b)On Estoppel Doctrine--the
effect of both acts is an unsettled issue.
c)On Liability--under the
prior Model Act, liability extends to investors who also exercise control or
actively participate in policy and operational decisions. It is expected that
the Revised Model Act will be interpreted in the same manner.
III.LIABILITIES FOR TRANSACTIONS BEFORE INCORPORATION.
A.PROMOTERS--a promoter participates in
the formation of the corp, usually arranging compliance with the legal
requirements of formation, securing initial capital, and entering into
necessary contracts on behalf of the corp during the time it’s being formed.
a)Fiduciary Duties to Each Other--Full
disclosure and fair dealing
are required between the promoters and the corp and among promoters themselves.
B.CONTRACTS MADE BY PROMOTERS ON CORP’S BEHALF
1.RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF CORPORATION:
a)English Rule--the corp
is not directly liable on pre-incorporation contracts even if later
ratified. Rationale: the corp was not yet in existence at the time the promoter
was acting.
b)American Rule--the corp
is liable if it later ratifies or adopts pre-incorporation K.
c)Corporation’s Right to Enforce
Contract--under either rule, the corp may enforce the contract against
the party with whom the promoter contracted, if it chooses to do so.
2.RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF PROMOTERS.
a)Liability on Pre-incorporation
Contract--generally, promoters are liable if the corp rejects the
pre-incorporation contract, fails to incorporate, or adopts a contract but
fails to perform, unless the contracting party clearly intended
to contract with the corporation only and not with the promoters individually.
b)Right to Enforce Against the
Other Party--if a corp is not formed, the promoter may still enforce
the contract.
C.OBLIGATIONS OF PREDECESSOR BUSINESS--a
corporation that acquires all of the assets of a predecessor business does not
ordinarily succeed to its liabilities, with exceptions:
a)Exceptions--the
successor corp may be liable for its predecessor liabilities if:
1)the new corp expressly or impliedly
assumes the predecessor obligations (the creditors of the old corp may hold the
new corp liable as third-party beneficiaries);
2)the sale was an attempted fraud
on the creditors; or
3)the predecessor is merged into or
absorbed by the successor.
IV.POWERS OF THE CORPORATION.
A.CORPORATE POWERS--generally, corporate
purposes and powers are those expressly set forth in the corporation’s
articles, those conferred by the statute, and the implied powers
necessary to carry out the express powers. Transactions beyond the purposes and
powers of the corporation are ultra vires.
1.TRADITIONAL PROBLEM AREAS--the
following three powers are particularly significant express powers, since older
statutes did not specifically confer them:
a)Guarantees--modern
statutes confer the power to guarantee the debts of others if it is in
furtherance of the corporate business;
b)Participation in a Partnership--present-day
statutes explicitly allow the corp to participate with others in any corp,
partnership, or other association;
c)Donations--because the
general rule is that the objective of a business corporation is to conduct
business activity with a view to profit, early cases held that charitable
contributions were ultra vires; the modern view permits reasonable
donations without showing the probability of a direct benefit to the corp.
B.AGENCY
1.DEFINITION--agency is the fiduciary
relation which results from the manifestation of consent by one person to
another that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control, and
consent by the other to so act." Rest2dAg
a)Parties to an agency
relationship--Principal & Agent. Thus, three essential elements of
an agency relationship:
1)Manifestation by principal that
agent shall act for him in some undertaking;
2)Acceptance by the agent; and
3)Understanding that the principal is
in control of the undertaking.
I)Note that these are factual
issues; if they are satisfied, then the relationship is one of agency,
regardless of what the parties themselves call it (but the parties' labels may
provide evidence of their intent)
2.CATEGORIES OF AGENCY
a)Actual Express Authority--authority
is the power of the agent to affect the legal relations of the principal by
acts done in accordance with the principal's manifestations of consent to
him." Rest §7. Operative word is "manifestation" . If he says,
do something, it's express ‑‑ but the manifestation may include
implied assent to other things as well, which is-->
b)Actual Implied Authority--unless
otherwise agreed, authority to conduct a transaction includes authority to do
acts which are incidental to it, usually accompany it, or are reasonably
necessary to accomplish it." Rest § 35
c)Apparent Authority ‑‑
a.k.a. "ostensible authority"--apparent authority is the power to
affect the legal relationships of another person by transactions with third
persons, professedly as agent for the other, arising from and in accordance
with the other's manifestations to such third persons." Rest §8. But note
that the manifestation includes allowing the agent to represent accurately his
own authority.
d)Inherent Authority--this
is the authority that inheres in an office. General agent (agent authorized to
conduct a series of transactions involving continuity of service): P is bound
if A is acting in the interests of P and A does an act usual or necessary with
respect to the authorized transactions ;
1)Unusual activities--depositing
corporate checks on a personal account is an unusual activity, and the bank
should make inquiry if the person is authorized to do that; otherwise, the bank
is liable to the principal for lost money (Mohr)
e)Ratification--ratification
is the affirmance by a person of a prior act which did not bind him but which
was done or professedly done on his account, whereby the act, as to some or all
persons, is given effect as if originally authorized by him." Rest § 82.
The principal can affirm by words, or by deeds. This includes the failure to
repudiate the subject matter when presented, suing to enforce the obligation,
retaining the benefits of the transaction. Note several things:
1)Ratification assumes that the
principal was not previously bound. If the principal had been previously bound,
then the liability would be based on another agency theory.
2)It doesn't matter to whom the
affirmance is made. It could be to the agent, to the third party, or anyone
else or nobody at all. Why? Because what was lacking in the original contract
was merely his expression of assent to the relationship of agency. The terms
are fixed, the third party believes he has an agreement, all that's missing is
the opposite party. So the President of the firm's note to himself that the
affirms may be sufficient. If there are some formalities required to authorize
an act ‑‑e.g., sealed instruments, deeds ‑‑ then there
might be additional formality required for affirmance.
f)Estoppel--purported
principal either (a) intentionally or carelessly causes the belief that a
purported agent is acting on his behalf, or (b) sits silently knowing that such
belief exists without taking reasonable steps, and the third party relies
detrimentally.
C.ULTRA VIRES TRANSACTIONS--those beyond
the purposes and powers, express and implied, of the corporation. Under common
law, shareholder ratification of an ultra vires transaction nullified the use
of an ultra vires defense by the corporation.
1.TORT ACTIONS--ultra vires is NO
defense to tort liability.
2.CRIMINAL ACTIONS--claims that a
corporate act was beyond the corp’s authorized powers are NO defense to
criminal liability.
3.CONTRACT ACTIONS--at common law, a
purely executory ultra vires contracts were NOT
enforceable against either party; fully performed contracts could
NOT be rescinded by either party; and, under the majority rule, partially
performed contracts were generally enforceable by the performing party,
since the nonperforming party was estopped to assert an ultra vires defense.
4.STATUTES--most states now have
statutes that preclude the use of ultra vires as a defense in a suit between
the contracting parties, but permit ultra vires to be raised in certain other
contexts:
a)Suits Against Officers or
Directors--if performance of an ultra vires contract results in a loss
to the corp, it can sue the officers or dirs for damages for exceeding their
authority.
b)Suit By State--these
limiting statutes do NOT bar the state from suing to enjoin a corp from
transacting unauthorized business.
c)Broad Certificate Provisions--when
the certificate of incorporation states that the purpose is to engage in any
lawful activity for which corp may be organized, ultra vires is unlikely to
arise.
V.MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL
A.ALLOCATION OF POWERS BETWEEN DIRECTORS AND
SHAREHOLDERS
1.MANAGEMENT OF CORPORATION’S BUSINESS--corporate
statutes vest the power to manage in the board of directors, except as
provided by valid agreement in a close corp. He board’s power is limited to proper
purposes.
2.SHAREHOLDER APPROVAL OF FUNDAMENTAL
CHANGES--shs must approve certain fundamental changes in the corp, e.g.,
amendment of articles, merger, sale of substantially all assets, and
dissolution.
3.POWER TO ELECT DIRECTORS--shs have
the power to elect dirs and to remove them for cause, absent provisions
for removal without cause in the certificate, bylaws, or in statutes. Some
statutes also permit the board or the courts to remove a dir for certain
specific reasons (e.g., felony conviction).
4.POWER TO RATIFY MANAGEMENT TRANSACTIONS--shs
have the power to ratify certain management transactions and insulate the
transactions against a claim that managers lacked authority, or shift the
burden on the issue of self-interest.
5.POWER TO ADOPT PRECATORY RESOLUTIONS--shs
may also adopt advisory but nonbinding (precatory) resolutions on proper
subjects of their concern.
6.BYLAWS--shs usually have the power
to adopt and amend bylaws, although some statutes give the board of dirs the
concurrent power to do this.
7.CLOSE CORPORATION--this is a corp
owned by a small number of shs who may actively manage; it has no general
market for its stock, and it has some limitations regarding transferability of
stock.
8.STATUTORY CLOSE CORPORATION STATUS--the
basic requirements to qualify for special treatment under the statutes are
that, in its cert of incorp’n, a statutory close corp must identify itself as
such, and must include certain limitations as to the number of shs,
transferability of shares, or both.
a)Functioning As a Close
Corporation--there may be sh agreements relating to any phase of the
corp affairs.
B.DIRECTORS
1.APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTORS--initial
dirs are either designated in the articles of incorporation or elected at a
meeting of incorporators. Subsequent elections are by shs at their annual
meetings. The number of dirs is usually set by the articles or bylaws.
a)Qualifications--absent a
contrary provision in the articles or bylaws, dirs need not be shs of the corp
or residents of the state of incorporation.
b)Vacancies--statutes
vary, but under Model Act, a vacancy may be filled by either the shs or dirs.
1)Compare--removal: some
statutes require that vacancies created by removal of a dir be filled by the
shs unless the articles or bylaws provide otherwise.
2.TENURE OF OFFICE
a)Term of Appointment--under
most statutes, office is held until the next meeting, although on a classified
board, dirs may serve staggered multi year terms.
b)Power to Bind Corporation Beyond
Term--unless limited by the articles, the board has the power to make
contracts biding the corp beyond the dirs’ term of office.
c)Removal of Director During Term--at
common law, shs can remove a dir for cause (e.g., fraud, incompetence,
dishonesty) unless an article or bylaw provision permits removal without cause.
a dir being removed for cause is entitled to a hearing by shs before a vote to
remove. a number of statutes permit removal without cause.
1)Removal by Board--board can NEVER
remove a dir unless authorized by statute;
2)Removal by Court--there is a
split authority as to whether a court can remove a dir for cause.
I)Statutes--some statutes permit
courts to remove a dir for specified reasons. Usually, a petition for removal
can be brought only by a certain percentage of shs or the attorney general.
3.FUNCTIONING OF BOARD
a)Meetings--absent a
statute, dirs can act only at a duly convened meeting consisting of a quorum.
In most jurisdictions, a meeting can be conducted by telephone or other means
whereby participants can hear each other simultaneously. Most statutes also
allow board action by unanimous written consent without a meeting.
1)Notice--although formal
notice is unnecessary for a regular meeting, special meetings require notice to
every dir of date, time, and place. Usually, notice can be waived in writing
before or after a meeting. Attendance waives notice unless the dir attends only
to protest the meeting.
2)Quorum--a majority of the authorized
number of dirs constitutes a quorum. Many statutes permit the articles or
bylaws to require more than simple majority or less than that.
3)Voting--absent a contrary
provision, an affirmative vote of a majority of those present, not a
majority of those voting, is required for board action.
b)Effect of Noncompliance With
Formalities--today, most courts hold that informal but unanimous
approval of a transaction is effective, as is a matter receiving the
explicit approval by a majority of dirs without a meeting, plus acquiescence by
the remaining dirs.
c)Delegation of Authority--the
board has the power to appoint committees of its own members to act for it
either in particular matters or to handle day-to-day management between board
meetings. Typically, these committees cannot amend the articles or
bylaws, adopt or recommend major corporate changes (e.g., merger), recommend
dissolution, declare a dividend, or authorize issuance of stock unless
permitted by the articles or bylaws. Note that while the board may delegate
operation of the business to an officer or management company, the ultimate
control must be retained by the board.
Ñòðàíèöû: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
|