EmpireCollegeSchool of Law
Business Organizations Final
Issue Outline
April 9, 2007
Question One – Pirates of the Caribbean
- Dissolution
- One-third shares to dissolve in California
- Purchase of shares by non-dissolving shareholders
- Termination of employment
- At will employee
- Fiduciary duties (employed for life, business purpose, less drastic alternative?)
- Nonpayment of dividend – problem?
- Refusal to provide records – problem?
- Removal as officer – valid?
- Removal as director – valid?
- Addition of new director – valid?
- Cumulative voting – Can Jack still elect himself? (Yes, if new shares aren’t issued)
- Issuance of shares to Will and Elizabeth – valid?
- Purchase of Jack’s shares – valid?
- Lack of notice
- Purchase at company’s option, does Jack vote?
- Appraisal – good faith?
- Securities law concerns (knowledge of merger when purchasing Jack’s shares?)
- Shareholders agreement – valid? (payment of salaries, naming of officers)
- Withdrawal of shareholders – trigger buyout? Can Will and Elizabeth withdraw?
- Pass through taxation – unfair to eliminate Jack?
- Conclusion
Question Two – Presidents, Inc.
- 16(a) reporting requirement – did anyone file?
- Securities laws
- 10b-5 – insider trading and misappropriation
- 16(b)
- 14e-3 – tender offer
- 12/12/06 Issuance of debentures – 10b-5 insider trading?
- 1/1/07 – Is Gore greater than 10% shareholder?
- 4/4/07 – Reagan trade
- Death exception to 16(b)?
- spousal attribution for 16(b)
- Violation of 16(b) - $2,000,000 profit (200,000*20)-(200,000*10)
- 5/5/07 sales
- Clinton - $18,900,000 profit (210,000*100) - (210,000*10)
- Gore – doesn’t violate 16(b) – why?
- Bush - $34,000,000 profit (400,000*100)-(200,000*10)-(200,000*20)
- No one is liable – Forced sale pursuant to merger
- 10b-5 violations
- Bush trade with Nancy
- Quayle misappropriation
- Clinton breach of duty in restaurant
- Gore and Clinton did abstain
- 14e-3 violation
- Quayle knew about tender offer
- Conclusion for each individual
- Clinton
- Gore
- Bush
- Reagan
- Quayle
Question Three – Katrina and Sophia combination
- Statutory merger of companies
- Board approval from both
- Shareholder approval and appraisal rights for both
- Number of Sophia shares outstanding (must it be a cash merger?)
- Assumption of liabilities by Sophia
- Triangular or reverse triangular merger
- Board approval from both
- Only shareholders of Katrina have approval, appraisal rights
- Same issue with outstanding Sophia shares
- No assumption of liabilities by Sophia
- Asset acquisition
- Board approval from both
- No shareholder approval?
- No appraisal rights?
- Practical effect of appraisal rights – not good for shareholders, may not exercise
- Perhaps can eliminate bank from acquisition
- No assumption of liabilities by Sophia
- De Facto Merger doctrine
- Tender offer
- No Board approval from Katrina
- No shareholder approval from either company
- State statutes (back-end merger)
- Unocal analysis for poison pill and staggered board
- Unocal for cancellation fee and lockup
- Revlon duties triggered? Public companies?
- Poison Pill redemption?
- Dissolution of Katrina, distribution of favored assets to Sophia
- Fiduciary duty of controlling shareholder
- Entire fairness
- Conclusion – Recommend something