October 31, 2020

Volume X, Number 305

Advertisement

October 30, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 29, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 28, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

California Court Of Appeal Holds LLC’s Former Counsel May Represent Insider Defendants In Derivative Suit

Derivative actions can be somewhat confusing.  Although the entity is essentially the plaintiff, it is named as a defendant. Initially, one might question why must the corporation be named as a party?  I can think of at least two reasons. First, the litigation involves the rights of the entity directly. Second, including the entity as a party helps to ensure that the defendants will enjoy the protection of res judicata should they prevail.  Those are reasons for naming the entity as a party, but why name the entity as a defendant rather than as a plaintiff?  In California, this seemingly odd result follows from Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure: “If the consent of any one who should have been joined as plaintiff cannot be obtained, he may be made a defendant, the reason thereof being stated in the complaint . . .”.

In the case of a limited liability company, a lawyer may at times represent the company and the manager of the company. When a derivative suit is brought by a member, does the attorney’s prior representation of the company disqualify the attorney from representing the company’s manager?  That was the question before the California Court of Appeal in Beachcomber Management Crystal Cove, LLC v. Superior Court, 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 664 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. June 28, 2017).

Writing for the Court, Justice Richard M. Aronson concluded that an attorney may represent the insiders in a derivative lawsuit despite the attorney’s previous representation of the company regarding issues raised in the suit. In reaching this conclusion, the Court focused on a line of cases that govern governing successive representation in derivative lawsuits brought by small or closely held companies (Forrest v. Baeza, 58 Cal. App. 4th 65 (1997) and following cases).  The raison d’être for disqualification in successive representation cases is to prevent the attorney from using confidential information gained from the representation of the entity.  This rationale breaks down when the insider defendants essentially had access to the same information.  Thus, that becomes the “critical inquiry”.

© 2010-2020 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP National Law Review, Volume VII, Number 214
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Keith Paul Bishop, Corporate Transactions Lawyer, finance securities attorney, Allen Matkins Law Firm
Partner

Keith Bishop works with privately held and publicly traded companies on federal and state corporate and securities transactions, compliance, and governance matters. He is highly-regarded for his in-depth knowledge of the distinctive corporate and regulatory requirements faced by corporations in the state of California.

While many law firms have a great deal of expertise in federal or Delaware corporate law, Keith’s specific focus on California corporate and securities law is uncommon. A former California state regulator of securities and financial institutions, Keith has decades of...

949-851-5428
Advertisement
Advertisement