California Corporate & Securities Law

California Corporations Code Section 25118(b) provides an exemption from the state's usury limitations for loans. The exemption is subject to several conditions. One condition is the existence of either a preexisting relationship or a level of...

Meredith Ervine recently wrote about reverse stock splits and Nasdaq listed issuers. A reverse stock split is the "go to" solution for many listed issuers whose share prices fall below the minimum continued stock exchange listing requirements....

Part 5 of the California Corporate Securities Law of 1968 sets forth a number of fraudulent and prohibited practices.  One of these practices is to "to offer or sell a security in this state, or to buy or offer to buy a security in this state, by...

As has been widely reported, the California Department of Financial Protection & Innovation announced that it has taken possession of another California chartered bank - First Republic Bank. This is the second California state bank failure this...

The California Corporations Code is a strange place to look for guidance on the rights and obligations of spouses during marriage. However, Section 721(b) of the Family Code provides that the relationship between spouses "is a fiduciary relationship...

California Corporations Code Section 307(a)(8) provides that an act or decision done or made by a majority of the directors present at a meeting duly held at which a quorum is present is the act of the board, subject to the provisions of Section 310...

Brett Kissel's mic died when he began to sing the national anthem at a 2017 Ducks/Oilers game in Edmonton.  The local fans, however, pitched in and loudly finished the U.S. national anthem. It seems that Canadians have concluded that their burning of...

Over at The Mentor Blog, Broc Romanek recently addressed the question of whether minutes of an annual meeting must be signed.  Broc's post provides John Jenkins' answer under Delaware law.  For those interested in California law, I provided three...

Last Friday's post concerned the status of the de facto merger doctrine in California.  The late Harold Marsh Jr. made the following observation about the de facto mergerdoctrine in his magnum opus: