Articles Posted in Business Law

Often times legal disputes can involve foreign entities or even foreign laws.  Where these disputes also deal with the United States, domestic laws will come into play.  In 1958, the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, which is also called the New York Convention.  It requires contracting state courts to give effect to agreements to arbitrate and to recognize arbitration awards.  Indeed, parties can enforce international arbitration awards in the United States through federal courts.  However, as Toho Towa, Ltd. v. Morgan Creek Productions demonstrates, state procedural laws can help parties collect international awards.

What Did the Court Hold in Toho Towa, Ltd. v. Morgan Creek Productions?

In this case, the Second District Court of Appeal applied an international arbitration award and allowed the claimant to enforce the award against a parent company that did not participate in the initial arbitration.  The claimant in this case was Toho Towa, Ltd., a Japanese corporation.  Morgan Creek International B.V., a Dutch entity, and Morgan Creek International Ltd., a Bermuda corporation were the original respondents.  The dispute involved an agreement among Morgan Creek International BC, the signatory; Morgan Creek International, Ltd., the guarantor; and Toho Towa, Ltd.  The agreement dealt with the right to distribute the movie “The Good Shepherd” in Japan.  The original arbitration award rewarded over $5 million to the claimant.  Toho Towa then petitioned a California state court to confirm the award.  According to California law, (Code of Civil Procedure § 1287.4) the international arbitration award effectively became a court judgment.  However, Toho Towa soon learned that the subsidiary companies did not have the resources to satisfy the judgment.  Once again, Toho Towa petitioned the California courts to add the parent company, Morgan Creek Productions, as a debtor on the judgment.  This meant that the parent company would now be liable for the full judgment.

The decision of where to register a legal entity–such as a corporation, partnership, or LLC–affects the management and operation of such a business. For example, different states have different tax standards for registered entities, different operational requirements, and ultimately, the law effects businesses differently based on where they are registered. Indeed, legal entities are free to register wherever they prefer. Accordingly, California businesses can take advantage of certain benefits based on where they register. Please contact us today to speak to an attorney about the circumstances and characteristics of your business to decide the most advantageous state in which to register your business.

What Are the Advantages of Registering a Legal Entity in California or Nevada?

Nevada is a favorable jurisdiction where legal entities can register primarily because it does not have corporate or personal income tax liabilities. Nevada also does not have a franchise tax for legal entities. Furthermore, a corporation that is registering in Nevada enjoys an extremely strong defense against attempts to “pierce the corporate veil.” Accordingly, in the event that the corporation is involved in a lawsuit, Nevada’s corporate law makes it difficult for a claimant against the corporation to hold the individual officers responsible for personal liability. In fact, this level of protection for corporate officers stems from a California case. As such, California corporations also enjoy a similar level of protection for corporate officers. Indeed, California also provides heightened confidentiality for corporate officers–a corporation must only disclose its corporate director and resident agents, not its stockholders. Also, California provides corporations with a greater level of flexibility in its management. Other than requiring a president, secretary, and chief financial officer, California corporate law allows corporations to organize as they see fit.

In recent times, alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) is emerging as a favorable option for legal disputes due to rising litigation costs and the strain of growing caseloads for California state and federal courts. While state courts adopted ADR as an option to legal resolution earlier, federal courts are adopting various ADR options now as a means of resolving cases. ADR includes any method of seeking a legal resolution outside of court other than traditional civil litigation, which takes place in court. The various ADR options, include, but are not limited to, early neutral evaluation, mediation, arbitration, and negotiation. As federal courts look to these options to resolve cases, ADR continues to move to the forefront as a viable tool for all types of legal disputes.

What Role Does ADR Play in Federal Courts?

While parties can instigate ADR proceedings on their own, often courts will refer cases to ADR in order to resolve a legal dispute. Indeed, according to a study by the Federal Judicial Center, all federal courts authorize some type of alternative dispute resolution. Today, more than 30% of federal courts allow for various forms of ADR proceedings. Mediation has emerged as the most common form of ADR for federal cases. Courts will refer cases to mediation in an attempt to resolve the conflicting issues outside of court, which also allows a resolution that is mutually-beneficial and less hostile than litigation. Arbitration and Early Neutral Evaluation are also common forms of ADR in federal cases. Most recently, federal courts have adopted ADR programs for pro se litigants, or parties who are not represented by attorneys.

As part of California’s laws against unfair competition, the state provides a remedy to businesses that are victims of trade libel. Trade libel constitutes published false communications regarding the quality of services of products that a business provides, resulting in financial loss to this business. Are you a victim of false representations regarding your products or services? Have you sustained financial damages as a result of these false representations? If you answered “yes” to either question, you may have a claim for trade libel against these false representations! At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, an attorney with experience and knowledge in business law and trade libel suits can help guide you through the legal remedies.

What Are the Necessary Elements of a Trade Libel Suit?

To maintain a suit for trade libel, a plaintiff must first prove that another party published a false statement. A published statement is not limited to a printed book. Indeed, “published” can include anything from communications over the internet to advertisements. While the specifics of what constitutes “published” is a controversial area of law, courts will generally find that if a third party has access to a communication, that statement is deemed published. Such a communication can be either written or spoken to satisfy this requirement. Next, the statement must actually be false. If a defendant makes a statement about a business that results in financial damages, the business cannot file a lawsuit if the statement was true. Additionally, the defendant must know that the statement is false. While there are remedies available if a defendant negligently makes statements that cause financial harm to a business, to maintain an action for trade libel, the defendant must knowingly make the false statement. The false statement must also cause financial loss to the business. Such a loss can include a loss of reputation if the business can establish that the reputational decline will lead to a loss of future business, and as such, a future financial loss. Finally, a person making a false statement must intend to communicate the statement as a fact, not merely as an opinion. Therefore, a customer who expresses an opinion that a business provides a service of a poor quality is not subject to a trade libel suit.

As of January 1, 2012, under California Corporations Code §§ 2500-3503, traditional business corporations may organize as “Flexible Purpose Corporations.” Whereas previously, corporate directors were bound to manage corporations strictly for economic gain, this new organizational model grants directors the freedom to manage the corporation for social and environmental benefits. This gives corporations the opportunity to organize and operate as socially-aware entities, while preserving their right to maintain a for-profit operation.

What Are the Advantages of Flexible Purpose Corporations?

To qualify as a flexible purpose corporation, a company must operate so as to have a positive effect on one of the following: the community, society, environment, its employers, customers, creditors, or suppliers. Flexible Purpose Corporations also maintain greater freedom because in certain circumstances the company can waive out of extensive annual reporting requirements. Supporters of flexible purpose corporations explain that serving as a shareholder for such a corporation is increasingly beneficial because such shareholders are able to embrace the rewards of serving a greater societal interest.