Business
Associations Class Notes
The instructions for the exam
It will be three hours long
and it will where the registrar says it is.
There are two key points. We’ll
be an associate at a law firm. It will
have an office in
December 1996 Exam Question One
Unless otherwise stated, we
can assume that all conflicts of interest have been
cleared. We can also assume that all
clients are paying by the hour. Here we
have BCD, Inc. formed in 1985 by Mr. Smith, who purchased 1,000,000 shares for
$.01 each at par. His sister, as an accommodation,
purchased 50,000 shares at the same price.
The sister is a physician and has a lot of money. None of the other directors has much wealth. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles are
applied. In auditing the statements of a
company, the auditors proceed under GAAS: Generally Accepted Auditing
Standards.
Sarbanes-Oxley caused an
accounting oversight board to be created.
Its relationship to the FASB has yet to be determined. Its relationship to accounting standards is
going to be quite heavy. The money for
FASB and the Accounting Oversight Board comes from fees charged to public
companies. The AOB is subject to
oversight by the SEC.
CPAs are licensed by
individual states. There’s a standard
nationwide exam, so it’s pretty easy to get admitted in different states as
long as you pay the fees. The CPA owes
its first duty to public investors and creditors. Then they owe a duty to the company. The independent CPA firm is paid to “tattle”
on the person that pays it! It’s like
being required to pay your spouse’s lover.
There is some chance that the
insurance company will say that the coverage doesn’t fly, and the insurance
company will probably win. So there’s
probably no coverage! She wants to know
what her exposure is. There will be big
legal fees.
First we’ll want to see
whether she had no knowledge or reason to know of the cooked books. There are no criminal worries if this is
true. There could be a trustee in
bankruptcy action, but there probably isn’t recklessness on the part of our
client. Her medical license should be
dealt with by a lawyer in the firm who deals with the medical board. We must show that she had no knowledge. So hopefully her medical license will not be
affected. What about taxes? If she received money for being a director,
then her legal fees and what she has to pay in settlement will be tax
deductible. She has a good income as a
physician. So talk to a tax lawyer. This may all be deductible as she pays it. She might ask whether she should transfer
assets to her husband. No, because that
would be a fraudulent conveyance and it would also look bad in the litigation. Hopefully, she has a family trust for the
benefit of her husband and children with spendthrift clauses.
In practice, you’ll find that
the independent investment advisor and the estate and tax lawyers are always
trying to get people to set up trusts with spendthrift clauses. But it’s hard to get people to do that. There’s a substantial gift tax payable and
they don’t want to part with control of the money.
If we can show that she is “pure
as the driven snow”, then we’re in good shape because it’s hard to prove
scienter against someone who is trying to do the right thing. This is for the purposes of Rule 10b-5. In addition, the 1995 Federal Act puts a
number of procedural inhibitions upon plaintiffs who want to file. You can get around them with a good case,
like the Citigroup case, where the plaintiff’s lawyer knew just how to get
around it. § 12(a)(2)
is a strict privity section, and she
wasn’t in strict privity with any of the victims. But we must double check that she hasn’t
pulled a “Martha” in the last couple of weeks.
She says the first news she had was yesterday, but we must make sure she
wasn’t selling any stock before that.
What about § 11? The first big deal is that this statute is negligence-based. If a plaintiff’s lawyer has a shot at good
money under § 11, they’ll go under § 11.
But .38 to .43 of the
If the defendant can prove no
legal cause or causation-in-fact or partial
no causation-in-fact, then that is a defense.
There are two
There were bogus accounts
receivable and the nature of those accounts was not disclosed in the prospectus,
obviously. The company has virtually no defense
under § 11 except the statute of limitations and § 11(e). No plaintiff will collect much of anything
from the companies.
Let’s divide the prospectus
into the narratives and the certified financials. As to the narratives, where the directors are
not relying on experts, the director must prove for a defense: (1) she made a
reasonable investigation, and (2) after such reasonable investigation she
reasonably believed the prospectus narrative material to be true. As to the expert material, the test is
different. There is no requirement of
reasonable investigation as to the certified financials. The test is simple: did the director
reasonably believe the certified financials to be true? In the real world, a lot of material crosses
over between the two categories. It’s
not absolutely clear whether she made a reasonable investigation.
What about another possible defense
for our client? Legislation from the
1990’s provides under § 11 that there is no joint and several liability; it is several only. That means that if we can slot her into that,
and the jury finds that of the 100% of fault involved she contributed only 3%,
then we would simply multiply the liability by the percent and that would be
her liability. It would still be a lot
of money, but note that if she doesn’t qualify for this, it’s joint and several
liability.
The Securities Act of 1933
was based in part upon the English Companies Act and in part on state “Blue Sky”
law in the
Probably the plaintiffs’
lawyers are looking for big money from the accounting firm. They will want to settle with our client
early. You like to settle out with
peripheral defendants early for modest amounts because it’s very expensive to
finance a class action. Under R.C.
1701.38, Shipman thinks her liability is about the same. What about the liability of the accounting
firm? That’s under § 11 and also under the
Rest.2d of Torts § 552, which is negligence-based and would provide a similar
result to the federal result. The
seminal case in