Business and Corporate

Subscribe to Business and Corporate via RSS

In the United States, patent owners or licensees are required to inform alleged infringers of their possibly infringing behavior prior to being able to recover damages for the infringement of a valid U.S. patent. (1)  Marking a product with the applicable patent number provides the requisite notice. (2)  However, failure to monitor products marked with…

A recent opinion from the United States Bankruptcy Court in Baton Rouge, Louisiana shows that even experienced lenders and developers may not always understand how Louisiana’s Private Works Act applies to their project, and how much leverage a properly filed notice of contract can provide to a general contractor.  Tuscany Reserve, LLC (“LLC”) was formed by sophisticated developers for the purpose of developing a new apartment complex in Baton Rouge. LLC obtained acquisition and construction financing from a bank (1st Bank), which properly recorded its mortgage on the project before work commenced. LLC hired “Contractor” to build the complex; Contractor recorded its notice of contract in the parish mortgage records.  As often happens, a dispute developed between LLC and Contractor regarding the work performed and lack of payment.  Contractor stopped work and filed a lien on the property under the Louisiana Private Works Act for $1.17 million.  Contractor eventually agreed to cancel its lien in exchange for a promissory note and guarantees from LLC’s principals and collateral provided by an LLC affiliate.  Once the lien was cancelled, 1st Bank funded two draw requests on the construction loan.  LLC needed more money for the project and turned to a new lender (2nd Bank) for additional financing.   2nd Bank secured its loan with a collateral mortgage on the immovable property for the project; there were no liens in the property records when 2nd Bank recorded its mortgage.  The relationship between LLC and Contractor soon soured, again, and Contractor filed two liens on the project, one for the original claim amount, plus interest, and another for $250,000.00.  Contractor sued LLC and its principals on the matured promissory note, and also sued LLC based on its rights under the recorded construction contract and the Louisiana Private Works Act. LLC eventually filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Middle District of Louisiana.
Continue Reading Lenders and Developers Need to Understand How Louisiana’s Private Works Act Applies to Their Projects

A recent federal district court case (Watson v. U.S., 107AFTR 2d 2011-311) has held that the IRS could recharacterize purported dividend payments to an S corporation shareholder-employee as wages. In this case, a CPA was a sole shareholder, employee, director and officer of a professional corporation that was taxed as an S Corporation. The corporation…

The Louisiana Supreme Court has refused to review the decision of the First Circuit Court of Appeal in ConAgra Foods, Inc. vs. Bridges, 2010-0907 (La. App. 1st Cir. 10/29/10), 48 So.3d 1249. In ConAgra Foods, the First Circuit determined that ConAgra Foods, Inc. would receive the benefits of Louisiana net operating loss carryovers held by subsidiaries, which had been sold in Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) §338(h)(10) transactions . Under federal tax law, the parties to a stock sale can elect IRC §338(h)(10) treatment such that the stock sale is treated as an asset sale for income tax purposes and the tax attributes of the subsidiaries that are sold are acquired by the selling parent corporation. The steps that occur under an IRC §338(h)(10) transaction are as follows:
Continue Reading Louisiana Supreme Court Refuses to Review Net Operating Loss Decision

As companies expand their operation into foreign states, it is essential to determine the potential tax liability for conducting business in those jurisdictions.  Although states differ as to their treatment of out-of-state taxpayers, all states are bound by the U.S. Constitution and federal law and jurisprudence, which require a nexus between a taxpayer and a…

The application of corporate veil piercing theories to limited liability companies is still in its early stages in Louisiana jurisprudence. In Hollowell v. Orleans Regional Hosp. LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit became the first court applying Louisiana law to pierce the veil of a Louisiana limited liability company on an “alter ego basis,” adopting from corporate veil piercing jurisprudence a non-exhaustive list of factors, namely: 1) commingling of corporate and shareholder funds; 2) failure to follow statutory formalities for incorporating and transacting corporate affairs; 3) undercapitalization; 4) failure to provide separate bank accounts and bookkeeping records; and 5) failure to hold regular shareholder and director meetings. 217 F.3d 379, 385-386 (5th Cir. 7/18/00); citing Riggins v. Dixie Shoring Co., 590 So.2d 1164, 1168 (La. 1991). The court emphasized that the inquiry is in fact a “totality of the circumstances” test, and “courts are not limited to these five factors when invoking the alter ego doctrine.” Id., at 387, citing Riggins, at 1168.
Continue Reading Piercing the Veil of an LLC – The Fourth Circuit Weighs In

It is a fairly common practice for individuals purchasing pleasure yachts to take calculated steps to minimize sales taxes on their purchases. In fact, a simple “Google” search on the subject reveals many websites offering free advice on this issue. One of the tactics suggested by several websites seems fairly simple: instead of the individual purchasing the yacht, the individual forms a corporation, and the corporation purchases the yacht.
Continue Reading Structuring the Purchase of a Vessel Through a Corporate Entity for Tax Purposes Can Have Unintended Consequences

The United States Supreme Court recently resolved conflicts among the Circuit Courts about the citizenship of a corporation for determining diversity of citizenship jurisdiction (1). This will allow corporations to analyze with more predictable results whether to remove a case to federal court. In Hertz Corp. v. Friend, et al, No. 08-1107 (February 23, 2010) (a unanimous decision, which is unusual in and of itself), the Court decided that when determining a corporation’s citizenship for diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, the “principal place of business” of the corporation is “the place where the corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities”—something that courts have referred to as the “nerve center” of the corporation.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Clarifies Definition of a Corporation’s “Principal Place of Business”

Cordell and Brian Haymon are attorneys, which means the fine points of selling a business do not intimidate them. Yet when the time came to sell Petroleum Services Corporation, a firm their father started in 1952, they didn’t try to do all the work themselves. Instead, they hired Kean Miller’s Blane Clark. As Mr. Clark…

On March 21, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives on almost a straight party-line vote passed two final healthcare reform bills late Sunday night. Initially, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3950, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, by a vote of 219 to 212.

Following the passage of H.R. 3950, the House of…