Articles Tagged with California Business Lawyer

|

AdobeStock_67958307-300x187Delaware has long been known as a popular state for incorporation of a new business. Some entrepreneurs think this is solely because of tax benefits, but there are many legal and practical benefits to incorporating a new business in Delaware. Here are some of the most common:

Management Friendly

The Delaware General Corporation Law is considered to be friendly toward the management of corporations. There are many specific provisions that help corporations run more efficiently: for example, Delaware corporations have the option of using cumulative voting, while other states make it compulsory for corporations that are not publicly traded. The DGCL also allows for shareholder approval of mergers without separate votes in each class of outstanding stock. Special meetings can be limited to a call by the Board of Directors, which prevents the complications associated with shareholders calling special meetings. Finally, the DGCL embraces new technologies and now allows corporations to use distributed ledgers or blockchains to create and maintain the corporate records required by law. These and other provisions help corporations run more efficiently under Delaware state law.

Continue reading ›

|

AdobeStock_133739956-300x200New technologies have drastically changed the ways in which new startups raise capital. Securities laws and regulations are adapting to these changes to ensure that investors are still protected under federal securities laws when investing via new technologies. Regulation CF (aka Title III of JOBS Act) is a relatively recent rule that took effect in 2016 and recently updated in 2020. It allows new business startups to raise equity through crowdfunding, which means private from all Americans, instead of the richest 2% Americans. More importantly, crowdfunding is typically used for new companies to turn their customers into their investors, which is exciting news for startup founders. Learn more about how crowdfunding works, what its legal limitations are, and how to determine whether Regulation CF is the right tool for your new company’s capital funding, is added to every startup founder’s to-do list.

New Rules Raising Investment Limits

According to the SEC, companies currently may raise an aggregate of $5 million in a twelve-month period through crowdfunding securities. This is a significant increase from the original $1.07 million limit. The new limit greatly expands a new company’s ability to raise capital through crowdfunding. These changes also work to level the inequalities faced by small companies looking for startup funding options. Traditionally, large companies have had a competitive advantage in access to startup funding, but crowdfunding has changed the dynamic considerably.

Continue reading ›

|

AdobeStock_280928050-300x200As with every new year, 2021 has brought changes to the law that can affect your business. California business owners must stay up to date on the legal changes that can affect their liabilities. The experienced business attorneys at Structure Law Group are here to help you understand all potential liabilities your business could face and develop an effective strategy for mitigating these risks.

New Code of Civil Procedure Statutes Enacted For 2021

The Code of Civil Procedure has been amended to include three new specific sections related to the discovery process. Section 2031.280(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure is amended so that parties responding to an inspection demand may no longer produce documents “as they are kept in the usual course of business.”  Instead, when produced, the documents “shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.” This can add extensive administrative labor to reorganize documents and produce them as requested.

Continue reading ›

|

AdobeStock_332552950-300x200When a company suffers financial harm due to mismanagement by a corporate officer or a board member, it is the shareholders that usually suffer the consequences. The law allows shareholders to sue for their losses when a company cannot or will not sue the officers that caused it. These are known as “derivative” suits because the shareholder’s cause of action actually derives from the company’s losses. The corporate attorneys at Structure Law Group can help you understand and enforce these rights in order to protect your financial interests as a shareholder. If you believe that funds have been mismanaged, we can help you investigate the claim and plan the legal strategy that best protects your rights. Our experienced litigators can also protect your rights in court.

Suing For Money Mismanagement on Behalf of All Investors of a Fund

When a corporate officer or member of the board engages in mismanagement, the financial consequences often affect all shareholders. Shareholders in this situation will often consolidate their claims into a single case. This saves on both legal expenses and the time it takes to get the case onto a court docket. A single plaintiff will be named to represent the entire “class” of plaintiffs, which in this case is the other shareholders who suffered the same loss. Because the shareholders are actually pursuing the company’s claim, proceeds from the lawsuit can actually go to the company. This is why many shareholder derivative suits seek remedies other than compensation. The shareholders might sue for better accounting practices, or the removal of a board member who engaged in fraudulent transitions, or some other specific relief that will prevent similar losses in the future.

Continue reading ›

|

AdobeStock_343368495-300x200The coronavirus has created many new legal issues with unclear answers. Courts across the country will spend months – and likely years – sorting through a backlog of civil cases involving legal questions about the financial losses created by COVID-19. While it is not possible to predict the outcome in every case, there is some guidance from prior case law that can help business owners effectively plan to mitigate their liability. The experienced business lawyers at Structure Law Group can help develop a mitigation strategy that is tailored to your business. Learn more about the history of breach of contract case law – and how it can help you make informed decisions about your company’s contracts in the era of coronavirus.

Is COVID-19 a Valid Excuse to Breach a Contract?

Case law involving breach of contract goes back hundreds of years. Many different reasons for breach have been explored by the courts, but, of course, they have never before faced COVID-19. This is a new global phenomenon that has created unique challenges for business owners all over the world. To predict how courts will treat breach of contract related to COVID-19, one must examine the reasons they have excused breach in the past – or not excused it, imposing liability on the breaching party.

Continue reading ›

|

AdobeStock_335918168-300x200A civil lawsuit is a common experience for business owners. Whether you are filing or defending a lawsuit, it is important to work with an experienced litigator who knows how to protect your legal rights throughout the discovery process. The experienced business lawyers at Structure Law Group, LLP know how to protect both you and your business from inappropriate discovery requests by seeking a protective order. Here are a few examples of tools our experienced attorneys can employ to protect your rights.

Privacy

Certain information must be exchanged during the discovery process. This is not, however, an unlimited right for the other party to learn every detail about your personal life. Discovery requests must pertain to information that are admissible at trial – or “reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.” If you are asked about personal information that does not pertain to the lawsuit, your attorney can object. Objections can be made to written requests, such as interrogatories, requests for admission, or requests for documents.   Objections can also be made to questions posed at a deposition.  By following up with a protective order, your rights to preserve your objections can be protected throughout the remainder of the case.

Continue reading ›

|

AdobeStock_282672626-300x200Sadly, it is not uncommon for litigants to abuse the discovery system in a civil lawsuit. Sometimes it is an attempt to make an opponent’s legal fees too high to continue litigation. Other times, a party might be trying to drag out a lawsuit and force the opponent to settle rather than continue indefinitely. These tactics are especially common when a business knows that a competing business is undercapitalized and cannot afford litigation that is costly or lengthy. But business owners do not have to succumb to these tactics. Learn more about what an experienced litigator can do to protect your business throughout the discovery process.

What RFAs Do – And What It Costs to Prove Them

Requests for Admission (RFAs) are a specific type of discovery tool that can be very effective when used properly. An attorney submits RFAs to the opposing party. These are formed as questions that the answering party must either: 1) admit, 2) deny, 3) admit in part, 4) deny in part, or 5) explain why it is unable to answer.  It is also possible to object to the request entirely, but courts do not take kindly to gamesmanship in the discovery process. If the answering party fails to answer these questions, it is considered an admission that they are true. It might not come as a surprise to learn that parties sometimes lie on these questionnaires. When this happens, the asking party or “Propounding Party” has an opportunity to prove that the question should have been admitted as true. This can be done in many ways. Your attorney might, for example, hire a forensic investigator to review the other party’s financial statements. You might find a former employee who can testify that the statement should have been admitted as true. Your attorney might even hire a private investigator to uncover evidence of the truth. However done, it almost always costs the Propounding Party money to prove that the RFA should have been admitted in the first place.

Continue reading ›

|

AdobeStock_69411638-300x200A breached contract can result in significant business losses. The amount of the contract may not reflect lost business, missed opportunities, and other financial losses that can seriously hurt your bottom line. Unfortunately, these losses are not adequately reflected by the value of the breached contract. In some cases, the contract actually specifies a value for breach – an estimate known as “liquidated damages.” This pre-breach estimate rarely reflects the full value of your company’s financial losses. This is why many companies seek punitive damages in addition to their specific losses under the contract. Punitive damages are designed to punish the defendant for misconduct in order to deter such conduct in the future. They are not, however, available in most breach of contract cases. Learn more about punitive damages – and when they might be available to help mitigate your losses under a breached contract.

Can You Get Punitive Damages for Intentional or Malicious Breach?

In California, punitive damages are only available in a breach of contract case if the defendant has also committed an intentional tort. This means that mere negligence, or a poor choice to breach the contract, will not justify punitive damages on its own.

Continue reading ›

|

AdobeStock_392831851-300x200COVID-19 has created significant issues when it comes to workplace safety, and lawmakers are racing to implement rules based on changing circumstances of the pandemic while attempting to balance the interests of employers and employees. While Congress has engaged in protracted and fierce debate over economic relief packages, state and federal agencies have been much quicker to act on safety rules –  and to enact the emergency authority necessary to enforce these rules. Employers in California must be aware of these rules and the immediate actions they require. Here are some of the most basic safety rules that have been enacted to protect California employees from the spread of the coronavirus in the workplace:

What the New Rules Require

Cal/OSHA has adopted emergency rules that require employers to protect their employees from the transmission of COVID-19 in the workplace. These rules require employers to:

Continue reading ›

|

FFCRA-300x200The Family First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) includes an expansion of both the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (EPSLA) and the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act (EFMLEA).  The FFCRA is in part designed to combat negative effects of COVID-19 on the workforce.  The Act includes providing qualifying employers (under 500 employees) with certain incentives and tax credits to offset the cost of providing employee paid sick-leave for COVID-19 related reasons.

The US Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division is responsible for administering these portions of the FFCRA and is promulgating regulations to implement same to assist working families facing public health emergencies arising out of the pandemic.  The provisions are set to expire on December 31, 2020 and therefore the rules are (currently) effective starting April 1, 2020 through the end of the current year, 2020.

The Department, in addition to issuing rules and providing direction for administration of EPSLA (which requires certain employers provide up to 80 hours of paid sick leave under certain conditions), has stated the following qualifying conditions for assistance:

Continue reading ›