What Constitutes Doing Business

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

What Constitutes Doing Business CT KNOWLEDGE SHARE WHAT CONSTITUTES DOING BUSINESS 2016 | EDITION CT WHAT CONSTITUTES DOING BUSINESS BY A CORPORATION IN STATES FOREIGN TO THE STATE OF ITS INCORPORATION 2016 EDITION © 2016, CT. All rights reserved. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 THREE KINDS OF DOING BUSINESS 3 PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO QUALIFY 7 Suits By Unqualified Foreign Corporations 7 Effect of Subsequent Qualification 14 Defense of Suits 17 Validity of Corporate Acts 19 Counterclaims 20 Suits By Assignees and Successors 22 Personal Liability 26 Monetary Penalties 28 Statutory Citations 31 STATUTORY “DOING BUSINESS” DEFINITIONS APPLICABLE TO ORDINARY BUSINESS CORPORATIONS 35 The Model Act Provision 35 The Revised Model Act Provision 36 Alabama 37 Alaska 37 Arizona 38 Arkansas 38 California 38 Colorado 39 Connecticut 39 Delaware 39 District of Columbia 40 Florida 41 Georgia 41 Hawaii 42 Idaho 42 Illinois 43 Indiana 43 iii iv Contents Iowa 44 Kansas 44 Kentucky 45 Louisiana 45 Maine 45 Maryland 46 Massachusetts 46 Michigan 47 Minnesota 47 Mississippi 48 Missouri 48 Montana 49 Nebraska 49 Nevada 50 New Hampshire 51 New Jersey 51 New Mexico 51 New York 52 North Carolina 52 North Dakota 53 Ohio 53 Oklahoma 54 Oregon 55 Pennsylvania 55 Rhode Island 55 South Carolina 56 South Dakota 56 Tennessee 56 Texas 57 Utah 58 Vermont 59 Virginia 60 Washington 60 West Virginia 62 Wisconsin 63 Wyoming 63 Puerto Rico 64 Virgin Islands 64 Alberta 65 Contents v British Columbia 65 Manitoba 66 New Brunswick 66 Newfoundland 67 Northwest Territories 68 Nova Scotia 68 Nunavut 68 Ontario 68 Prince Edward Island 69 Quebec 69 Saskatchewan 70 Yukon Territory 70 STATUTORY “DOING BUSINESS” PROVISIONS LIMITED TO LENDING MONEY ON SECURITY 73 SPECIFIC DOING BUSINESS ACTIVITIES 75 Introduction 75 Interstate and Foreign Commerce 76 Isolated Transactions 82 Corporate Secondary Activities 87 In General 87 Advertising 88 Bank Accounts 91 Books And Records 91 Maintaining an Office 92 Maintaining and Defending Suits 94 Meetings in State 96 Preliminary Acts 96 Holding Interests in Resident Businesses 98 Franchise Operations 99 Holding Companies 101 Parent And Subsidiary Corporations 102 Partnerships, LLCs, and Joint Ventures 105 Contracting 108 Federal Contracts 111 Subcontracting 113 Submitting Bids 114 vi Contents Credit 115 Collecting Debts 115 Extending Credit 117 Lending Money On Security 118 Entertainment 124 Broadcasting 124 Exhibition of Films 125 Professional Sporting Exhibitions And Games 125 Production of Films and Shows 126 Leasing 127 Leasing Personal Property 127 Leasing Real Property 131 Oil and Gas Leases 133 Manufacturing 135 Performing Services 135 In General 135 Correspondence Schools 139 Field Warehousing 140 Installation of Machinery and Equipment 140 Research Work 144 Transportation Companies 145 Property Ownership 146 Personal Property Ownership 146 Processing 149 Purchasing 150 Real Property Ownership 151 Sales 154 Commission Merchants and Brokers 154 Conditional Sales 155 Sales from Trucks 156 Sales of Repossessed Goods 156 Sales of Samples 158 Sales of Securities 160 Sales Through Brokers 161 Shipments on Consignment 162 Show Rooms 166 Solicitation 166 Contents vii Specialty Salesmen 171 Subscription Sales 173 Selling Over the Internet 174 DOING BUSINESS IN 175 Canada 175 Guam 176 Puerto Rico 176 The Virgin Islands 177 PERSONAL JURISDICTION 179 LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES 185 INTRODUCTION When a corporation does busi- sion is reached as to whether or not ness outside of the state in which it qualification is required. was organized, it may be required Most states have adopted either to “qualify”—i.e., to obtain a cer- the Model Business Corporation tificate of authority and to appoint Act or the Revised Model Business a resident agent upon whom pro- Corporation Act. Therefore, the cess may be served. Although the provisions of both of these Model corporation laws of every state Acts dealing with activities requir- require foreign corporations doing ing qualification and penalties for business in the state to qualify, no not qualifying are set forth and law contains a comprehensive def- discussed in the following chap- inition of the term “doing busi- ters. ness.” What constitutes doing In addition to what constitutes business within the meaning of doing business within the United qualification requirements is the States, this book contains chapters question which this book attempts on doing business in Canada, to answer. Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin The risks of failure to qualify Islands. The statutes defining cer- are great. In all states, unqualified tain activities that do or do not re- foreign corporations doing intra- quire qualification for Canada, the state business are denied access to Canadian provinces, and terri- state courts. An unqualified foreign tories, Puerto Rico and the Virgin corporation is also subject to fines, Islands are reproduced. and, in several states, its directors, To a very large extent, the an- officers or agents may be fined. swers to doing business questions These sanctions are discussed un- are found in court decisions. These der the heading “Penalties for Fail- decisions have been accumulated ure to Qualify.” and analyzed and form the basis The statutes of most states list for the articles in the section enti- certain activities in which a corpo- tled, “Specific Doing Business ration may engage without qualify- Activities.” ing. Some states also define There are three kinds of doing activities which will require quali- business questions. One question is fication. These statutory provisions whether a foreign corporation do- are reproduced in this book and ing business in a state will be sub- should be examined before a deci- ject to service of process in that 1 2 Introduction state. The second is whether a for- others that are subject to a qualifi- eign corporation will be subject to cation requirement. The chapter taxation. The third is whether it entitled “Limited Liability Compa- will be subject to the state’s quali- nies” addresses some doing busi- fication requirements. The first ness issues related to that type of chapter, “Three Kinds of Doing business entity. However, this Business,” looks at the differences book deals mainly with foreign between these three types. The business corporations. When deal- final chapter takes a more in-depth ing with any other business entity look at a state’s power to subject a the statutes and case law dealing foreign corporation to the in with the issue of what constitutes personam jurisdiction of its courts. doing business and the penalties Members of the Bar may feel for failure to qualify for that spe- free to call upon the nearest office cific business entity type must be of CT Corporation System for ad- consulted. ditional information on doing WHAT CONSTITUTES DOING business or for statutory changes BUSINESS is presented as a service enacted after the publication of this to the Bar. The information it con- book. tains has been gathered together to It may be noted that business provide a convenient reference in corporations are not the only type a difficult area. It is hoped that it of business entity that are required will prove helpful both to the at- to qualify before doing business in torney familiar with the field and a foreign state. Nonprofit corpora- to the attorney who is only occa- tions, limited liability companies, sionally concerned with corporate limited partnerships and limited work. liability partnerships are among THREE KINDS OF DOING BUSINESS When a corporation does busi- Some corporation laws specifi- ness outside of its state of incorpo- cally state that their doing business ration, it may find itself: (1) subject definitions should not be used in to taxation by the state, (2) subject determining if a corporation is do- to service of process and suit in the ing business for any other purpose. state, or (3) required to qualify to Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Ne- do business in the state. The level braska, New Jersey, North Dakota, of business activity that will con- Oklahoma, and Vermont provide stitute doing business is dif- that their doing business definition ferent for each category. In sections do not apply in determin- Filmakers Releasing Organ. v. ing the contacts or activities that Realart Pictures, 1 the court noted may subject a foreign corporation that “This much seems to be to service of process or taxation in clear. .the greatest amount of the state. 3 Colorado, Delaware, business activity is required to sub- Florida and Utah state that their ject a corporation to the state’s doing business definitions do not statutory qualification require- apply to the question of whether a ments.” 2 Therefore, where a corpo- foreign corporation is subject to ration’s activities in a state are service of process and suit. 4 Neva- sufficient to require qualification, it da and Virginia exclude personal follows that the corporation will jurisdiction from their definition. 5 also be amenable to service of pro- Minnesota and New Hampshire cess and to being taxed by the state. 3. Code of Georgia Annotated, Sec. 14-2- 1. 374 S.W. 2d 535 (Mo. App. 1964). 1501; Kentucky Revised Statutes, Sec. 14A.9- 2. See also: Wagner and Wagner Auto 010; Michigan Compiled Laws, Sec. Sales, Inc. v. Tarro, 889 A.2d 875 (Conn. 450.2012; Revised Statutes of Nebraska, Sec. App. 2006), Sinewellan Corp. v. Farmers 21-20,105; New Jersey Statutes Annotated, Bank of Delaware , 345 A. 2d 430 (Del. Super. Sec. 14A:13-3; North Dakota Century Code 1975); Alliance Steel, Inc. v. Piland , 134 P.3d Annotated, Sec. 10-19.1-143; Oklahoma 669 (Kan. App. 2006); Marco Leather Co. v. Statutes Annotated, Title 18, Sec. 1132; Ver- Argentinas , 617 N.Y.S. 2d 617 (Sup. 1994); mont Statutes Annotated, Title 11A, Sec. Ronson Art Metal Works, Inc. v. Brown & 15.01. Bigelow, Inc. , 104 F. Supp. 716 (S.D.N.Y.
Recommended publications
  • In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division
    Case 2:08-cv-00462-DF -CE Document 1 Filed 12/04/08 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION LEON STAMBLER, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08cv462 § MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC; § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & § SMITH INCORPORATED; THE CHARLES § SCHWAB CORPORATION; CHARLES § SCHWAB & CO, INC.; CHARLES § SCHWAB BANK; E*TRADE FINANCIAL § CORPORATION; E*TRADE BANK; § FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES, LLC; § NATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC; § FMR LLC; MORGAN STANLEY; § MORGAN STANLEY & CO. § INCORPORATED; JACK HENRY & § ASSOCIATES, INC.; METAVANTE § TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; METAVANTE § CORPORATION; PAYPAL, INC.; § AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY; § AMERICAN BANK OF COMMERCE; § BB&T CORPORATION; BRANCH § BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY; THE § COLONIAL BANCGROUP, INC.; § COLONIAL BANK; FIRST NATIONAL § BANK GROUP, INC.; FIRST NATIONAL § BANK; HSBC NORTH AMERICA § HOLDINGS INC.; HSBC USA INC.; HSBC § BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; § HSBC NATIONAL BANK USA; § LEGACYTEXAS GROUP, INC.; § LEGACYTEXAS BANK; THE PNC § FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.; § PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; § PNC BANK, DELAWARE; PROSPERITY § BANCSHARES, INC.; PROSPERITY § BANK; STERLING BANCSHARES, INC.; § STERLING BANK; SUNTRUST BANKS, § INC.; SUNTRUST BANK; TEXAS § CAPITAL BANCSHARES, INC.; TEXAS § CAPITAL BANK, NATIONAL § 1 Case 2:08-cv-00462-DF -CE Document 1 Filed 12/04/08 Page 2 of 13 ASSOCIATION; U.S. BANCORP; U.S. § BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; § ZIONS BANCORPORATION; ZIONS § FIRST NATIONAL BANK; and AMEGY § BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION § § Defendants. § § PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Plaintiff LEON STAMBLER files this Original Complaint against the above-named Defendants, alleging as follows: I. THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff LEON STAMBLER (“Stambler”) is an individual residing in Parkland, Florida. 2. Defendant MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC.
    [Show full text]
  • Combined Registration Application Online at Executive Order on Privacy and State Data System 24 Hours a Day
    MARYLAND Combined Registration 2015 FORM Application CRA SECTION A: All applicants must complete this section. 1 a. 9 digit Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN) (See instructions.) b. Social Security Number (SSN) of owner, officer or agent responsible for taxes (Required by law.) 2. Legal name of dealer, employer, corporation or owner 3. Trade name (if different from Legal name of dealer, employer, corporation or owner.) 4. Street Address of physical business location (P.O. box not acceptable) City County State ZIP code (9 digits if known) Telephone number Fax number E-mail address 5. Mailing address (P.O. box acceptable) City State ZIP code (9 digits if known) 6. Reason for applying: New business Additional location(s) Merger Purchased going business Re-activate/Re-open (Check all that apply.) Change of entity Remit use tax on purchases Reorganization Other (describe) _________________________ 7. Previous owner’s name: First Name or Corporation Name Last Name Title Telephone number Street address (P.O. box acceptable) City State ZIP code (9 digits if known) 8. Type of registration: (must check appropriate box(es)) Maryland Number if registered: 9. Type of ownership: (Check one box) a. Sales and use tax _________________________ a. Sole proprietorship f. Non-Maryland corporation b. Sales and use tax exemption b. Partnership g. Governmental for nonprofit organizations _________________________ c. Nonprofit organization h. Fiduciary c. Tire recycling fee _________________________ d. Maryland corporation i. Business trust d. Admissions & amusement tax _________________________ e. Limited liability company e. Employer withholding tax _________________________ 10. Date first sales made f. Unemployment insurance _________________________ in Maryland: (mmddyyyy) ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ g.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Doing Business in Maryland
    Doing Business in Maryland: Outlook 2018 A supplement to Subscribe Today! Real Estate Insider Child abuse lawsuit Report says high-end apartments doing well, Victim sues Prince George’s County school system, *Maria Johnson Darby plus other deals, leases and relocations. 9A alleging hire made despite criminal record. 10A Katie Allston, LCSW-C *Sen. Cheryl C. Kagan Get Maryland’s daily statewide source for business,Amy E. Askew law,Dr. Rita Rastogi Kalyani government and real estate news. 2017 Debra Reznick Attman Dr. Shohreh A. Kaynama Mythili “Lee” Bachu Marguerite O. Kelley Zoa D. Barnes Sharon Krevor-Weisbaum Angie Barnett Bonnie Krosin Walakewon Blegay Sharon Kroupa Dr. Mary Way Bolt Bonnie N. Luna Tammy Brumwell Bresnahan Ganesha Martin *Alison Gates Brown Robin McKinney Rev. Lettie Moses Carr, Esq. Jennifer Meyer Nona Carroll Thursday, April 7, 2016 Volume 127 | Number 128 TheDailyRecord.com Karen C. Miller Karen S. Cherry Robin Motter-Mast, D.O. Maryland’s trusted source of business, legal and government news 2017 Kathleen M. Murphy Hon. Karen Murphy Jensen Martha Nathanson Candace Breland Osunsade Bill jailing Cecilia B. Paizs Leadership *Hon. Nicole Pastore-Klein ‘Black Panther’ a hot item Del. Edith J. Patterson hosts of in w Katherine Pinkard Md. comic book stores report strong interest in Ta-Nehisi Coates series La June A. Poole Cynthia Blake Sanders Ronnie Lapinsky Sax teen parties Dr. Kim Schatzel Marianne Schmitt Hellauer Nichelle D. Schoultz Tina M. Corner weakened *Carol Coughlin *Joan Webb Scornaienchi Corryne Deliberto Stephanie L. Shack Key senator concerned Cari DeSantis Indira K. Sharma Kimberly Conway Michele A Shermak, MD, FACS college students could Dumpson, Esq., CFRE *Terry D.
    [Show full text]
  • COVID-19 Relief Programs for Businesses and Employers
    Last Updated August 31, 2020 COVID-19 Relief Programs for Businesses and Employers paul, weiss, rifkind, wharton & garrison llp table of contents 01 | Alabama 40 | Louisiana 70 | Ohio 02 | Alaska 41 | Maine 73 | Oklahoma 02 | Arizona 43 | Maryland 75 | Oregon 04 | Arkansas 44 | Massachusetts 75 | Pennsylvania 05 | California 47 | Michigan 79 | Rhode Island 21 | Colorado 50 | Minnesota 80 | South Carolina 22 | Connecticut 51 | Mississippi 82 | South Dakota 23 | Delaware 51 | Missouri 83 | Tennessee 24 | Florida 54 | Montana 85 | Texas 25 | Georgia 55 | Nebraska 86 | Utah 26 | Hawaii 56 | Nevada 90 | Vermont 27 | Idaho 58 | New Hampshire 91 | Virginia 27 | Illinois 58 | New Jersey 94 | Washington State 31 | Indiana 63 | New Mexico 95 | West Virginia 31 | Iowa 64 | New York 96 | Wisconsin 34 | Kansas 67 | North Carolina 97 | Wyoming 38 | Kentucky 68 | North Dakota 9 8 | District of Columbia © 2020 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. In some jurisdictions, this publication may be considered attorney advertising. Past representations are no guarantee of future outcomes. COVID-19 Relief Programs for Businesses and Employers Alabama State-Wide Programs . Agricultural Stabilization Program . Qualifying Alabama individuals and businesses in various agricultural industries including (i) cattle production, (ii) meat processing, (iii) poultry farming, (iv) catfish processing, (v) fruit and vegetable processing, (vi) food production pursuant to the USDA’s Coronavirus Food Assistance Program, and (vii) plant nurseries are eligible for funds related to business lost and/or protective equipment and supplies purchased in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic. Funds available vary based on agricultural industry. Meat processing, catfish processing and fruit and vegetable processing available now.
    [Show full text]
  • Committed to Our Communities
    Johns Hopkins Committed to Our Communities MARYLAND AND BEYOND COVER: The Johns Hopkins Hospital Billings Dome in the context of Baltimore City 80 Broad Street Room 611 appleseed New York, NY 10004 This report was prepared by Appleseed, a New York City-based consulting firm, P: 212.964.9711 founded in 1993, that provides economic research and analysis and economic F: 212.964.2415 development planning services to government, non-profit and corporate clients. www.appleseedinc.com MARYLAND AND BEYOND Committed to our Communities April 2015 4 COMMITTED TO OUR COMMUNITIES Contents 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 17 INTRODUCTION 19 PART ONE / Johns Hopkins in Maryland and beyond – an overview 29 PART TWO / Johns Hopkins as an enterprise 59 PART THREE / Contributing to the development of Maryland’s human capital 71 PART FOUR / Maryland’s leading research institution 83 PART FIVE / Improving health in Maryland and beyond 91 PART SIX / A global enterprise 99 PART SEVEN / Innovation and entrepreneurship at Johns Hopkins 113 PART EIGHT / Investing in and serving our communities 131 PART NINE / The impact of affiliated institutions 137 PART TEN / Johns Hopkins and the future of Maryland’s economy 141 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS MARYLAND AND BEYOND 5 6 COMMITTED TO OUR COMMUNITIES Executive Summary Johns Hopkins as an enterprise • In FY 2014, Johns Hopkins spent nearly $213.6 million on construction and renova- Johns Hopkins is Maryland’s largest private em- tion, including $150.1 million paid to con- ployer, a major purchaser of goods and services, tractors and subcontractors based in Maryland. a sponsor of construction projects and a magnet This investment directly supported 1,104 FTE for students and visitors.
    [Show full text]
  • Governor O'malley, County Executive Leggett Announce Region's First Clean Energy Center
    Press Release: Maryland Receives Grant to Help Strengthen Underperfo... http://www.governor.maryland.gov/pressreleases/090302b.asp Maryland Receives Grant to Help Strengthen Underperforming Schools National Governor’s Association grant is funded by Gates and Prudential Foundations ANNAPOLIS, MD (March 2, 2009) – Governor Martin O’Malley announced today that Maryland has received a grant from the National Governors Association (NGA) for a one-year project designed to spur improvement in chronically low-performing schools. The grant, one of just four funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Prudential Foundation, will provide the State with up to $150,000, plus assistance in research and development of new strategies to increase academic achievement in underperforming schools. The NGA’s Center for Best Practices will assist Maryland in the development of its plan. “America’s number one public school system must do everything it can to remain the best in the nation while ensuring that every Maryland child receives a quality education regardless of where they live,” said Governor O’Malley. “The National Governor’s Association shares these principles, and we are grateful for this support. Their partnership in this endeavor demonstrates that we all have a stake in the future of our children.” Maryland has gained a well-deserved reputation for its high academic standards and strong accountability measures, and those measures have paid off over time. All 24 school systems across the state have posted steady academic improvement for five straight years, and Education Week Magazine recently cited the state’s public school system as the nation’s best.
    [Show full text]
  • COMPARISON of the PRINCIPAL PROVISIONS of the DELAWARE and MARYLAND CORPORATION STATUTES James J. Hanks, Jr. Venable LLP Baltimo
    COMPARISON OF THE PRINCIPAL PROVISIONS OF THE DELAWARE AND MARYLAND CORPORATION STATUTES James J. Hanks, Jr. Venable LLP Baltimore, Maryland Copyright 2018 COMPARISON OF THE PRINCIPAL PROVISIONS OF THE DELAWARE AND MARYLAND CORPORATION STATUTES Table of Contents Page FOREWORD .................................................................................................................................. v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1 ADVANTAGEOUS PROVISIONS OF THE MARYLAND GENERAL CORPORATION LAW ............................................................................................................................................ 1 ADVANTAGEOUS PROVISIONS OF THE DELAWARE GENERAL CORPORATION LAW .......................................................................................................................................... 16 I. ORGANIZATION.................................................................................................................... 23 1. Incorporation...................................................................................................................... 23 2. Corporate Names ............................................................................................................... 24 3. Amendment to Charter or Certificate of Incorporation ..................................................... 25 4. Extrinsic Events ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • GUIDE to Doing Business on the US East Coast for Dutch Companies Information for Small and Medium Enterprises, Startups, and Scale-Ups 2 Contents
    LOPENDE TITEL 1 GUIDE TO Doing Business on the US East Coast for Dutch Companies Information for small and medium enterprises, startups, and scale-ups 2 Contents Introduction 5 Foreword Ambassador Haspels 6 Foreword Pauline Dirkmaat 7 Chapter 1: An introduction to the US East Coast 8 1 The US East Coast: a Great Place for Internationalizing Companies 9 2 East Coast vs. West Coast 10 3 Business Culture 11 4 Dutch Government Network on the East Coast 12 Chapter 2: Practical Information for Setting Up a Business on the US East Coast 13 1 Legal Aspects 14 1.1 The three Levels of Law & Incorporation 14 1.2 Immigration: Getting to and Staying in the US 14 1.3 Insurance 15 2 Finance and Banking 15 3 Human Resources 15 4 Communication and Networking 16 4.1 Communication Tips 16 4.2 Networking Tips 17 5 Practical Tips for Startups 18 5.1 Raising Capital 18 5.2 Pitching 19 5.3 Other Resources for Startups 20 Chapter 3: Boston 21 1 Introduction 22 2 Why Boston? 23 3 Key Sectors in Boston 23 3.1 Life Sciences and Health 23 3.2 Cleantech 24 3.3 Artificial Intelligence 24 3.4 Robotics 25 3.5 Edtech, FinTech and Cybersecurity 25 4 Startup Ecosystem Drivers 26 5 Other Resources 28 Chapter 4: New York City 30 1 A Brief Background 31 2 Why New York City? 31 3 Key Sectors & Opportunities 32 3.1 Finance, FinTech & Cybersecurity 32 3.2 Life Sciences and Health and Biotech 32 3.3 Creative Industries 33 3.4 Manufacturing 34 3.5 Circular Economy & Resiliency 34 3.6 Cleantech & Energy 35 3.7 Water Management & Resiliency 35 4 Startups and Scale-ups 35 5 New York Online Resources 38 CONTENTS 3 Chapter 5: Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidents, Insurers Domiciled in Massachusetts That Write Workers' Compensation Business in Maryland
    ROBERT L. EHRLICH, JR. GOVERNOR JAMES V. MCMAHAN, III ACTING COMMISSIONER MICHAEL S. STEELE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR LESTER C. SCHOTT ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER EXAMINATION & AUDITING STATE OF MARYLAND MARYLAND INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION 525 St. Paul Place, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-2272 Writer’s Direct Dial: 410-468-2119 Facsimile Number: 410-468-2101 e-mail : [email protected] BULLETIN 05-14 To: Presidents, Insurers Domiciled in Massachusetts that Write Workers' Compensation Business in Maryland Re: Deposits for Workers' Compensation Liabilities in Maryland Date: December 8, 2005 ______________________________________________________________________________ On April 7, 2004, the Administration issued Bulletin, 04-6, Deposits for Workers’ Compensation Liabilities in Maryland. Bulletin 04-6 describes how the insurance statutes of California and Massachusetts require insurers writing workers’ compensation business in those states, including foreign insurers, to deposit funds with those states to secure the insurers workers’ compensation obligations in those states. The Bulletin explained that Section 6-303 of the Insurance Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland requires the Administration to impose the same deposit requirement on insurers domiciled in California and Massachusetts that are authorized to write workers’ compensation business in Maryland. Bulletin 04-6 included as an attachment a Maryland Retaliatory Deposit Schedule to be filed with the Administration annually by insurers domiciled in California and Massachusetts and authorized to write workers’ compensation business in Maryland. The purpose of the Maryland Retaliatory Deposit Schedule is to compute the amount of the deposit each insurer is required to provide to the Administration pursuant to Section 6-303. The Maryland Retaliatory Deposit Schedule is designed to compute the amount in the same manner that California and Massachusetts compute deposit amounts for insurers writing workers’ compensation business in those states.
    [Show full text]
  • Statutory Representation Ct Corporation
    Statutory Representation Ct Corporation foregoesAnalyzed someTommy revisitations usually psychoanalyze after Pompeian some Zelig guide overwhelm or carnify phrenologically. augustly. Derby deek painstakingly? Cockeyed Maurits And current text, ct corporation dissolution actions Our expert business filing team is made up of former Secretary of State filers, the court will then decide by trial, you should use a reputable company. Help you find accountants and legal professionals in your state. How is a Limited Liability Company Taxed? For support, like tax documents and compliance reminders that are sent by the Secretary of State. Again, or part level. NO EMPLOYEE OR AGENT OF VCORP OR ANY VCORP PARTY IS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE ANY STATEMENT THAT ADDS TO OR AMENDS ANY OF THE WARRANTIES OR LIMITATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS AGREEMENT. Superior Court of Massachusetts, it could mean a process server or angry litigant could come to your home to serve you with notice of a lawsuit, and Uniform Commercial Code receives a large amount of submissions throughout the day which makes it unlikely that a duplicate submission will be recognized as such prior to its processing. This Quick Start Guide is a brief overview of how to form an LLC in Connecticut. Business compliance requires global expertise. At such time, attorneys, and other documents. How permanent is the leasing office address? Both of us have physical mailing address of our resident. This address can be in New York or out of state. Links to agent websites will open in a new window. This is provided which units for statutory representation or drs in? Finally, acts of God, which state are you referring to and which address field in the filing form? The authority citation is given in the shortest form.
    [Show full text]
  • Jurisdiction of Maryland Courts Over Foreign Corporations Under the Act of 1937 G
    Maryland Law Review Volume 3 | Issue 1 Article 3 Jurisdiction of Maryland Courts Over Foreign Corporations Under the Act of 1937 G. Kenneth Reiblich Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr Part of the Jurisdiction Commons Recommended Citation G. K. Reiblich, Jurisdiction of Maryland Courts Over Foreign Corporations Under the Act of 1937, 3 Md. L. Rev. 35 (1938) Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol3/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1938) MARYLAND LAW REVIEW JURISDICTION OF MARYLAND COURTS OVER FOREIGN CORPORATIONS UNDER THE ACT OF 1937 By G. KENNETH REIBLICH* In the Laws of 1937, Ch. 504, the Maryland legislature made an extentive revision of the corporation laws with reference to the assertion of jurisdiction of the Maryland Courts over foreign corporations.1 The new statute elimi- nates certain provisions of the old law;2 consolidates cer- tain features concerning domestic and foreign corpora- tions;8 enlarges upon the means of service formerly al- lowed ;4 and makes more explicit in several instances, and expands definitely in others the jurisdiction that may be exercised over foreign companies. In doing this, however, the law may encroach upon territory already constitution- ally closed by United States Supreme Court decision. In some instances, it enters undiscovered, or at least un- claimed regions of doubtful constitutionality.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
    Case: 3:08-cv-00456-slc Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/08 Page 1 of 58 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN WACOH COMPANY, § § Plaintiff § § v. § Case No.08-CV-456 § CHRYSLER LLC; § FORD MOTOR COMPANY; § AMERICA HONDA MOTOR CO. INC.; § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC..; § GM CORPORATION; § VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF § AMERICA, INC.; § BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, L.L.C.; § MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC; § AMERICAN SUZUKI MOTOR § CORPORATION, § § Defendants PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Wacoh Company (“Wacoh”) files this Original Complaint against Defendants, Chrysler LLC (“Chrysler”), Ford Motor Company (“Ford”), American Honda Motor Co. Inc. (“Honda”), Mazda Motor of America, Inc. (“Mazda”), GM Corporation (“GM”), Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Inc. (“Volkswagen”), BMW of North America, L.L.C. (“BMW”), Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Mercedes”) and American Suzuki Motor Corporation (“Suzuki”) and alleges as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Wacoh Company is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Japan, with its principal place of business at Saitama, Japan. Case: 3:08-cv-00456-slc Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/08 Page 2 of 58 2. Chrysler, on information and belief, is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. Chrysler is doing business in Wisconsin, and, on information and belief, has a principal place of business at 1000 Chrysler Dr., Auburn Hills, MI 48326-2766. Chrysler may be served with process by serving its Wisconsin registered agent, the CT Corporation System, 8025 Excelsior Dr Ste 200, Madison, WI 53717-2902. 3. Ford, on information and belief, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware.
    [Show full text]