Contact us with your California corporate & securities law questions (949) 353-6347 or Contact us here

Are Shares Of A Corporation Owned By A Subsidiary Entitled To Vote?

Are shares of a corporation owned by its subsidiary entitled to vote?  The answer depends, in part, on what constitutes a subsidiary.  California Corporations Code Section 703(b) provides a succinct answer: "Shares of a corporation owned by its subsidiary shall not be entitled to vote on any matter".  Brevity may be the soul of wit, but reading Section 703(b) in isolation does not provide a complete answer 

Suppose, for example, that corporation A owns 30% of corporation B's issued and outstanding shares and B owns 15% of A's issued and outstanding shares of A.   Does Section 703(b) vitiate the voting rights of either corporation?  The answer depends, in part, on the meaning of "subsidiary" in the statute.  If B is the subsidiary of A, then the shares of A owned by B are not entitled to vote.  If A is the subsidiary of B, the the shares of B owned by A are not entitled to vote.

Section 189(b) provides that for purposes of Section 703, a subsidiary of a specified corporation is a corporation, the shares of which possess 25% of the voting power are owned directly or indirectly through one or more subsidiaries (as defined in Section 189(a)) by the specified corporation.  Thus, B is potentially a subsidiary of A, but A is not potentially a subsidiary of B.

I describe B as a potential subsidiary, because my example does not describe the voting rights of A shares owned by B.  Section 189(b) uses the term "voting power" which has a specific meaning under the California General Corporation Law.  Section 194.5 defines "voting power" refers to the power to vote for the election of directors at the time the determination of voting power is made.  Thus, if the A shares owned by B are not entitled to vote for directors, B would not be a "subsidiary".  Does anyone detect a circularity problem here?

Because Section 189 refers only to a "corporation", B would not technically be a subsidiary unless it were organized under the California General Corporation Law (cf. Sections 162 & 171).  Although I am somewhat doubtful that the legislature actually intended to limit Section 703(b) to "corporations", the legislature was clearly aware of the distinction because Section 703(a) refers to both "domestic" and "foreign" corporations.   

Finally, the use of the term "corporation" also excludes other entity types (e.g., limited liability companies and limited partnerships) from the definition of "subsidiary".  

Share on:

Corporate Governance

ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING CALIFORNIA CORPORATE AND SECURITIES LAW? CONTACT US DIRECTLY

We offer expert advice with the intricacies of California law.

Our years of experience and expertise allow us to help clients navigate the business laws in California.

CONTACT US

ABOUT OUR AUTHOR

30172DBAB0084D3A8F39D7AF0A8E79BC.ashx Keith Paul Bishop
Partner at Allen Matkins
(949) 353-6328
 Contact me
Learn More About Keith

RECOGNITION
JD Supra Readers Choice Top Author 2020

NationalLawReview



nominee-badge

Get the latest news and analysis about California Corporate & Securities law. Subscribe to our newsletter today!

We respect your email privacy

CATEGORIES

see all

YOUTUBE

FACEBOOK