Business and Corporate

Subscribe to Business and Corporate via RSS

In Great Hill Equity Partners IV, LP v. SIG Growth Equity Fund I, LLP, the Delaware Court of Chancery held that in a merger under Delaware law, privilege over the absorbed corporation’s communications with its counsel, including those relating to acquisition by the surviving corporation, pass to the surviving corporation.

The case arose from a suit filed by Great Hill Equity Partners IV, LP, et al. (the “Buyer”), alleging that former shareholders and representatives of Plimus, Inc. (the “Seller”) fraudulently induced the Buyer to acquire Plimus, Inc. (“Plimus”). Plimus was the surviving corporation in the merger.

After the Buyer brought the suit, a full year after the merger, it notified the Seller that, among the files on the Plimus computer systems that the Buyer acquired in the merger, it had discovered certain communications between the Seller and Plimus’s then-legal counsel regarding the transaction. During that year, the Seller had done nothing to get these computer records back, and there was no evidence that the Seller took any steps to segregate these communications before the merger or excise them from the Plimus computer systems. Additionally, the merger agreement lacked any provision excluding pre-merger attorney-client communications from the assets of Plimus that were transferred to the Buyer. Nonetheless, the Seller asserted the attorney-client privilege over those communications on the ground that it, and not the surviving corporation, retained control of the attorney-client privilege that belonged to Plimus for communications regarding the negotiation of the merger agreement.Continue Reading Ownership of Attorney-Client Privilege Following Merger

The Supreme Court of Louisiana, in Ogea v. Merritt, 2013 WL 6439355 (La. 12/10/13), provided guidance regarding the personal liability of members of an LLC, reversing a lower court decision and finding a member of an LLC not personally liable for damages resulting from that member’s performance of a contract in the name of the LLC.

Travis Merritt, the sole member of Merritt Construction, LLC, signed a contract with Mary Ogea to build a home on an undeveloped parcel of land owned by Ms. Ogea. After problems with the foundation became apparent, Ms. Ogea filed suit against the LLC and against Mr. Merritt individually. Following trial, the district court rendered judgment against both Mr. Merritt, personally, and the LLC “in solido” for various items of damages. The district court found that Mr. Merritt personally performed some of the foundation work and failed to properly supervise the subcontractor who actually poured the concrete, providing grounds for Mr. Merritt’s personal liability. The court of appeal affirmed, but the Supreme Court then granted a writ to address the extent of the limitation of liability afforded to a member of an LLC.Continue Reading Personal Liability of Members of an LLC – Louisiana Supreme Court Provides Guidance

* This article originally appeared in the July 8, 2013 edition of Around the Bar

Act No. 88 makes an important change to a creditor’s right to collect a debt from property that the debtor has transferred to someone else. Unlike alternative approaches to transfer avoidance, the right of action in Louisiana – the “Revocatory…

A few weeks ago, in a piece entitled “Thorny Roses: Interns and Potential Wage Liability”, I wrote about PBS talk show host, Charlie Rose, and his production company’s $250,000 settlement of a class-action lawsuit brought by a former unpaid intern who claimed minimum-wage violations. On Monday, the assault against unpaid internships continued when a…

“What is in a name? That which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet . . .”

-William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet

Roses aside, classifying someone as an “employee” or an “independent contractor” (or rather misclassifying them) can have significant effects. The misclassification of employees as independent contractors is the…

In 2013, business owners with 50 or more full-time employees are expected to be finalizing their plans in response to the employer mandate health care reform, which becomes effective in 2014. Among the choices for business owners will be complying with the employer mandate or planning to pay the penalties for opting out, or executing plans to avoid the employer mandate by trimming their workforce or selling all or a portion of their business before 2014.

Beginning January 1, 2014, the so-called “employer mandate” under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (t he “PPACA”) requires employers with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees (“FTEs”), with “full-time” defined as working at least 30 hours per week, to offer “minimum essential” and “affordable” health insurance to those employees and their dependents. Employers who do not comply will be subject to potentially significant penalties. Employers are not required to provide health care coverage for part-time employees, however, part-time employees must be counted as partial employees when determining whether an employer has 50 FTEs. There will also be various other new requirements under the PPACA effecting employers beginning in 2014 that are beyond the scope of this piece.

Many business owners are considering what they can do to get their FTE count below 50 and avoid the employer mandate and the associated cost increases and regulatory burdens.  Beware, however, that a reduction below this threshold effective January 1, 2014 may not avoid the employer mandate.   The proposed regulations provide that a business could be subject to the employer mandate if during 2013 it averaged 50 or more FTEs.  Employers would have the option to determine their 2013 headcounts by averaging the full 12 months of 2013 or any consecutive six-month period during 2013.  These regulations are in the process of being promulgated and are not yet final.

Additionally, the rules regarding who is an “employer” are not straight forward and contain traps for the unwary, and can render some plans to dodge the employer mandate ineffective. Similarly, having a basic understanding of the rules should alert business owners to seek advice if two or more related businesses may be considered as a single “employer” under the employer mandate rules.Continue Reading The Employer Mandate Health Care Reform: A Decision Point For Smaller Companies

We’ve all been there. You sit on the Board of a local non-profit organization as the token lawyer. Or, you volunteered to assist with your house of worship’s finance committee because you have some practice experience with banks. Inevitably the scenario comes up: “You’re a lawyer. Will you help us buy that little piece of…

On August 29, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) proposed rules to eliminate the prohibition against general solicitation and advertising in certain unregistered securities offerings. These rules are mandated by the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (the “JOBS Act”), which was signed into law on April 5, 2012, and is intended to, among…

On August 22, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) adopted rules (the “Conflict Minerals Rules”) to implement provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to require certain companies to publicly disclose their use of conflict minerals (gold, tantalum, tin and tungsten) that originated in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or any of its adjoining countries, collectively referred to as the “covered countries.” (1)  These new rules impose additional disclosure obligations on affected companies that use conflict minerals in their products.

The Conflict Minerals Rules apply to a company if it files annual reports with the SEC under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (a “Registrant”) and if conflict minerals are “necessary to the functionality or production” of a product manufactured or contracted to be manufactured by the Registrant. If required, a Registrant will file a conflict minerals report on the SEC’s new Form SD (specialized disclosure) by May 31, 2014 (for the 2013 calendar year) and annually on May 31 every year thereafter.

The Conflict Minerals Rules require that all Registrants undertake a three-step analysis to determine whether disclosure is required, and to what extent. Below is a summary for general information regarding the principal requirements of the Conflict Minerals Rules.
 Continue Reading SEC Adopts Rules for Disclosing Use of Conflict Minerals