The High-touch Legal Services® Blog…for Startups!

© 2009-2018 Dana H. Shultz, Attorney at Law

What is a Quasi-California Corporation?

California State Flag, symbolizing a quasi-California corporation

This post is the result of my research on the duties of a director of a Delaware corporation that is located, and doing much of its business, in California. Specifically, I wanted to confirm that California law governed those duties, because it is a so-called quasi-California corporation.

Quasi-California Corporation Criteria

Corporations Code Section 2115 addresses non-California corporations for which (a) most voting shares are held by shareholders in California and (b) the average of the following three factors exceeds 50%.

  • The percentage of its property that is located in California.
  • The percentage of its payroll that is paid in California.
  • The percentage of its sales that take place in California.

(more…)

International Contracts: Choice of Law when the Parties Disagree

Logo for OnStartups.com, where Dana Shultz discussed choice of law for international contracts

This post concerning international contracts is based on an OnStartups.com question (edited here) that I answered a few minutes ago. Q. I am drafting a website-development agreement with a firm in India. I am in Australia. I prefer that the agreement be governed by Australian law, but the developer prefers Indian law. What is normally done in similar circumstances?

A. Several thoughts based on my experience international contracts: (more…)

Choice of Law and Non-Compete Provisions

This post describes the fascinating interaction between a contract’s choice of law and non-compete provisions in a matter that I worked on.

A longtime client received an acquisition offer from a large, publicly-held company (“Acquirer”). Once the acquisition closed, the client’s founder (“Founder”) would become a management-level employee of Acquirer.

Concern about Non-compete Provision

Although Acquirer’s proposed employment agreement generally was acceptable, Founder was concerned about its non-compete provision. That provision stated that for one year following termination of his employment, Founder would not “engage in any business activities that are competitive with the business activities of [Acquirer] or those of its subsidiary or parent companies”.

The problem was that the business of Acquirer and its affiliates was vast, and Founder’s expertise was industry-specific. In effect, Founder would not be able to work elsewhere. (more…)