Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Documents for Posting for CCWG-ACCT
Holly, Although it has no direct impact on the current discussion, could you please further elaborate on your statement at the top of page 2 that the corporation can be dissolved by a simple majority of a minimal quorum (5/9/16). The California statute [1900.5.a and 1900.5.a(7)] seems to state that for dissolution, a majority of directors must sign a certificate of dissolution. That would imply that 9 were required (presuming the Board had its full complement of voting directors at that time). Alan At 02/10/2015 03:38 PM, Gregory, Holly wrote:
Thomas, Mathieu and Leon and CCWG,, In addition to slides comparing the Sole Member, Sole Designator and Board Proposal from last week (which we understand did not get posted yet) , we are providing a memo as requested in LA that discusses how the statutory rights of a member can be constrained in the Sole Member model. Kind regards, Holly and Rosemary
HOLLY GREGORY Partner
Sidley Austin LLP +1 212 839 5853 <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>holly.gregory@sidley.com
**************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
**************************************************************************************************** Content-Type: application/pdf; name="CCWG Memo_ Constraining the Exercise of" Statutory Rights (00719283xA3536....pdf" Content-Description: CCWG Memo_ Constraining the Exercise of Statutory Rights (00719283xA3536....pdf Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="CCWG Memo_ Constraining the" Exercise of Statutory Rights (00719283xA3536....pdf"; size=54222; creation-date="Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:20:05 GMT"; modification-date="Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:20:05 GMT"
Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation; name="Revised Slides - Key Characteristics Comparison. CMSM, CMSD, and Board" P....pptx" Content-Description: Revised Slides - Key Characteristics Comparison. CMSM, CMSD, and Board P....pptx Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Revised Slides - Key" Characteristics Comparison. CMSM, CMSD, and Board P....pptx"; size=493931; creation-date="Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:20:06 GMT"; modification-date="Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:20:06 GMT"
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi Alan, Thanks for your question. The footnote we provided explained that section and addresses your question. Rosemary will send along a further explanatory note to clarify (as our expert on California not for profit law). Kind regards, Holly Sent with Good (www.good.com) ________________________________ From: Alan Greenberg Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2015 04:47:39 PM To: Gregory, Holly; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx; thomas@rickert.net; mathieu.weill@afnic.fr; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG; ACCT-Staff; ICANN@adlercolvin.com Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Documents for Posting for CCWG-ACCT Holly, Although it has no direct impact on the current discussion, could you please further elaborate on your statement at the top of page 2 that the corporation can be dissolved by a simple majority of a minimal quorum (5/9/16). The California statute [1900.5.a and 1900.5.a(7)] seems to state that for dissolution, a majority of directors must sign a certificate of dissolution. That would imply that 9 were required (presuming the Board had its full complement of voting directors at that time). Alan At 02/10/2015 03:38 PM, Gregory, Holly wrote: Thomas, Mathieu and Leon and CCWG,, In addition to slides comparing the Sole Member, Sole Designator and Board Proposal from last week (which we understand did not get posted yet) , we are providing a memo as requested in LA that discusses how the statutory rights of a member can be constrained in the Sole Member model. Kind regards, Holly and Rosemary HOLLY GREGORY Partner Sidley Austin LLP +1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory@sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. **************************************************************************************************** Content-Type: application/pdf; name="CCWG Memo_ Constraining the Exercise of" Statutory Rights (00719283xA3536....pdf" Content-Description: CCWG Memo_ Constraining the Exercise of Statutory Rights (00719283xA3536....pdf Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="CCWG Memo_ Constraining the" Exercise of Statutory Rights (00719283xA3536....pdf"; size=54222; creation-date="Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:20:05 GMT"; modification-date="Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:20:05 GMT" Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation; name="Revised Slides - Key Characteristics Comparison. CMSM, CMSD, and Board" P....pptx" Content-Description: Revised Slides - Key Characteristics Comparison. CMSM, CMSD, and Board P....pptx Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Revised Slides - Key" Characteristics Comparison. CMSM, CMSD, and Board P....pptx"; size=493931; creation-date="Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:20:06 GMT"; modification-date="Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:20:06 GMT" _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CQMBAg&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=qZtP8Afs-4pYIKUroCIUqtba_EdMdiS9sv6FYX-QsWs&s=5wHKh4htmTK6BmJArZBmJvvGeVSfXcUzrVes4XRKptw&e=>
Dear Alan: You asked the following question: Although it has no direct impact on the current discussion, could you please further elaborate on your statement at the top of page 2 that the corporation can be dissolved by a simple majority of a minimal quorum (5/9/16). The California statute [1900.5.a and 1900.5.a(7)] seems to state that for dissolution, a majority of directors must sign a certificate of dissolution. That would imply that 9 were required (presuming the Board had its full complement of voting directors at that time). The sections that you cite in the excerpt above relate to California's General Corporation Law, which applies to business corporations, rather than its Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, which applies to ICANN. Since the two laws are roughly parallel, though, we understand your point regarding who signs the Certificate of Dissolution. That final step in the dissolution process can only be understood in the context of how the entire dissolution process works. The relevant statutory requirements are in Sections 6610 et seq. of the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, which is part of the California Corporations Code. As mentioned in footnote 1 of the memorandum, Section 6610(b) provides that, in a corporation without members such as ICANN is today, a corporation may elect by approval of the board to wind up and dissolve. This approval could legally take place at a meeting at which a bare quorum of the Board were present; a majority of those present would then be enough to elect dissolution. No higher voting requirement is imposed by the law or by ICANN's current governing documents. It is this vote that is the key board action necessary to start the process of dissolving the corporation. The next step, described in Section 6611, is the requirement to file with the California Secretary of State a certificate evidencing this election to dissolve. This certificate may be signed by two officers (it could instead be signed by a majority of the directors then in office, but this is not required; two officers is sufficient by law). We assume that even the mere filing of a Certificate of Election to Dissolve would be extremely disruptive to ICANN. Section 6613 makes it clear that after these initial steps, the dissolution process commences. That is, the affairs of the corporation are wound up, and the assets of the corporation are liquidated and/or distributed as required by the law and its Articles of Incorporation. (Before any assets are distributed, the election to dissolve can be revoked, as provided in Section 6612.) When the corporation's affairs have been completely wound up, the final step occurs: filing a Certificate of Dissolution with the Secretary of State to end the corporation's existence by dissolution. As Section 6615 provides, this Certificate must be signed by a majority of the directors then in office. This is the requirement you refer to in your question. It is true that, depending on how many directors are still in office at this stage, it is possible that more directors would need to sign the Certificate of Dissolution than the number who earlier authorized the dissolution. However, since the Certificate of Dissolution is not filed until the very end of the dissolution process, its signature requirement does not prevent the dissolution process from being initiated by the Board under the scenario discussed above. We hope this clarifies the legal requirements for dissolving a non-member nonprofit public benefit corporation. Rosemary Rosemary E. Fei Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) rfei@adlercolvin.com www.adlercolvin.com _____________________________ Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email. From: Holly Gregory Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2015 4:59 PM To: Alan Greenberg; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx; thomas@rickert.net; mathieu.weill@afnic.fr; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG; ACCT-Staff; ICANN-Adler; Rosemary E. Fei Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Documents for Posting for CCWG-ACCT Hi Alan, Thanks for your question. The footnote we provided explained that section and addresses your question. Rosemary will send along a further explanatory note to clarify (as our expert on California not for profit law). Kind regards, Holly Sent with Good (www.good.com<http://www.good.com>) ________________________________ From: Alan Greenberg Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2015 04:47:39 PM To: Gregory, Holly; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>; thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG; ACCT-Staff; ICANN@adlercolvin.com<mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Documents for Posting for CCWG-ACCT Holly, Although it has no direct impact on the current discussion, could you please further elaborate on your statement at the top of page 2 that the corporation can be dissolved by a simple majority of a minimal quorum (5/9/16). The California statute [1900.5.a and 1900.5.a(7)] seems to state that for dissolution, a majority of directors must sign a certificate of dissolution. That would imply that 9 were required (presuming the Board had its full complement of voting directors at that time). Alan At 02/10/2015 03:38 PM, Gregory, Holly wrote: Thomas, Mathieu and Leon and CCWG,, In addition to slides comparing the Sole Member, Sole Designator and Board Proposal from last week (which we understand did not get posted yet) , we are providing a memo as requested in LA that discusses how the statutory rights of a member can be constrained in the Sole Member model. Kind regards, Holly and Rosemary HOLLY GREGORY Partner Sidley Austin LLP +1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory@sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. **************************************************************************************************** Content-Type: application/pdf; name="CCWG Memo_ Constraining the Exercise of" Statutory Rights (00719283xA3536....pdf" Content-Description: CCWG Memo_ Constraining the Exercise of Statutory Rights (00719283xA3536....pdf Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="CCWG Memo_ Constraining the" Exercise of Statutory Rights (00719283xA3536....pdf"; size=54222; creation-date="Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:20:05 GMT"; modification-date="Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:20:05 GMT" Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation; name="Revised Slides - Key Characteristics Comparison. CMSM, CMSD, and Board" P....pptx" Content-Description: Revised Slides - Key Characteristics Comparison. CMSM, CMSD, and Board P....pptx Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Revised Slides - Key" Characteristics Comparison. CMSM, CMSD, and Board P....pptx"; size=493931; creation-date="Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:20:06 GMT"; modification-date="Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:20:06 GMT" _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CQMBAg&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=qZtP8Afs-4pYIKUroCIUqtba_EdMdiS9sv6FYX-QsWs&s=5wHKh4htmTK6BmJArZBmJvvGeVSfXcUzrVes4XRKptw&e=>
For the sake of completeness, although it's not relevant to answering your question, Alan, I should have mentioned one other step: Unless a corporation has no assets, attached to the Certificate of Dissolution must be a waiver from the California Attorney General of objections to the corporation's distribution of assets. Without that, the Certificate of Dissolution will not be accepted for filing by the California Secretary of State and the dissolution will be incomplete. The process of seeking that waiver from the AG generally occurs after the election to dissolve, and before any substantial distribution of assets. Rosemary From: Rosemary E. Fei Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2015 11:36 PM To: Holly Gregory; Alan Greenberg; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx; thomas@rickert.net; mathieu.weill@afnic.fr; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG; ACCT-Staff; ICANN-Adler Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Documents for Posting for CCWG-ACCT Dear Alan: You asked the following question: Although it has no direct impact on the current discussion, could you please further elaborate on your statement at the top of page 2 that the corporation can be dissolved by a simple majority of a minimal quorum (5/9/16). The California statute [1900.5.a and 1900.5.a(7)] seems to state that for dissolution, a majority of directors must sign a certificate of dissolution. That would imply that 9 were required (presuming the Board had its full complement of voting directors at that time). The sections that you cite in the excerpt above relate to California's General Corporation Law, which applies to business corporations, rather than its Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, which applies to ICANN. Since the two laws are roughly parallel, though, we understand your point regarding who signs the Certificate of Dissolution. That final step in the dissolution process can only be understood in the context of how the entire dissolution process works. The relevant statutory requirements are in Sections 6610 et seq. of the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, which is part of the California Corporations Code. As mentioned in footnote 1 of the memorandum, Section 6610(b) provides that, in a corporation without members such as ICANN is today, a corporation may elect by approval of the board to wind up and dissolve. This approval could legally take place at a meeting at which a bare quorum of the Board were present; a majority of those present would then be enough to elect dissolution. No higher voting requirement is imposed by the law or by ICANN's current governing documents. It is this vote that is the key board action necessary to start the process of dissolving the corporation. The next step, described in Section 6611, is the requirement to file with the California Secretary of State a certificate evidencing this election to dissolve. This certificate may be signed by two officers (it could instead be signed by a majority of the directors then in office, but this is not required; two officers is sufficient by law). We assume that even the mere filing of a Certificate of Election to Dissolve would be extremely disruptive to ICANN. Section 6613 makes it clear that after these initial steps, the dissolution process commences. That is, the affairs of the corporation are wound up, and the assets of the corporation are liquidated and/or distributed as required by the law and its Articles of Incorporation. (Before any assets are distributed, the election to dissolve can be revoked, as provided in Section 6612.) When the corporation's affairs have been completely wound up, the final step occurs: filing a Certificate of Dissolution with the Secretary of State to end the corporation's existence by dissolution. As Section 6615 provides, this Certificate must be signed by a majority of the directors then in office. This is the requirement you refer to in your question. It is true that, depending on how many directors are still in office at this stage, it is possible that more directors would need to sign the Certificate of Dissolution than the number who earlier authorized the dissolution. However, since the Certificate of Dissolution is not filed until the very end of the dissolution process, its signature requirement does not prevent the dissolution process from being initiated by the Board under the scenario discussed above. We hope this clarifies the legal requirements for dissolving a non-member nonprofit public benefit corporation. Rosemary Rosemary E. Fei Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) rfei@adlercolvin.com<mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com> www.adlercolvin.com<http://www.adlercolvin.com> _____________________________ Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email. From: Holly Gregory Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2015 4:59 PM To: Alan Greenberg; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>; thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG; ACCT-Staff; ICANN-Adler; Rosemary E. Fei Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Documents for Posting for CCWG-ACCT Hi Alan, Thanks for your question. The footnote we provided explained that section and addresses your question. Rosemary will send along a further explanatory note to clarify (as our expert on California not for profit law). Kind regards, Holly Sent with Good (www.good.com<http://www.good.com>) ________________________________ From: Alan Greenberg Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2015 04:47:39 PM To: Gregory, Holly; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>; thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG; ACCT-Staff; ICANN@adlercolvin.com<mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Documents for Posting for CCWG-ACCT Holly, Although it has no direct impact on the current discussion, could you please further elaborate on your statement at the top of page 2 that the corporation can be dissolved by a simple majority of a minimal quorum (5/9/16). The California statute [1900.5.a and 1900.5.a(7)] seems to state that for dissolution, a majority of directors must sign a certificate of dissolution. That would imply that 9 were required (presuming the Board had its full complement of voting directors at that time). Alan At 02/10/2015 03:38 PM, Gregory, Holly wrote: Thomas, Mathieu and Leon and CCWG,, In addition to slides comparing the Sole Member, Sole Designator and Board Proposal from last week (which we understand did not get posted yet) , we are providing a memo as requested in LA that discusses how the statutory rights of a member can be constrained in the Sole Member model. Kind regards, Holly and Rosemary HOLLY GREGORY Partner Sidley Austin LLP +1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory@sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. **************************************************************************************************** Content-Type: application/pdf; name="CCWG Memo_ Constraining the Exercise of" Statutory Rights (00719283xA3536....pdf" Content-Description: CCWG Memo_ Constraining the Exercise of Statutory Rights (00719283xA3536....pdf Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="CCWG Memo_ Constraining the" Exercise of Statutory Rights (00719283xA3536....pdf"; size=54222; creation-date="Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:20:05 GMT"; modification-date="Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:20:05 GMT" Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation; name="Revised Slides - Key Characteristics Comparison. CMSM, CMSD, and Board" P....pptx" Content-Description: Revised Slides - Key Characteristics Comparison. CMSM, CMSD, and Board P....pptx Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Revised Slides - Key" Characteristics Comparison. CMSM, CMSD, and Board P....pptx"; size=493931; creation-date="Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:20:06 GMT"; modification-date="Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:20:06 GMT" _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CQMBAg&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=qZtP8Afs-4pYIKUroCIUqtba_EdMdiS9sv6FYX-QsWs&s=5wHKh4htmTK6BmJArZBmJvvGeVSfXcUzrVes4XRKptw&e=>
Rosemary, Thanks. ICANN does have substantial assets and will likely continue to, so the disposition of the assets in the event of dissolution might well be one of the critical issues. What are the criteria for acceptance of a plan for dissolution. I remember when Systems Development Corporation in Santa Monica was converted from a non-profit to a for-profit and then acquired by Univac -- or It might have been Sperry or Burrough's -- a charitable foundation came into existence that subsequently disposed of the assets. I don't know enough about the details to know if its situation is similar to what ours would be but I do think the disposition of the assets would be a key step. Thanks for flagging this. Steve Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 5, 2015, at 3:27 AM, Rosemary E. Fei <rfei@adlercolvin.com> wrote:
For the sake of completeness, although it’s not relevant to answering your question, Alan, I should have mentioned one other step: Unless a corporation has no assets, attached to the Certificate of Dissolution must be a waiver from the California Attorney General of objections to the corporation’s distribution of assets. Without that, the Certificate of Dissolution will not be accepted for filing by the California Secretary of State and the dissolution will be incomplete. The process of seeking that waiver from the AG generally occurs after the election to dissolve, and before any substantial distribution of assets.
Rosemary
From: Rosemary E. Fei Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2015 11:36 PM To: Holly Gregory; Alan Greenberg; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx; thomas@rickert.net; mathieu.weill@afnic.fr; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG; ACCT-Staff; ICANN-Adler Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Documents for Posting for CCWG-ACCT
Dear Alan:
You asked the following question:
Although it has no direct impact on the current discussion, could you please further elaborate on your statement at the top of page 2 that the corporation can be dissolved by a simple majority of a minimal quorum (5/9/16). The California statute [1900.5.a and 1900.5.a(7)] seems to state that for dissolution, a majority of directors must sign a certificate of dissolution. That would imply that 9 were required (presuming the Board had its full complement of voting directors at that time).
The sections that you cite in the excerpt above relate to California’s General Corporation Law, which applies to business corporations, rather than its Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, which applies to ICANN. Since the two laws are roughly parallel, though, we understand your point regarding who signs the Certificate of Dissolution. That final step in the dissolution process can only be understood in the context of how the entire dissolution process works.
The relevant statutory requirements are in Sections 6610 et seq. of the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, which is part of the California Corporations Code. As mentioned in footnote 1 of the memorandum, Section 6610(b) provides that, in a corporation without members such as ICANN is today, a corporation may elect by approval of the board to wind up and dissolve. This approval could legally take place at a meeting at which a bare quorum of the Board were present; a majority of those present would then be enough to elect dissolution. No higher voting requirement is imposed by the law or by ICANN’s current governing documents. It is this vote that is the key board action necessary to start the process of dissolving the corporation.
The next step, described in Section 6611, is the requirement to file with the California Secretary of State a certificate evidencing this election to dissolve. This certificate may be signed by two officers (it could instead be signed by a majority of the directors then in office, but this is not required; two officers is sufficient by law). We assume that even the mere filing of a Certificate of Election to Dissolve would be extremely disruptive to ICANN.
Section 6613 makes it clear that after these initial steps, the dissolution process commences. That is, the affairs of the corporation are wound up, and the assets of the corporation are liquidated and/or distributed as required by the law and its Articles of Incorporation. (Before any assets are distributed, the election to dissolve can be revoked, as provided in Section 6612.) When the corporation’s affairs have been completely wound up, the final step occurs: filing a Certificate of Dissolution with the Secretary of State to end the corporation’s existence by dissolution. As Section 6615 provides, this Certificate must be signed by a majority of the directors then in office. This is the requirement you refer to in your question. It is true that, depending on how many directors are still in office at this stage, it is possible that more directors would need to sign the Certificate of Dissolution than the number who earlier authorized the dissolution. However, since the Certificate of Dissolution is not filed until the very end of the dissolution process, its signature requirement does not prevent the dissolution process from being initiated by the Board under the scenario discussed above.
We hope this clarifies the legal requirements for dissolving a non-member nonprofit public benefit corporation.
Rosemary
Rosemary E. Fei Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) rfei@adlercolvin.com www.adlercolvin.com
_____________________________ Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email.
From: Holly Gregory Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2015 4:59 PM To: Alan Greenberg; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx; thomas@rickert.net; mathieu.weill@afnic.fr; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG; ACCT-Staff; ICANN-Adler; Rosemary E. Fei Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Documents for Posting for CCWG-ACCT
Hi Alan, Thanks for your question. The footnote we provided explained that section and addresses your question. Rosemary will send along a further explanatory note to clarify (as our expert on California not for profit law). Kind regards, Holly
Sent with Good (www.good.com)
From: Alan Greenberg Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2015 04:47:39 PM To: Gregory, Holly; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx; thomas@rickert.net; mathieu.weill@afnic.fr; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG; ACCT-Staff; ICANN@adlercolvin.com Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Documents for Posting for CCWG-ACCT
Holly,
Although it has no direct impact on the current discussion, could you please further elaborate on your statement at the top of page 2 that the corporation can be dissolved by a simple majority of a minimal quorum (5/9/16). The California statute [1900.5.a and 1900.5.a(7)] seems to state that for dissolution, a majority of directors must sign a certificate of dissolution. That would imply that 9 were required (presuming the Board had its full complement of voting directors at that time).
Alan
At 02/10/2015 03:38 PM, Gregory, Holly wrote:
Thomas, Mathieu and Leon and CCWG,, In addition to slides comparing the Sole Member, Sole Designator and Board Proposal from last week (which we understand did not get posted yet) , we are providing a memo as requested in LA that discusses how the statutory rights of a member can be constrained in the Sole Member model. Kind regards, Holly and Rosemary
HOLLY GREGORY Partner
Sidley Austin LLP +1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory@sidley.com
**************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
**************************************************************************************************** Content-Type: application/pdf; name="CCWG Memo_ Constraining the Exercise of" Statutory Rights (00719283xA3536....pdf" Content-Description: CCWG Memo_ Constraining the Exercise of Statutory Rights (00719283xA3536....pdf Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="CCWG Memo_ Constraining the" Exercise of Statutory Rights (00719283xA3536....pdf"; size=54222; creation-date="Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:20:05 GMT"; modification-date="Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:20:05 GMT"
Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation; name="Revised Slides - Key Characteristics Comparison. CMSM, CMSD, and Board" P....pptx" Content-Description: Revised Slides - Key Characteristics Comparison. CMSM, CMSD, and Board P....pptx Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Revised Slides - Key" Characteristics Comparison. CMSM, CMSD, and Board P....pptx"; size=493931; creation-date="Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:20:06 GMT"; modification-date="Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:20:06 GMT"
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
hi, Thanks for the explanation. Who has standing to object? Any person? thanks avri On 05-Oct-15 03:27, Rosemary E. Fei wrote:
For the sake of completeness, although it’s not relevant to answering your question, Alan, I should have mentioned one other step: Unless a corporation has no assets, attached to the Certificate of Dissolution must be a waiver from the California Attorney General of objections to the corporation’s distribution of assets. Without that, the Certificate of Dissolution will not be accepted for filing by the California Secretary of State and the dissolution will be incomplete. The process of seeking that waiver from the AG generally occurs after the election to dissolve, and before any substantial distribution of assets.
Rosemary
*From:*Rosemary E. Fei *Sent:* Sunday, October 04, 2015 11:36 PM *To:* Holly Gregory; Alan Greenberg; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx; thomas@rickert.net; mathieu.weill@afnic.fr; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Cc:* Sidley ICANN CCWG; ACCT-Staff; ICANN-Adler *Subject:* RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Documents for Posting for CCWG-ACCT
Dear Alan:
You asked the following question:
Although it has no direct impact on the current discussion, could you please further elaborate on your statement at the top of page 2 that the corporation can be dissolved by a simple majority of a minimal quorum (5/9/16). The California statute [1900.5.a and 1900.5.a(7)] seems to state that for dissolution, a majority of directors must sign a certificate of dissolution. That would imply that 9 were required (presuming the Board had its full complement of voting directors at that time).
The sections that you cite in the excerpt above relate to California’s General Corporation Law, which applies to business corporations, rather than its Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, which applies to ICANN. Since the two laws are roughly parallel, though, we understand your point regarding who signs the Certificate of Dissolution. That final step in the dissolution process can only be understood in the context of how the entire dissolution process works.
The relevant statutory requirements are in Sections 6610 et seq. of the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, which is part of the California Corporations Code. As mentioned in footnote 1 of the memorandum, Section 6610(b) provides that, in a corporation without memberssuch as ICANN is today, a corporation may elect by approval of the board to wind up and dissolve. This approval could legally take place at a meeting at which a bare quorum of the Board were present; a majority of those present would then be enough to elect dissolution. No higher voting requirement is imposedby the law or by ICANN’s current governing documents. It is this vote that is the key board action necessary to start the process of dissolving the corporation.
The next step, described in Section 6611, is the requirement to file with the California Secretary of State a certificate evidencing this election to dissolve. This certificate may be signed by two officers (it could instead be signed by a majority of the directors then in office, but this is not required; two officers is sufficient by law). We assume that even the mere filing of a Certificate of Election to Dissolve would be extremely disruptive to ICANN.
Section 6613 makes it clear that after theseinitial steps, the dissolution process commences. That is, the affairs of the corporation are wound up, and the assets of the corporation are liquidated and/or distributed as required by the law and its Articles of Incorporation. (Before any assets are distributed, the election to dissolve can be revoked, as provided in Section 6612.) When the corporation’s affairs have been completely wound up, thefinal step occurs: filing a Certificate of Dissolution with the Secretary of State to end the corporation’s existence by dissolution. As Section 6615 provides, this Certificate must be signed by a majority of the directors then in office. This is the requirement you refer to in your question. It is true that, depending on how many directors are still in office at this stage, it is possible that more directors would need to sign the Certificate of Dissolution than the number who earlier authorized the dissolution. However, since the Certificate of Dissolution is not filed until the very end of the dissolution process, its signature requirement does not prevent the dissolution process from being initiated by the Board under the scenario discussed above.
We hope this clarifies the legal requirements for dissolving a non-member nonprofit public benefit corporation.
Rosemary
Rosemary E. Fei Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) rfei@adlercolvin.com <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com> www.adlercolvin.com <http://www.adlercolvin.com>
_____________________________
Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email.
*From:*Holly Gregory *Sent:* Sunday, October 04, 2015 4:59 PM *To:* Alan Greenberg; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>; thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Cc:* Sidley ICANN CCWG; ACCT-Staff; ICANN-Adler; Rosemary E. Fei *Subject:* RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Documents for Posting for CCWG-ACCT
Hi Alan, Thanks for your question. The footnote we provided explained that section and addresses your question. Rosemary will send along a further explanatory note to clarify (as our expert on California not for profit law). Kind regards, Holly
Sent with Good (www.good.com <http://www.good.com>)**
* *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:*Alan Greenberg *Sent:* Sunday, October 04, 2015 04:47:39 PM *To:* Gregory, Holly; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>; thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Cc:* Sidley ICANN CCWG; ACCT-Staff; ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Documents for Posting for CCWG-ACCT
Holly,
Although it has no direct impact on the current discussion, could you please further elaborate on your statement at the top of page 2 that the corporation can be dissolved by a simple majority of a minimal quorum (5/9/16). The California statute [1900.5.a and 1900.5.a(7)] seems to state that for dissolution, a majority of directors must sign a certificate of dissolution. That would imply that 9 were required (presuming the Board had its full complement of voting directors at that time).
Alan
At 02/10/2015 03:38 PM, Gregory, Holly wrote:
Thomas, Mathieu and Leon and CCWG,, In addition to slides comparing the Sole Member, Sole Designator and Board Proposal from last week (which we understand did not get posted yet) , we are providing a memo as requested in LA that discusses how the statutory rights of a member can be constrained in the Sole Member model. Kind regards, Holly and Rosemary
*HOLLY* *GREGORY* Partner
*Sidley Austin LLP *+1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory@sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>
**************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
**************************************************************************************************** Content-Type: application/pdf; name="CCWG Memo_ Constraining the Exercise of" Statutory Rights (00719283xA3536....pdf" Content-Description: CCWG Memo_ Constraining the Exercise of Statutory Rights (00719283xA3536....pdf Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="CCWG Memo_ Constraining the" Exercise of Statutory Rights (00719283xA3536....pdf"; size=54222; creation-date="Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:20:05 GMT"; modification-date="Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:20:05 GMT"
Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation; name="Revised Slides - Key Characteristics Comparison. CMSM, CMSD, and Board" P....pptx" Content-Description: Revised Slides - Key Characteristics Comparison. CMSM, CMSD, and Board P....pptx Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Revised Slides - Key" Characteristics Comparison. CMSM, CMSD, and Board P....pptx"; size=493931; creation-date="Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:20:06 GMT"; modification-date="Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:20:06 GMT"
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Any person or corporation that alleges the corporation owes them money will have such standing. Again, from UK practice, though I expect it must be similar in the US, any proposal to strike off an incorporated body in the UK will be subject to a notice period, and there will be certain statutory notifiees (specifically the taxman and the social security administration) and publication in the official gazette. The striking off will only proceed in the absence of objection from the statutory consultees or any other person. It looks like its much the same in Calif. On 05/10/15 13:04, Avri Doria wrote:
hi,
Thanks for the explanation.
Who has standing to object? Any person?
thanks
avri
On 05-Oct-15 03:27, Rosemary E. Fei wrote:
For the sake of completeness, although it’s not relevant to answering your question, Alan, I should have mentioned one other step: Unless a corporation has no assets, attached to the Certificate of Dissolution must be a waiver from the California Attorney General of objections to the corporation’s distribution of assets. Without that, the Certificate of Dissolution will not be accepted for filing by the California Secretary of State and the dissolution will be incomplete. The process of seeking that waiver from the AG generally occurs after the election to dissolve, and before any substantial distribution of assets.
Rosemary
*From:*Rosemary E. Fei *Sent:* Sunday, October 04, 2015 11:36 PM *To:* Holly Gregory; Alan Greenberg; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx; thomas@rickert.net; mathieu.weill@afnic.fr; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Cc:* Sidley ICANN CCWG; ACCT-Staff; ICANN-Adler *Subject:* RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Documents for Posting for CCWG-ACCT
Dear Alan:
You asked the following question:
Although it has no direct impact on the current discussion, could you please further elaborate on your statement at the top of page 2 that the corporation can be dissolved by a simple majority of a minimal quorum (5/9/16). The California statute [1900.5.a and 1900.5.a(7)] seems to state that for dissolution, a majority of directors must sign a certificate of dissolution. That would imply that 9 were required (presuming the Board had its full complement of voting directors at that time).
The sections that you cite in the excerpt above relate to California’s General Corporation Law, which applies to business corporations, rather than its Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, which applies to ICANN. Since the two laws are roughly parallel, though, we understand your point regarding who signs the Certificate of Dissolution. That final step in the dissolution process can only be understood in the context of how the entire dissolution process works.
The relevant statutory requirements are in Sections 6610 et seq. of the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, which is part of the California Corporations Code. As mentioned in footnote 1 of the memorandum, Section 6610(b) provides that, in a corporation without memberssuch as ICANN is today, a corporation may elect by approval of the board to wind up and dissolve. This approval could legally take place at a meeting at which a bare quorum of the Board were present; a majority of those present would then be enough to elect dissolution. No higher voting requirement is imposedby the law or by ICANN’s current governing documents. It is this vote that is the key board action necessary to start the process of dissolving the corporation.
The next step, described in Section 6611, is the requirement to file with the California Secretary of State a certificate evidencing this election to dissolve. This certificate may be signed by two officers (it could instead be signed by a majority of the directors then in office, but this is not required; two officers is sufficient by law). We assume that even the mere filing of a Certificate of Election to Dissolve would be extremely disruptive to ICANN.
Section 6613 makes it clear that after theseinitial steps, the dissolution process commences. That is, the affairs of the corporation are wound up, and the assets of the corporation are liquidated and/or distributed as required by the law and its Articles of Incorporation. (Before any assets are distributed, the election to dissolve can be revoked, as provided in Section 6612.) When the corporation’s affairs have been completely wound up, thefinal step occurs: filing a Certificate of Dissolution with the Secretary of State to end the corporation’s existence by dissolution. As Section 6615 provides, this Certificate must be signed by a majority of the directors then in office. This is the requirement you refer to in your question. It is true that, depending on how many directors are still in office at this stage, it is possible that more directors would need to sign the Certificate of Dissolution than the number who earlier authorized the dissolution. However, since the Certificate of Dissolution is not filed until the very end of the dissolution process, its signature requirement does not prevent the dissolution process from being initiated by the Board under the scenario discussed above.
We hope this clarifies the legal requirements for dissolving a non-member nonprofit public benefit corporation.
Rosemary
Rosemary E. Fei Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) rfei@adlercolvin.com <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com> www.adlercolvin.com <http://www.adlercolvin.com>
_____________________________
Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email.
*From:*Holly Gregory *Sent:* Sunday, October 04, 2015 4:59 PM *To:* Alan Greenberg; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>; thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Cc:* Sidley ICANN CCWG; ACCT-Staff; ICANN-Adler; Rosemary E. Fei *Subject:* RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Documents for Posting for CCWG-ACCT
Hi Alan, Thanks for your question. The footnote we provided explained that section and addresses your question. Rosemary will send along a further explanatory note to clarify (as our expert on California not for profit law). Kind regards, Holly
Sent with Good (www.good.com <http://www.good.com>)**
* *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:*Alan Greenberg *Sent:* Sunday, October 04, 2015 04:47:39 PM *To:* Gregory, Holly; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>; thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Cc:* Sidley ICANN CCWG; ACCT-Staff; ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Documents for Posting for CCWG-ACCT
Holly,
Although it has no direct impact on the current discussion, could you please further elaborate on your statement at the top of page 2 that the corporation can be dissolved by a simple majority of a minimal quorum (5/9/16). The California statute [1900.5.a and 1900.5.a(7)] seems to state that for dissolution, a majority of directors must sign a certificate of dissolution. That would imply that 9 were required (presuming the Board had its full complement of voting directors at that time).
Alan
At 02/10/2015 03:38 PM, Gregory, Holly wrote:
Thomas, Mathieu and Leon and CCWG,, In addition to slides comparing the Sole Member, Sole Designator and Board Proposal from last week (which we understand did not get posted yet) , we are providing a memo as requested in LA that discusses how the statutory rights of a member can be constrained in the Sole Member model. Kind regards, Holly and Rosemary
*HOLLY* *GREGORY* Partner
*Sidley Austin LLP *+1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory@sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>
**************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
**************************************************************************************************** Content-Type: application/pdf; name="CCWG Memo_ Constraining the Exercise of" Statutory Rights (00719283xA3536....pdf" Content-Description: CCWG Memo_ Constraining the Exercise of Statutory Rights (00719283xA3536....pdf Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="CCWG Memo_ Constraining the" Exercise of Statutory Rights (00719283xA3536....pdf"; size=54222; creation-date="Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:20:05 GMT"; modification-date="Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:20:05 GMT"
Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation; name="Revised Slides - Key Characteristics Comparison. CMSM, CMSD, and Board" P....pptx" Content-Description: Revised Slides - Key Characteristics Comparison. CMSM, CMSD, and Board P....pptx Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Revised Slides - Key" Characteristics Comparison. CMSM, CMSD, and Board P....pptx"; size=493931; creation-date="Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:20:06 GMT"; modification-date="Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:20:06 GMT"
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
(sorry about the messed up subject. resend) hi, Thanks for the explanation. Who has standing to object? Any person? thanks avri On 05-Oct-15 03:27, Rosemary E. Fei wrote:
For the sake of completeness, although it’s not relevant to answering your question, Alan, I should have mentioned one other step: Unless a corporation has no assets, attached to the Certificate of Dissolution must be a waiver from the California Attorney General of objections to the corporation’s distribution of assets. Without that, the Certificate of Dissolution will not be accepted for filing by the California Secretary of State and the dissolution will be incomplete. The process of seeking that waiver from the AG generally occurs after the election to dissolve, and before any substantial distribution of assets.
Rosemary
*From:*Rosemary E. Fei *Sent:* Sunday, October 04, 2015 11:36 PM *To:* Holly Gregory; Alan Greenberg; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx; thomas@rickert.net; mathieu.weill@afnic.fr; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Cc:* Sidley ICANN CCWG; ACCT-Staff; ICANN-Adler *Subject:* RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Documents for Posting for CCWG-ACCT
Dear Alan:
You asked the following question:
Although it has no direct impact on the current discussion, could you please further elaborate on your statement at the top of page 2 that the corporation can be dissolved by a simple majority of a minimal quorum (5/9/16). The California statute [1900.5.a and 1900.5.a(7)] seems to state that for dissolution, a majority of directors must sign a certificate of dissolution. That would imply that 9 were required (presuming the Board had its full complement of voting directors at that time).
The sections that you cite in the excerpt above relate to California’s General Corporation Law, which applies to business corporations, rather than its Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, which applies to ICANN. Since the two laws are roughly parallel, though, we understand your point regarding who signs the Certificate of Dissolution. That final step in the dissolution process can only be understood in the context of how the entire dissolution process works.
The relevant statutory requirements are in Sections 6610 et seq. of the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, which is part of the California Corporations Code. As mentioned in footnote 1 of the memorandum, Section 6610(b) provides that, in a corporation without memberssuch as ICANN is today, a corporation may elect by approval of the board to wind up and dissolve. This approval could legally take place at a meeting at which a bare quorum of the Board were present; a majority of those present would then be enough to elect dissolution. No higher voting requirement is imposedby the law or by ICANN’s current governing documents. It is this vote that is the key board action necessary to start the process of dissolving the corporation.
The next step, described in Section 6611, is the requirement to file with the California Secretary of State a certificate evidencing this election to dissolve. This certificate may be signed by two officers (it could instead be signed by a majority of the directors then in office, but this is not required; two officers is sufficient by law). We assume that even the mere filing of a Certificate of Election to Dissolve would be extremely disruptive to ICANN.
Section 6613 makes it clear that after theseinitial steps, the dissolution process commences. That is, the affairs of the corporation are wound up, and the assets of the corporation are liquidated and/or distributed as required by the law and its Articles of Incorporation. (Before any assets are distributed, the election to dissolve can be revoked, as provided in Section 6612.) When the corporation’s affairs have been completely wound up, thefinal step occurs: filing a Certificate of Dissolution with the Secretary of State to end the corporation’s existence by dissolution. As Section 6615 provides, this Certificate must be signed by a majority of the directors then in office. This is the requirement you refer to in your question. It is true that, depending on how many directors are still in office at this stage, it is possible that more directors would need to sign the Certificate of Dissolution than the number who earlier authorized the dissolution. However, since the Certificate of Dissolution is not filed until the very end of the dissolution process, its signature requirement does not prevent the dissolution process from being initiated by the Board under the scenario discussed above.
We hope this clarifies the legal requirements for dissolving a non-member nonprofit public benefit corporation.
Rosemary
Rosemary E. Fei Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) rfei@adlercolvin.com <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com> www.adlercolvin.com <http://www.adlercolvin.com>
_____________________________
Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email.
*From:*Holly Gregory *Sent:* Sunday, October 04, 2015 4:59 PM *To:* Alan Greenberg; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>; thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Cc:* Sidley ICANN CCWG; ACCT-Staff; ICANN-Adler; Rosemary E. Fei *Subject:* RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Documents for Posting for CCWG-ACCT
Hi Alan, Thanks for your question. The footnote we provided explained that section and addresses your question. Rosemary will send along a further explanatory note to clarify (as our expert on California not for profit law). Kind regards, Holly
Sent with Good (www.good.com <http://www.good.com>)**
* *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:*Alan Greenberg *Sent:* Sunday, October 04, 2015 04:47:39 PM *To:* Gregory, Holly; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>; thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Cc:* Sidley ICANN CCWG; ACCT-Staff; ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Documents for Posting for CCWG-ACCT
Holly,
Although it has no direct impact on the current discussion, could you please further elaborate on your statement at the top of page 2 that the corporation can be dissolved by a simple majority of a minimal quorum (5/9/16). The California statute [1900.5.a and 1900.5.a(7)] seems to state that for dissolution, a majority of directors must sign a certificate of dissolution. That would imply that 9 were required (presuming the Board had its full complement of voting directors at that time).
Alan
At 02/10/2015 03:38 PM, Gregory, Holly wrote:
Thomas, Mathieu and Leon and CCWG,, In addition to slides comparing the Sole Member, Sole Designator and Board Proposal from last week (which we understand did not get posted yet) , we are providing a memo as requested in LA that discusses how the statutory rights of a member can be constrained in the Sole Member model. Kind regards, Holly and Rosemary
*HOLLY* *GREGORY* Partner
*Sidley Austin LLP *+1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory@sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>
**************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
**************************************************************************************************** Content-Type: application/pdf; name="CCWG Memo_ Constraining the Exercise of" Statutory Rights (00719283xA3536....pdf" Content-Description: CCWG Memo_ Constraining the Exercise of Statutory Rights (00719283xA3536....pdf Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="CCWG Memo_ Constraining the" Exercise of Statutory Rights (00719283xA3536....pdf"; size=54222; creation-date="Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:20:05 GMT"; modification-date="Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:20:05 GMT"
Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation; name="Revised Slides - Key Characteristics Comparison. CMSM, CMSD, and Board" P....pptx" Content-Description: Revised Slides - Key Characteristics Comparison. CMSM, CMSD, and Board P....pptx Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Revised Slides - Key" Characteristics Comparison. CMSM, CMSD, and Board P....pptx"; size=493931; creation-date="Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:20:06 GMT"; modification-date="Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:20:06 GMT"
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
participants (6)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
Gregory, Holly -
Nigel Roberts -
Rosemary E. Fei -
Steve Crocker