gustav klimt, portrait of adele bloch-bauer (1907)

Corporations:A Contemporary Approach

Chapter 3Corporate Federalism

Slide 1of 28

Gustav Klimt, Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer (1907)



Slide 2of 24


• US corporate law history– State legislative chartering– General incorporation

• Internal affairs doctrine– Regulation of foreign corporations– Choice of law rules– Pseudo-foreign corporations

• Federal abstention• “Race of laxity”

– Delaware wins race– Race to bottom or top?

Module II – Corporations and Policy

Citizen of world

Law profession

Corporate practice

Bar exam


Slide 3of 25

1. Fundamentals– Introduction to firm– Corporate basics

2. Corporations and policy– Corporate federalism– Corporate social responsibility – Corporate political action

3. Corporate form– Organizational choices– Incorporation– Locating corporate authority

4. Corporate finance– Numeracy for corporate lawyers– Capital structure

5. Corporate externalities– Piercing corporate veil– Corporate environmental liability– Corporate criminal liability

6. Corporate governance – Shareholder voting– Shareholder information rights– Public shareholder activism

7. Fiduciary duties– Shareholder litigation– Board decision making – Board oversight – Director conflicts– Executive compensation – Corporate groups

8. Stock trading– Securities markets– Securities fraud class actions– Insider trading

9. Corporate deals– Sale of control– Antitakeover devices– Deal protection

10. Close corporations– Planning– Oppression

1. Fundamentals– Introduction to firm– Corporate basics

2. Corporations and policy– Corporate federalism– Corporate social responsibility – Corporate political action

3. Corporate form– Organizational choices– Incorporation– Locating corporate authority

4. Corporate finance– Numeracy for corporate lawyers– Capital structure

5. Corporate externalities– Piercing corporate veil– Corporate environmental

liability– Corporate criminal liability

6. Corporate governance – Shareholder voting– Shareholder information rights– Public shareholder activism

7. Fiduciary duties– Shareholder litigation– Board decision making – Board oversight – Director conflicts– Executive compensation – Corporate groups

10. Close corporations– Planning– Oppression


http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=96&t=3



Slide 4of 24

State legisl

ative sp

ecial c

harterin

g

Dartmouth C

ollege ca

se (1

819)

General in

corp

oratio

n statutes

Delaware G

CL (1899)

Take

over w

ave (1

980s)

Federal s

ecuriti

es laws (

1933, 1934)

SOX (2002)

Sherman A

ntitrust

Act (1

890)

1800 19501900 20001850

US corporate law timeline

D-F (2

010)



Slide 5of 24

Justice John Marshall

Dartmouth College v. Woodward(US 1819)

Corporation: private property or social institution?

“A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence.”

“But …. It is no more a state instrument, than a natural person exercising the same powers would be.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_College_v._Woodward





Slide 6of 24

3. State corporate statutes can be amended (and thus change corporate rights) because of:

a. General police powers of states

b. Reservation of rights – see MBCA § 1.02

c. Constitutional power of state to amend contracts

4. Early corporate statutes distrusted corporate power -- placing limits on corporate purposes, activities, and capitalization. True or false?

1. Corporations are:a. “Artificial beings” created

by and modifiable by the legislature

b. “Contracts” that cannot be unilaterally amended by the legislature

2. US corporations could only be formed by special legislative enactment, until the early 1900s when Delaware enacted a “general corporation law.” True or false?

Pop quiz(corporate law history)

http://users.wfu.edu/palmitar/ICBCorporations-Companion/Conexus/MBCA/MBCA%202007.doc



Slide 7of 24

5. New Jersey passed the first “liberal” corporate law that -- a. Allowed corporations to

own stock in other corporations (permitting holding companies)

b. Allowed shareholders to bring derivative suits

c. Allowed shareholders to do away with BODs

6. New Jersey lost its “lead” to Delaware when NJ Governor Woodrow Wilson re-regulated NJ corporations. True or false?

7. The takeover wave of the 1980s was a response to the “conglomeration” of the 1960s. True or false?

8. Hedge funds (private investment pools) have have pressured PHC managers to generate high short-term returns for shareholders. Hedge funds rely on -a. Institutional investors

(mutual funds and pension funds) to vote for their proposals

b. Derivative suits to compel management action.

Answers: 1- AB / 2-F / 3-B / 4-T / 5-A / 6-T / 7-T / 8-AB



Slide 8of 24

Horizontal corporate federalism

(1) Regulation of “foreign corporations”

(2) Internal affairs doctrine



Slide 9of 24

Suppose a corporation in the business of selling doughnuts –

– Is incorporated in Delaware – Is headquartered in

North Carolina– Locates its retail outlets in

California– Gets its capital from

investors in Florida

Suppose the corporation–1. Sells bad doughnuts in

California – what law applies?

2. Prevents shareholders from voting in Florida – now what law?

MBCA Chapter 15

Foreign corporations

http://users.wfu.edu/palmitar/ICBCorporations-Companion/Conexus/MBCA/chapter15.htm



Slide 10of 24

Internal affairs doctrine …

• Operation of doctrine• Constitutional dimensions



Slide 11of 24

McDermott Inc. v. Lewis (Del. 1987)

Panama City, Panama



Slide 12of 24

Public shareholders

McDermott Delaware

McDermott International

BEFORE

McDermott Delaware

McDermott International

100%RemainingPublic Shs

8%

New public shareholders

92%

AFTER

10%90%100%Exchange

(1:1 + $0.35)

So what if subowns parent shares?



Slide 13of 24

“…. [courts and legislatures] have consistently applied the law of the state of incorporation to the entire gamut of internal corporate affairs. In many cases, this is a wise, practical, and equitable choice.”

“ … application of the internal affairs doctrine is not merely a principle of conflicts law. It is also one of serious constitutional proportions—under due process, the commerce clause and the full faith and credit clause.”

McDermott Inc. v. Lewis (Del. 1987)

Delaware Supreme Court

http://courts.delaware.gov/Courts/Supreme%20Court/?index.htm



Slide 14of 24

Constitutional dimensions …(what is pseudo-foreign corporation?)

Compare (and distinguish): • Wilson (Cal. App. 1982)• Vantage Venture Partners (Del. 2005)



Slide 15of 24

A pseudo-foreign corporation

• incorporated in Utah• most of its assets,

payroll, sales and shareholders in California

Shareholder voting• California requires

cumulative voting• Utah has straight

(plurality) voting.

A pseudo-foreign corporation

• incorporated in Delaware

• most of its assets, payroll, sales and shareholders in California

Shareholder voting• California requires

separate class voting• Delaware “single

class” voting Distinguish

Wilson v. Louisiana-Pacific Resources Inc (Cal. App. 1982)

Vantagepoint Venture Ps v. Examen Inc (Del. 2005)



Slide 16of 24

“If California's statute were replicated in all states, no conflict would result. We conclude that the potential for conflict is, on this record, speculative and without substance.”

“We conclude that to the extent that the cumulative voting requirement imposed by section 2115 upon pseudo-foreign corporations is shown to have any effect upon interstate commerce, the effect is incidental, and minimal in relation to the purpose which that requirement is designed to achieve.”

Wilson v. Louisiana-Pacific Resources Inc(Cal. App. 1982)

PrivateChoice



Slide 17of 24

“The internal affairs doctrine is not … only a conflicts of law principle.”

“In CTS, the Supreme Court concluded that ‘so long as each State regulates voting rights only in the corporations it has created, each corporation will be subject to the law of only one State.’ Accordingly, we hold Delaware's well-established choice of law rules and the federal constitution mandated that Examen's internal affairs … be adjudicated exclusively in accordance with the law of its state of incorporation, Delaware.”

Vantagepoint Venture Partners v. Examen Inc(Del. 2005)

Justice Randy Holland

http://courts.delaware.gov/Courts/Supreme%20Court/?justices.htm%23holland



Slide 18of 24

Vertical corporate federalism

(1) State antitakeover statutes

(2) Role of Delaware

(3) Race to the top / bottom



Slide 19of 24

Anti-takeover statutes

1st generation 2nd generation 3rd generation

Edgar v. MITE(US 1982)

CTS v. Dynamics(US 1987)

• Response / hostile TO• State securities law• “fairness” review• Example: Illinois

• Mgmt lobby• Domestic corporations• Voting rights (control shs)• Example: Indiana



Slide 20of 24

“The markets that facilitate… ownership of corporations are essential for providing capital…. The beneficial free market system depends at its core upon the fact that a corporation… is organized under, and governed by, the law of a single jurisdiction [its State of incorporation].”

“It is thus an accepted part of the business landscape in this country for States to create corporations, to prescribe their powers, and to define the rights that are acquired by purchasing their shares.”

CTS v. Dynamics (U.S. 1987)

Justice Lewis Powell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_F._Powell,_Jr.



Slide 21of 24

Anti-takeover statutes

1st generation 2nd generation 3rd generation

Edgar v. MITE(US 1982)

CTS v. Dynamics(US 1987)

Amanda(7th Cir 1989)

• Response / hostile TO• State securities law• “fairness” review• Example: Illinois

• Mgmt lobby• Domestic corporations• Voting rights )control shs)• Example: Indiana

• Mgmt (w/ SH input)• Incorporation-based• Merger moratorium• Example: Wisc, Del



Slide 22of 24

“If our views of the wisdom of state law mattered, Wisconsin’s takeover statute would not survive.… Wisconsin’s law makes a potential buyer less willing buy, but this is equally true of [many] other rules of corporate law.”

“To say that states have the power to enact [inefficient anti-takeover laws] is not to say that investors should kiss their wallets goodbye. States compete to offer corporate codes attractive to firms.”

Amanda Acquisition v. Universal Foods (7th Cir. 1989)

Judge Frank Easterbrook



Slide 23of 24

“Incorporation-based private ordering”

• What is the “race of laxity”?

• Why has Delaware won it?

• Is this good or bad?



Slide 24of 24

Delaware bar

Delaware judiciary

Delaware legislature



Slide 25of 24

William Cary’s “race to bottom”

Ralph Winter’s “race to top”

Mark Roe’s “vertical corporate federalism”

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=127



Using the E&E



Slide 26of 28

Using the E&E



Slide 27of 28

Using the E&E



Slide 28of 28



Slide 29of 28

The end

gustav klimt, portrait of adele bloch-bauer (1907)

Documents