Articles Posted in Corporations

|

In Silicon Valley, home to many large technology corporations and thousands of innovative startups, businesses need to move quickly to stay ahead of the competition. As a small business attorney in San Jose, I have formed countless of limited liability companies (LLCs), partnerships and corporations with the Delaware and California Secretaries of State over the years. And one of the first questions my eager small business clients ask me in our initial meetings is almost always, “How long will it take to form my company?”

For many years my answer was that we could have the filed Articles of Incorporation (for a Corporation), Articles of Organization (for an LLC), or Certificate of Partnership within about a week. When the California Secretary of State slowed down a few years ago, I had to tell clients that it could take as much as several weeks. However, in the last year or so the delays crept up to three months or more for the California Secretary of State to process and return a business filing.

Of course, California does provide a 24-hour expedited filing option, for an additional $350 over the usual filing fees. In my more cynical moments I have had to wonder whether it was the California budget crisis that was causing filing times to slow down because of lack of resources, or if the Secretary of State was purposefully taking longer to return routine filings in order to force virtually everyone to pay the “rush” fees.

Continue reading ›

|

Head’s up!! UCC financing statements are changing as of July 1, 2013. Lenders and borrowers need to take extra care to ensure that they have correctly prepared UCC financing statements and, of course, consult with an attorney as necessary. UCC filings are of critical importance in any secured loan transaction, whether it involves asset based loans, technology lending, construction financing, equipment financing, and even real estate lending where fixture filings may be an integral part of the transaction or personal property may be included in the collateral pool. Accordingly, changes in UCC forms affect every lender, secured party and borrower. In a problem loan, loan workout or bankruptcy situation, the validity of the lender’s security interest becomes of paramount importance.

For lenders, the basic rule for perfecting a lien or security interest in most types of assets is to file a UCC-1 Financing Statement with the Secretary of State where the debtor or borrower is registered. If the borrowing company happens to be in San Jose or Palo Alto, California, for example, and is registered as a California corporation, the UCC-1 is filed with the Secretary of State in California. As of July 1, a revised form of UCC-1 is to be used in most states, including California and Delaware.

The changes to the form are driven by privacy concerns and primarily involve eliminating entries for a company’s registration number and an individual’s social security number. Such identifying information has not been required – in fact, social security numbers have automatically been redacted or made unreadable – for a while now in California. One thing the change highlights, however, is the ever-increasing importance of getting the debtor’s name correct on the UCC form, character by character, as other references to a borrower or debtor no longer appear.

Continue reading ›

|

As a business and M&A lawyer in San Jose, it is not uncommon for me to burn the midnight oil hammering out a deal for a Silicon Valley client. There is often a need to break from the perpetually connected life to recharge the lithium cells, so to speak. On a recent bike ride in Santa Clara on the local single track, it occurred to me that the life of a deal can be contained in a single mountain bike ride.

A ride starts with the first drop of a pedal. Any deal starts with the first realization that two people or groups can get together and construct a process that will create value for both of them. Whether it is a simple software license, or a complex strategic alliance and funding deal, it is that first pedal that moves everything forward.

Whether you are involved in a transaction deal or a single track mountain bike ride, you need the right tools to make it all work. For a lawyer, it is the years of learning that just begin after you leave law school. The late nights wrestling with creating a structure that will reduce risks and the time spent attending or teaching professional seminars all contribute to the base of knowledge that comes to bear in every transaction. Making sure your tires fit the trail and your derailleur is adjusted and chain oiled can make the difference between a ride and an ordeal.

Continue reading ›

|

As a veteran M & A lawyer in San Jose, where deal making has never gone out of style, I have been though my share of mergers and acquisitions. For business counsel, the closing of a deal is one of the times I get to spike the ball in the end zone as I watch the cash flow to a happy (and relieved) seller. Needing only to put together a closing package, my work is done and I am off to popping the corks at the closing dinner. Or is it?

From sole proprietors and small businesses to large corporations, many business owners enter the sale process believing the closing of a deal is accompanied by a one-way ticket to paradise. They often find out, however, that the fun is just beginning. The first year after closing presents a number of challenges, all of which must be carefully managed to make sure the seller gets the full value of the business.

As I have discussed in prior blogs there are a number of adjustments, associated with audits and working capital, which occur within the first three to six months after closing, including the following:

Continue reading ›

|

Some tax law changes recently went into effect that that will have an impact on both individuals and businesses in San Jose and throughout the State:

Yet Another Gas Tax Increase

On February 28th the Board of Equalization approved a 3.5 cent gas tax increase, effective July 1, 2013. This brings the gas tax rate to 39.5 cents for 2013-2014. This adjustment should produce revenue at the same rate as if Proposition 30 applied to gas sales. (Proposition 30 resulted in a 0.25% state sales tax increase which does not apply to gas sales.)

Continue reading ›

|

Having represented both buyers and sellers in mergers and acquisition transactions in Silicon Valley for more years than I care to admit, I have been through a number of closings. Some M&A closings that I have been involved in were smooth affairs, accomplished through an exchange of a single phone call with a confirming email, while others have stretched into all night marathons. Although it is often difficult to know whether your deal will allow you to finish at a reasonable time, there are a number of actions you can take to make sure your closing is as smooth and stress free as possible.

Obtain Third Party Consents:

The most important task for both the seller and acquirer is to plan ahead. Everything you will need, to accomplish the closing, will take longer than you think. One item which often delays a closing is getting the necessary consents to the transaction required from third parties. Certain third parties, often parties to major relationships that the acquired company, post-closing, requires for its operations, have rights under their contracts to consent to any change in control. Many of these contracts create significant value for the acquired company and their continued existence are often a key incentive for the buyer proceeding with the deal. It is best to identify these material agreements early on and plan a strategy for securing the necessary consents. Other areas where third party consents might be required are when a party, often a strategic investor, has a right of first refusal that is triggered by the transaction.

Continue reading ›

|

A few years ago, I met with a new client here in San Jose about forming a corporation for his real estate management business. He wanted to use his name as the name of the corporation, e.g. John Smith, Inc., and he had no problems with using his name as the Agent for Service of Process, and having his home address as the business address on public record. Imagine my surprise when I went to the Secretary of State’s database to confirm that the name was available and found that the exact name was taken by the same client at the same address. The corporation had been formed back in 1989 and had been suspended for decades.

I discussed it with the client and discovered that he had spoken with another lawyer about forming a corporation many years ago, and although he thought it was just an informational meeting, the attorney actually formed the corporation and the client didn’t even know about it. If my client wanted to use the name of the suspended corporation, he would first have to revive it, in which case, he would have had to pay tens of thousands of dollars in back franchise taxes and interest. I counseled the client to walk away from the suspended corporation and simply start a new one under a different name. In this case, that was okay because he took no assets from the corporation and therefore could not be held personally liable for the corporation’s taxes. However, shareholders should not walk away from a corporation without carefully considering whether the same conclusion would apply to their situation, and whether they are willing to endure the annoying tax notices to the corporation in the meanwhile.

The landmark case in this area is the Appeal of Howard Zubkoff and Michael Potash, Assumers and/or Transferees of Ralite Lamp Corporation (April 30, 1990, 90-SBE-004). In that case, the Board of Equalization stated that the only way shareholders are liable for the corporation’s franchise taxes would be if the Franchise Tax Board proves that all of the following conditions were met:

Continue reading ›

|

Although 2013 is well under way, taxpayers in San Jose may not be aware of changes to California laws that may affect them. Some of these changes include:

Proposition 30

With all the talk about federal income taxes going up this year, do not forget about the Proposition 30 retroactive increase in California taxes, effective as of January 1, 2012. For taxpayers with taxable income over $250,000, the California maximum rate is now 12.3%. On top of this, there is a 1% mental health surcharge for taxpayers with taxable income over $1,000,000. Together, these taxes give California the highest maximum state tax rate. If you fall under these tax brackets, you may not have paid enough taxes throughout the year, through either withholding or estimated tax payments, to avoid being under-withheld. However, there will be no penalty for the under-withholding so long as you pay the tax due in full by April 15, 2013. The ability to get out of penalties expires on April 15th. An extension to file doesn’t extend the payment deadline or the penalty exclusion. A late payment penalty of 5% plus 0.5% per month will be due if the full 2012 liability is not paid in full by April 15th.

Continue reading ›

|

Having practiced corporate law in Silicon Valley for 15 years, I must say that there is nothing more frustrating for my clients, who are mostly closely held businesses in the San Jose area, than spending months or years training an employee only to have her leave and go on to compete with the company that trained her. In particular, I represent several staffing and consulting companies and have had to listen to their complaints of how unfair this is from the employer’s perspective. Often, I have to tell these hard working, small business owners that there is almost nothing they can do (except pursue a claim against the employee for misappropriation of trade secrets). In 2008, the California Supreme Court decided Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, making it clear that employee post-employment non-compete agreements are unenforceable in California except in certain very limited circumstances, including in connection with the sale of a good business involving goodwill.

Now, a new California Court of Appeals case, Fillpoint, LLC v. Maas (August 24, 2012) further enforces California’s attitude towards fostering open competition and disfavoring restrictions on employees. In the Fillpoint case, a major shareholder and key employee signed both a three year non-compete agreement related to the sale of his stock, and a one year post-employment non-compete in his new employment agreement. The Court paid particular attention to whether the stock purchase agreement and the employment agreement should be read together as one document. The employment agreement alone would violate California’s view of post-employment non-compete agreements as against public policy. However, in connection with the sale of the business, it could be enforceable. In this case, the shareholder/employee worked for the acquired company until the three year non-compete ran out, but then terminated his employment and went to work for the competition. The company claimed that the one year non-compete covenant in the employee’s employment agreement should restrict him from such competing employment. The employment agreement non-compete provision specifically prohibited him from making sales contacts or actual sales to any customer or potential customer of the company, working for or owning any business that competes with the company, and employing or soliciting for employment any of the company’s employees or consultants.

The court found that the two agreements should be considered integrated because the covenants were executed in connection with the sale or disposition of stock in the acquired company. In particular, they noted the integration clause in the documents, which stated that if there were any conflicts between the two documents, the stock purchase agreement would control. The court went on to consider whether the non-compete and non-solicitation covenants should be void and unenforceable, and found that they were because they were overly broad. In particular, the court noted the over-broad restriction against selling to potential customers of the company.

Continue reading ›

|

As a Silicon Valley corporate attorney, I work with a lot of Internet law and cyberspace law issues and am often asked by businesses to make sure their websites keep them free from trouble. Whether you are a large, multi-national corporation, a mid-size company, or a small business owner, chances are you run and operate a commercial website. One way to minimize the risk that comes from operating a commercial website is to create the conditions, sometimes called Terms of Use, that govern a visitor’s use of the site. A court decision in September, however, found that website terms could be invalid and therefore fail to provide any protection to website operators. Because the court is located in the federal district that includes California, it is a critical decision that affects California website operators.

The case, In re Zappos.com Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, 2012 WL 4466660 (D. Nev. Sept. 27, 2012) arises out of Zappos’ customer data security breach in January of this year. As is typical in a data breach situation, Zappos notified all persons whose personally identified information may have been compromised. When the inevitable lawsuit was filed, Zappos attempted to enforce an arbitration clause in the Terms of Use found on its website. A federal court in Nevada said “not so fast”.

Some background is helpful. Terms of Use are often created with little thought, and can often be changed at any time by the website operator. They typically are submitted as a “browse-wrap” agreement, which, unlike a “click-wrap” agreement, does not require the user to click on a box to confirm the user’s consent to the agreement. Browse-wrap agreements are usually referenced with an inconspicuous link at the bottom of a home page.

Continue reading ›