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

Secretary Of State Seeks To Rework Entity Name Requirements While Retaining Ineluctable Incertitude

Ten years ago today, I penned an opinion piece decrying the inconsistencies of California's statutory requirements for entity names.  

"A Large part of California's business naming problem is due to the fact that the Legislature has enacted different standards for determining whether a business name is acceptable for filing with the Secretary of State."

Naming a Business is Never Easy in California, Daily Journal (Jan. 13, 2010).  As of last week, I ceased to be a voice crying in the wilderness, when Senator Hertzberg gutted and amended SB 522 to address the problem.  

In its current state, the bill suffers from several defects.  For example, it retains the "likely to mislead" standard in addition to the "distinguishable in the records" standard.  This makes California inconsistent with the Model Business Corporation Act, the Delaware General Corporation Law and Nevada law.  Moreover, as I pointed out a decade ago the "likely to mislead" standard suffers from an ineluctable incertitude:

"The ‘likely to mislead’ standard suffers from a significant problem.  Domestic corporations aren’t required to say exactly what they plan to do in their articles of incorporation.  Similarly, foreign corporations aren’t required to disclose the nature of their business when they qualify to transact business here.  As a result, the Secretary of State in most cases has no way of assessing whether a name is likely to mislead the public.  Further the statutory standard itself is fraught with problems.  Does the standard require that there is simply a possibility of misleading the public or that some threshold of probability must be satisfied?  If it is the later, is the threshold more likely than not or a greater or lesser threshold?  Finally, how is the Secretary of State to determine the likelihood of deception?"

Because SB 522 was introduced in 2019, it must pass out of the Senate by the end of this month.  Joint Rule No. 61(b)(3) & Cal. Const., Art. IV, Sec. 10(c).  It will be heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow and (pending receipt) the Senate Banking and Financial Institutions Committee on Wednesday.

“Who will go drive with Fergus now?”

Today, marks the 79th anniversary of the death of James Augustine Aloysius Joyce in Zurich, Switzerland.  Upon learning of her father's passing, his mentally ill daughter, Lucia, reportedly said: "What is he doing under the ground, that idiot?  When will he decide to come out?  He’s watching us all the time.”  According to Irish author Dermot McEvoy, that "was such an Irish and Joycean reaction to death that I think her father, the old reprobate still cold under that Zurich soil, would have been delighted".  

 

 

Share on:

California Corporations Code, California Secretary of State

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

NationalLawReview

badge-author-large

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