, if the principal was not in existence when the agent made the contract, then there can
be no ratification because the ratification relates back to the original event,
and there was no corporation in existence on that date! Besides, if you relate it back to that date,
you’re in violation of the statute of frauds!
So this seems like a good argument.
But what the court held was that there is a separate of related doctrine
of adoption, and that the board could
not ratify on April 2, but it could “hop over one compartment” and adopt, which doesn’t relate back to
January 2. When we put the day at April
2, there are 11 months to go, and there is no statute of frauds problem. The doctrine of restitution would apply to
any corporation that is formed.
What
about the lawyer who does the work of bringing a corporation into
existence? Does the lawyer have a right
to get paid when the corporation is born?
The cases are split. Let’s say
Peter Promoter walks into your office with his wife, Paula. They want to promote a company and it will
take a lot of complicated and detailed work.
Can a lawyer represent both of them?
You have dual clients. Under Canons 5, 4, and 9 of the Ohio Code of
Professional Responsibility, you must warn them (1) of the potential conflicts
between them, (2) that there is no strict attorney-client privilege and that
what one tells you can be discovered by the other, and (3) that there would be
advantages to each one having their separate attorney. If, knowing this, they still want you to
represent them, that’s fine, with a major caveat: on every major matter, you
would have to stop and explain how the major matter is favorable and
unfavorable to each client. It’s a same
thing when a married couple comes in and wants you to craft both their
wills. This can get hairy!
Here’s
a widely used hypo from CLE symposia: H & W come in and want you to draft
both of their wills. The ordinary will
is fully revocable until the person dies and/or goes crazy (AKA “lose mental
capacity”). You draft the wills, and
married couples will usually leave to each other. Three months later, W calls, saying that she
wants a new will drafted leaving everything to her lover. So the first question is whether you can do
that. Of course you can’t! What else do you have to do? At a bare minimum, you must phone the husband
and tell him, at minimum, that you can no longer represent him vis-à-vis the
will, that you’re no longer representing the wife, and that he should
immediately go to a new lawyer to make a new will revoking the old one. You also have to tell the wife that you can
no longer represent her at all.
Representing joint clients can get sticky! Some say you have to tell H about the
lover. Shipman supposes they’ll get the
message when you tell them to go get a new lawyer and a new will. What if the husband says, “Why are you
telling me this?” You want to make sure
that nobody gets killed. Later, we’ll
talk about quasi-clients in the corporate area: they’re not quite joint
clients, but you incur the same duties.
There are also third-party non-clients who are in privity of contract
with you, for example: if you represent a corporation selling Greenacre to a
third-party, and that party wants your opinion that the contract is cool, and
you address the opinion to that party, that is a third-party non-client who is
in privity with you. You can be liable
in negligence on the opinion to him!
Here’s
a hypo we were supposed to think about: Mrs. Smith wants to buy some land for a
corporation that hasn’t been formed yet.
She doesn’t want the land for herself, but only for the corporation. Can she assure that the land is available if
she forms the corporation? She’s not
sure if she can get loan from her husband and parents. We’ll represent Smith and the corporation but
not anybody else because the conflicts are too strong. From Stanley J. How, we find that a contract
between the corporation to be formed and the owner would leave her holding the
bag if the corporation isn’t
formed. The thing to do is to pay the
guy to have an option running a few weeks.
The option states that it may be assigned to a corporation to be
formed. If the formation of the corporation
goes ahead, she assigns the option to the corporation for the cost of the
option. If the corporation doesn’t get
formed, she’s only out a few hundred dollars for the cost of the option.