Business
Associations Class Notes
We’ll
pierce the corporate veil tomorrow! We should
re-read Assignments 12 and 13.
More on premature
commencement
We’re
on premature commencement, de facto, de jure, and all that stuff. Last time, we had worked our way through
Assignment 10(d) and cases under the old Model Business Corporation Act. Under that Draconian and straightforward
position, are you going to hold mere
inactive investors to the same liability standard that you hold active
investors? The courts said no, because
the very purpose of corporate statutes is to encourage investment especially by
inactive investors and you don’t want to be Draconian. Note that in
Frontier
Refining Company v. Kunkel’s, Inc.
This
case arises in a state that had the old Model Act formula: “digital, either one
or zero; either you’re perfectly formed, or you’re out of it, baby”. We had odd
facts. They’ll blow your mind! Just what are the facts here? A promoter wanted to start a gas
station. Kunkel needed additional money
and he went to two prospective investors:
The
business went belly up! The seller of
the gas station wasn’t paid! So the
seller sues the promoter and the two investors.
The testimony at trial was disputed.
There are six different theories the lawyer and client will usually put
forward: (1) general partnership, (2) agency, (3) joint enterprise, (4) statute,
(5) third party beneficiary, and (6) guaranty.
The
joint enterprise theory, like agency, covers both profit-making activities and all other activities (i.e. not just business
activities). There is some case law in
The
joint enterprise theory is never applied to the ordinary carpool to work. Imagine Jones is driving his car, is negligent,
and runs over a baby who is not negligent.
Jones is judgment-proof, but Smith is wealthy. The plaintiff’s lawyer is looking for someone
who will bleed green. The plaintiff sues
Jones and Smith jointly and severally.
In many states, the plaintiff will win, but in other states the theory
has been pushed backwards.
If
there is co-ownership of a business for profit, it fits the general partnership
statute, and you can reach all the partners individually. Another category is the third-party
beneficiary. It may be that contractual
dealings between the capitalist and sweat equity have created a third-party
beneficiary. If they have, a third-party
beneficiary can sue in contract. The
next-to-last theory you look at is guaranty.
If Smith, Inc. goes under, but Mr. Smith, the 100% owner, has guaranteed
the debts of the company, then you can sue Mr. Smith. In some states, the statute of frauds may be
waived.
In
the present case, if you read the
More on ultra vires
Ultra
vires and “no authority of agent” are two different defenses. Let us see why. Ultra vires means that the corporation itself, acting through all of its organs
(officers, directors, and shareholders) simply does not have the power. On the other hand, when you say that the
agent did not have actual or apparent authority, it’s entirely separate. The corporation is saying that the action is
something that the directors and/or shareholders should have approved. This is quite separate, though related to ultra
vires at times.
Suppose
a particular corporate action is illegal. Shipman believes that it is a separate defense
from the other two, though it is very closely related. If you’re trying to enjoin an action as a shareholder,
and the directors have violated a statute, you will usually add illegality as a count of your suit. The question will be: does the statute, as
interpreted by the court, give standing
to a shareholder to raise the illegality issue?
It depends! This question usually
comes up under the rubric of “implied private right of action”. We use torts lingo. Note that illegality includes criminality but
is broader than criminality. If certain
conduct violates a criminal statute, the conduct will be both criminal and
illegal. But if it only violates a civil
statute, the conduct will not be criminal but will still be illegal.
Note
that sometimes this is part of contracts lingo, though under a different name. If a contract is void as against public
policy, either party may get a judicial determination stopping the prospective
performance of that contract. This is
similar but different from the “implied private right of action”. In
The hypothetical from
Thursday
X,
Inc., a closely-held
But
that’s not all! Lawyers are always looking
to protect themselves. “It’s a jungle
out there!” Lawyers have malpractice liability
to worry about. We may be asked to
render an opinion that a contract has been duly and validly adopted and is enforceable
in a court by its terms. We may have to
render an opinion to our company and also to a third party.
Assuming
that the company is solvent and has the money to invest and assuming that the
board and officers have done their research in investing in the NYSE, one of
the express statements of R.C. 1701.13 is that for companies like X, investing
as a pure investor without control in a company doing something different from
what your company does is not subject to an ultra vires objection.
Let’s
assume that the company is financially solvent.
One of the officers wants X to purchase 100% of the capital stock of Z,
Inc., a closely held
But
let’s say X is getting their natural gas from a utility and they’re happy with
it. We would tell X to look at R.C.
1701.69-.72 and propose an amendment to the articles of incorporation to allow
the corporation to run for “any lawful purpose”. That will probably give rise to appraisal
rights to shareholders voting against the amendments. There will probably be no problem if X is
closely held.
One
more point on ultra vires: if all shareholders, voting and non-voting, approve
after full and fair disclosure in advance and if creditors are not hurt by the ultra
vires action, then the ultra vires cause of action disappears insofar as shareholders
are concerned. There are two people who
can come after you: the state can come after you in a quo warranto action. Also, if what you’re proposing may violate
agreements with creditors and the creditors don’t assent, then the creditors
can shut down the transaction. As
important as the articles are, the credit instruments of any corporation (from Exxon down to Mom ‘n’ Pop, Inc.) are just as
important, if not more. In real life,
you’ll find yourself negotiating with creditors for waivers, you’ll read these
credit instruments to find out what is proscribed and what is allowed, and some
of the credit instruments get very long and detailed.
More on attorneys’ opinions
and disregard of the corporate fiction
One
thing you have to often right an opinion about is whether stock has been duly
and validly issued and non-assessable.
Another opinion that must sometimes be given is on whether the corporation
is duly organized and existing as a corporation under
However,
it is an uphill battle for people asserting disregard of the corporate fiction because
legislatures have purposefully set up corporate statutes and other statutes to
encourage investment by inactive investors.
The very first thing that an inactive investor wants is assurance that
you can only lose what you put into a stock and no more. For example, consider the case of Abbott v. Post from 1940. This case involved the pre-1933 National Bank
Act dealing with insolvency of national banks.
Before 1933, national banks had to issue $100 par common stock. That means the shareholders had to pay at
least $100 per share of stock to the company when it was issued. The act also provided that if the bank went
insolvent, each shareholder could be assessed up to par.
What
was done in 1933 to encourage investment in banks? They prospectively did away with the
assessment of stock. Also, both the
This
case involves a big investor in a national bank who went to a lawyer before he
invested. The lawyer told him about the double liability provision. So this investor formed a personal holding corporation,
put money into the corporation, and then the corporation bought the stock in
the national bank. The investor was the
only shareholder of the corporation.
During the Depression, that national bank went belly up! The U.S. Supreme Court held that there was a
strong pubic policy involved and the sole shareholder of the personal holding
company could and would be reached. This had no application post-1933 because to
sell stock of national banks, Congress prospectively did away with the rule.
What’s
the importance in
Bartle v. Home
Owners Coop.
The
parent is a non-profit corporation composed of World War II veterans seeking
inexpensive housing. The not-for-profit
cooperative formed a 100% owned stock subsidiary which constructed houses and
sold them without profit to the veterans who were members of the parent
cooperative. There is no fraud or “sham”
alleged (those are two of the seven possibilities for piercing the corporate
veil). A “sham” is more of a legal
conclusion than an aid to analysis, while fraud has some legal substance to it. But neither one was alleged. What was alleged was undercapitalization of the stock subsidiary. The contract creditors of the subsidiary,
which went insolvent, wanted to reach the assets of the not-for-profit parent
on the ground that the subsidiary was undercapitalized. They also alleged and pretty much proved that
the subsidiary could never make a profit because the deal, from day one, was to
make inexpensive houses sold without a markup to impecunious veterans who are
members of the parent corporation.
When
you have undercapitalization and no profit alleged in a contracts case
Consider
the dissent in Bartle. The dissent makes arguments similar to two
tax problems that this setup would have.
From a tax standpoint, the commissioner of internal revenue could attack
it in two ways: first, they could use § 482, where you have two or more persons
or entities under common control or where one controls the other. The commissioner may reallocate items of
income, expense, and deductions so as to fairly reflect income. The Internal Revenue Service could have come
in here and said that the houses were worth $8,000 but were being sold for
$6,000. It could have allocated $2,000
as dividends to the member of the cooperative parent saying that the difference
is an implied dividend. The dissent argues that this same line of
reasoning should apply on the disregard of the corporate fiction theory. The majority hears the argument but doesn’t
find it persuasive. There are real tax
problems here!
DeWitt Truck Brokers v. W. Ray
Flemming Fruit Co.
This
is a contract case. It’s easier to
pierce the corporate veil in torts cases than in contracts cases because a contract
creditor could always, in theory, insist upon a guarantee by the controlling
person or persons. In this case, too,
there is no fraud or sham alleged. It’s
clearly another undercapitalized corporation.
It’s also pretty much like Bartle
in that this corporation could never profit.
In both cases, the corporation is always operating on the edge, and when a bad development came along, they went “over
the abyss” into “financial hell”, or in other words, they went insolvent. Remember that if you can prove fraud or a
sham, you can definitely pierce the veil.
Here, there was no express written
guarantee by the controlling shareholder, but there’s the “next best thing”: an
oral guarantee! Here we have soft estoppel. There is not necessarily detrimental reliance. What
happened here was that one of the unpaid creditors went up to the trucker and
said: “Hey! You’re way behind on your
payments!” The trucker said: “If the
company doesn’t pay, I will.” This is the Cockerham case again!
Somebody’s trying to be too (financially) macho! But that’s soft estoppel, not estoppel per § 186 of Restatement First of
Contracts.
In DeWitt, the defendant
brings up the statute of frauds. The statute
of frauds says that a promise to answer for the debts of another must be in a
signed writing. The defendant says that
this is just crap! It’s not in writing
and it’s not signed. But, in the last 100 years, the statute
of frauds has softened a good bit,
though not totally. For example, if you
write out a check with a notation of what property it’s for and what the
purchase price is and you hand it to the other guy, even if he doesn’t cash it,
it’s held to be a signed memorandum. It
describes the land and the price, so it’s found to satisfy the statute of
frauds. Also, there is the doctrine of part
performance, which can get you out from under the statute of frauds. When a major or 100% shareholder of a corporation
makes a statement such as: “I will stand by my corporation!” The court says that he’s not answering for
the debts of another, but rather he’s answering for his own debts. Post-1980, we have an Ohio Court of Appeals
case stating exactly that.