Los Angeles Lawyer April 2015
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Exper Guide to THE MAGAZINE OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION t W PAGE it ne 38 sse s APRIL 2015 / $4 EARN MCLE CREDIT PLUS 2014 Ethics Prosecuting Roundup Elder Financial page 23 Abuse page 30 Lender Liability after Foley page 12 Inverse Condemnation for Water Damage page 14 Secrecy in Doubling Mediation page 68 Down Los Angeles lawyer Robert M. Heller argues that double derivative indemnity litigation may come to California page 16 by Robert M. Heller Doubling Down Doubling Down California has yet to follow Delaware and other jurisdictions and allow double derivative standing ALTHOUGH DOUBLE DERIVATIVE corporation is controlled by the wrongdoers who wished to reduce or eliminate the risk of standing has been adopted in many jurisdic- who may be expected to refuse to file suit breach of fiduciary duty and other actions tions outside California to address the mod- against themselves.3 On the other hand, when against themselves could simply form and ern corporate form,1 California courts have an individual owns an interest in a parent operate through a corporate subsidiary while yet to rule on whether it will be allowed in this company, and its subsidiary is the target of also controlling the parent.5 For this reason, state. Application of the double derivative wrongdoing, the individual does not directly numerous jurisdictions have kept stride with principle permits a shareholder of a parent own shares in the subsidiary.4 Classic single “the realities of the changing techniques and company to sue for harm to its subsidiary and derivative standing does not convey a right to structures of the modern corporation.”6 Courts prevents corporate fiduciaries from using the sue on behalf of the subsidiary, because the in other states have recognized and steadily parent-subsidiary form to circumvent share- individual only owns an interest in the par- expanded the double derivative category of holder derivative litigation. California’s pol- ent. Technically, only the parent, as the direct standing, which allows an owner in a parent icy of affording a right for every wrong, how- owner of the subsidiary, has single derivative company to file suit in favor of a subsidiary.7 ever, portends California’s adoption of double standing to sue on behalf of the subsidiary. Foreign Law derivative standing.2 What recourse, then, exists if the sub- Shareholders, limited partners, LLC mem- sidiary’s board refuses to file suit, and the Double derivative theory evolved over a cen- bers, and others may bring a derivative action board of the parent also refuses to bring a tury ago.8 It was well established in New York on behalf of an entity when that entity has suf- single derivative action on the subsidiary’s as early as 1948,9 in Delaware as early as fered harm and those controlling it refuse to behalf? If no other person has standing to sue, 1963,10 and has been applied and ex- panded file suit. The right of an individual to sue a subsidiary could be left without a remedy. in numerous other jurisdictions as well as in the derivatively is critical to ensure that insider The mere layer of a second corporate structure corporate wrongdoing is addressed. In fact, could insulate wrongdoers under a simple for- Robert M. Heller practices business litigation with it is the only recourse available when the mula of abuse: corporate boards and officers an emphasis on shareholder disputes. KEN CORRAL 16 Los Angeles Lawyer April 2015 n Model Business Corporations Act.11 The ques- actions also had equitable, rather than purely California practitioners representing the tion of whether California will adopt double statutory, origins. would-be double derivative plaintiff may cite derivative standing can, in part, be evaluated California courts are also likely to look to the foreign cases discussed above and may fur- by examining the reasons double derivative Delaware decisions.19 For decades, Delaware ther consider advancing additional arguments standing has been adopted in other states. courts have recognized double derivative to secure standing. A particularly illustrative opinion was standing, and in 2010, the Delaware Supreme First, Corporations Code Section 800(b), issued in 1988 by the Illinois Supreme Court Court greatly expanded the theory in Lam- which authorizes shareholder derivative suits, in Brown v. Tenney.12 There, three share- brecht v. O’Neal.20 The Lambrecht court expressly permits derivative actions by “a holders formed a corporation, appointed first reviewed prior Delaware decisions, such shareholder, of record or beneficially.” The themselves to its board of directors, and oper- as Sternberg v. O’Neil,21 in which the parent legislature added the term “beneficially” to ated the business. They then formed a sepa- company acquired the subsidiary before the Section 800(b) in 1975, but did not define the rate corporation to act as a holding com- alleged wrongdoing had occurred. The term. Pearce v. Superior Court,26 a 1983 pany, exchanged their shares for an equal Lambrecht court confirmed: “In these cir- appellate court decision, was the first case to percentage of the holding company’s shares, cumstances, our law recognizes a right to examine the new term, observing that bene- and elected themselves as directors of the proceed double derivatively. Otherwise, there ficial shareholder standing was added as part holding company. would be no procedural vehicle to remedy the of “the 1975 liberalization of the standing The plaintiff, a minority shareholder in the claimed wrongdoing in cases where the par- requirements” to bring California in line with parent, alleged that the defendants breached ent company board’s decision not to enforce the majority rule.27 Framing the term within their fiduciary duties by converting corporate the subsidiary’s claim is unprotected by the the context of both the legal definition and funds of the subsidiary and that both the business judgment rule.”22 The Lambrecht that of usage in ordinary social discourse, parent and the subsidiary were controlled court further reasoned that double derivative Pearce stresses that a “liberal and expansive by the wrongdoers, who refused to sue. The standing arises “where the parent corpora- reading of section 800 and the phrase ‘share- plaintiff shareholder brought a derivative tion’s board is shown to be incapable of mak- holder…beneficially’” is proper.28 lawsuit on behalf of the parent and its sub- ing an impartial business judgment regarding Pearce holds that a beneficiary of corpus sidiary. The trial court refused to recognize whether to assert the subsidiary’s claim.”23 of a trust was a “beneficial stock owner” double derivative theory for the subsidiary’s The Lambrecht case, however, presented under Section 800(b), even though the ben- suit, the appellate court reversed, and the an even more complex issue. The Lambrecht eficiary did not personally own the corporate Illinois Supreme Court accepted the appeal. plaintiff had initially owned shares in the stock. In a subsequent case, Patrick v. Alacer The Illinois Supreme Court noted that a corporation at issue individually and directly, Corporation, the wife of a shareholder with “double derivative action is a long-standing and had properly filed a single derivative a community property interest in her hus- doctrine of equity jurisprudence” and the case on behalf of that nominal defendant band’s shares was deemed a beneficial owner “overwhelming weight of authority does corporation. During the litigation, the nom- with derivative standing, despite the fact the accept the double derivative action.”13 The inal defendant entity merged with another stock was not in her name.29 Thus, Section Illinois high court agreed with the plaintiff, corporation, thereby causing plaintiff to lose 800(b) expressly creates an exception to direct finding that “this court should not be derailed direct shareholder status. The court noted stock ownership, opening the door to the by convenient corporate formations which do that a “post-merger double derivative action” argument that a parent company shareholder not reflect business realities.”14 Illinois had a was “a new, distinct action in which stand- is a “beneficial” owner of the subsidiary’s well-settled principle to look beneath the cor- ing to sue double derivatively rests on a stock and, as such, expressly granted stand- porate veil and disregard legal fictions “when different temporal and factual basis—namely, ing by legislative enactment. used as a shield for wrongful acts.”15 The the failure of the [current] board, post-merg- Second, California’s creation of single court was more concerned with protecting the er, to enforce the premerger claim of its derivative law was initially based in equity,30 natural persons for whom the corporations wholly-owned subsidiary.”24 Despite the more and California strongly supports the “fun- were created rather than the “artificial crea- complicated ownership issues presented, the damental principle of our system of jurispru- tures in whom legal title is vested.”16 Delaware Supreme Court nevertheless con- dence that for every legal wrong there is a The Illinois Supreme Court was further firmed that “Delaware case law clearly en- remedy.”31 California compensates injured persuaded that corporate officers and direc- dorses the double-derivative action as a post- parties for all damage proximately caused tors are fiduciaries and that single-derivative merger remedy” and extended double- by the wrongdoer unless a departure from the standing evolved to ensure someone could derivative standing