San Diego Business Lawyer
|
(858) 888-9030 |
BUSINESS AND CORPORATE LAW ARTICLES | |||
SHOULD WE INCORPORATE IN CALIFORNIA, DELAWARE OR NEVADA?
Table of Contents
IntroductionMost publicly traded companies are incorporated in Delaware, but
that does not necessarily mean that you should, too. While incentives to
incorporate in other states are often great, a California-based business will
most likely benefit from incorporating in this state because the business will
be governed by the California’s pseudo-foreign corporation law. This means
that, if you are based in, or “actively engaging in any transaction for the
purpose of financial gain” in California, this state will largely
disregard the fact that you incorporated in another state, treat your
corporation as if it was incorporated in California, and you could end up
paying franchise taxes in both states as well as a fee to qualify to conduct
business in CA. Thus, as a general rule, a California-based business will be
better off incorporating locally. However, some out-of-state and international businesses can benefit from looking around for a state with the most favorable laws. Director
Liability
Nevada automatically limits liability of
directors and officers for damages to own corporation, unless the directors intentionally
breached their fiduciary duty to the company by knowingly violating the law or
committing fraud. Both California and Delaware allow articles of incorporation
to contain such exculpatory provisions for directors’ negligence but this
protection is not automatic as in Nevada. California only permits limitation of
directors’ liability to the corporation but Delaware allows exculpation of
liability to both corporation and its stockholders. Piercing
the Corporate Veil
It’s important to incorporate correctly because otherwise the
court can disregard the corporate formalities and hold you personally liable
for the debts of the corporation. This is called “piercing the corporate veil.”
A 2010 academic study[1] found that courts pierce the
veil in approximately half of all cases, and exclusively against close
corporations, most of which are small private businesses. California courts pierce the veil in
50.86% of cases. Nevada veil-piercing rate is 43.75%, and Delaware’s is 34.29%.[2] Director
Indemnification
Indemnification means that a company must pay a director to defend
against legal proceedings arising from the action or omission of the director
in the course of his service to the corporation. The rationale for this is to
persuade responsible persons to serve on the board with less fear of being sued
personally. In Delaware, a corporate
agent must be indemnified if “successful on the merits or otherwise.” Furthermore,
Delaware, unlike California, permits indemnification even if the director is
unable to demonstrate that s/he intended to benefit the company. Nevada applies essentially
the same standard as Delaware, even when the director is not under the Nevada’s
automatic exculpation umbrella. Anti-Takeover
Measures
Delaware and Nevada have enacted laws that help the boards to
protect the company against unwanted acquisitions. Anti-takeover measures (“shark
repellents”) can include super-majority voting requirements, charter provisions
for staggered boards, “poison pills” and “scorched earth” policies, – all
designed to make the
proposed takeover unattractive to the acquiring firm. Anti-takeover protections
are strong in Delaware, perhaps to a greater extent so in Nevada, but the
California law is currently not as settled on the issue.
|
|||
The information on this site is provided for general educational purposes only; your specific case may be different.
No attorney-client relationship is created between the reader/user of this site and San Diego business lawyer Sergei Tokmakov.
Copyright © 2011 Attorney Sergei Tokmakov. All Rights Reserved.