BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                     SB 201
                                                                     Page  1


        SENATE THIRD READING
        SB 201 (DeSaulnier)
        As Amended  March 14, 2011
        Majority vote 

         SENATE VOTE  :37-1  
         
         BANKING & FINANCE   9-0         JUDICIARY           6-3         
         
         ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
        |Ayes:|Eng, Achadjian, Fuentes,  |Ayes:|Feuer, Atkins, Dickinson, |
        |     |Gatto, Roger Hern�ndez,   |     |Huber, Monning,           |
        |     |Lara, Morrell, Perea,     |     |Wieckowski                |
        |     |Torres                    |     |                          |
        |     |                          |     |                          |
        |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
        |     |                          |Nays:|Wagner, Beth Gaines,      |
        |     |                          |     |Jones                     |
         ----------------------------------------------------------------- 

         APPROPRIATIONS      10-5                                        
         
         ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
        |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield,     |     |                          |
        |     |Bradford, Charles         |     |                          |
        |     |Calderon, Campos, Davis,  |     |                          |
        |     |Dickinson, Hill, Lara,    |     |                          |
        |     |Solorio                   |     |                          |
        |     |                          |     |                          |
        |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
        |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly,         |     |                          |
        |     |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner    |     |                          |
         ----------------------------------------------------------------- 

         SUMMARY  :  Establishes the Corporate Flexibility Act of 2011.  
        Specifically,  this bill  :   

        1)Creates a new corporate form called a flexible purpose corporation 
          (FPC).

        2)Provides that one or more natural persons, partnerships, 
          associations, FPCs, or corporations, domestic or foreign, may form 
          a FPC under the California Corporations Code, by executing and 
          filing articles of incorporation with the Secretary of State 








                                                                     SB 201
                                                                     Page  2


          (SOS). 

        3)Enacts conforming changes to the Corporations Code to recognize 
          FPCs.

        4)Requires in the articles of incorporation that each FPC list its 
          flexible purposes, which could be any of the following:

           a)   One or more charitable or public purpose activities that a 
             nonprofit public benefit corporation is authorized to carry 
             out; or,

           b)   Promoting positive short-term or long-term effects of, or 
             minimizing adverse short-term  or long-term effects of the FPCs 
             activities on the FPCs employee, suppliers, customers, and 
             creditors, the community and society and or the environment.

        5)Provides that each FPCs articles of incorporation can include the 
          following:

           a)   A provision limiting the duration of the FPCs existence to a 
             specified date;

           b)   A provision limiting or restricting the business in which 
             the FPC may engage or the powers that the FPC may exercise, or 
             both, provided these restrictions are consistent with the 
             purpose of the FPC; or,

           c)   A provision requiring a shareholder approval for any 
             corporate action. 

        6)Requires that each existing company wishing to become an FPC 
          through conversion or reorganization to take an affirmative vote 
          of at least two-thirds of each of its classes of shareholders, or 
          a higher vote threshold, if required in the articles of 
          incorporation. 

        7)States that the only type of action involving the formation or 
          dissolution of an FPC that would not require a two-thirds vote 
          would be a merger of one FPC into another FPC with a similar 
          special purpose.  

        8)Establishes that shareholders of an existing corporation that 
          decide to convert to an FPC would be entitled to dissenter's 








                                                                     SB 201
                                                                     Page  3


          rights, which are spelled out in existing law. 

        9)Requires each FPC to prepare an annual report, which must be sent 
          to its shareholders no later than 120 days after the close of the 
          FPCs fiscal year, and at least 15 days prior to the shareholders 
          annual meeting (35 days prior if sent via bulk mail).  In addition 
          to a balance sheet, income statement, and a statement of cash 
          flows for that fiscal year, the annual report must also include a 
          management discussion and analysis (MD&A) regarding the FPCs 
          stated purpose or purposes, as set forth in its articles of 
          incorporation, and, to the extent consistent with reasonable 
          confidentiality requirements, must post the MD&A on its Web site.  
          Each FPCs MD&A is required to include the following information, 
          at a minimum:

           a)   An identification and discussion of the short-and long-term 
             objectives of the FPC that relate to its special purpose(s), 
             and an identification and explanation of any changes made to 
             these special purpose objectives during the fiscal year;

           b)   An identification and discussion of material actions taken 
             by the FPC during the fiscal year to achieve its special 
             purpose objectives, the impact of those actions,  including the 
             causal relationships between the actions and the reported 
             outcomes, and the extent to which those actions achieved the 
             special purpose objectives for the fiscal year;

           c)   An identification of material actions, together with  the 
             intended impact of those actions, which the FPC expects to take 
             in the short- and long-term to achieve its special purpose 
             objectives;

           d)   A description of the process for selecting, and an 
             identification and description of the financial, operating, and 
             other measures used by the FPC during the fiscal year for 
             evaluating its performance in achieving its special purpose 
             objectives, including an explanation of why the FPC selected 
             those measures and an identification and discussion of the 
             nature and rationale for any material changes in those measures 
             made during the fiscal year; and,

           e)   An identification and discussion of any material operating 
             and capital expenditures incurred by the FPC during the fiscal 
             year in furtherance of achieving its special purpose 








                                                                     SB 201
                                                                     Page  4


             objectives, a good faith estimate of any additional material 
             operating or capital expenditures the FPC expects to incur over 
             the next three fiscal years in order to achieve its special 
             purpose objectives, and other material expenditures of 
             resources incurred by the FPC during the fiscal year, including 
             employee time, in furtherance of achieving its special purpose 
             objectives, including a discussion of the extent to which that 
             capital or use of other resources served purposes other than, 
             and in addition to, furthering the achievement of the special 
             purpose objectives.

        10) In addition to the annual report described above, each FPC would 
          have to prepare and distribute a special purpose current report to 
          its shareholders within 45 days of an expenditure, which was made 
          in furtherance of its special purpose objectives, and which had or 
          is believed likely to have a material adverse impact on the FPCs 
          results of operations or financial condition for a quarterly or 
          annual fiscal period.  This special purpose current report would 
          have to identify the expenditure or group of related or planned 
          expenditures, which had or was likely to have a material adverse 
          impact on the FPCs financial condition.

         FISCAL EFFECT  :  Unknown

         COMMENTS  :  Should SB 201 become enacted, California would be the 
        first state to establish "flexible purpose corporations."  At least 
        four other states have established "benefit corporations" and a 
        number of other states are looking into creating benefit 
        corporations.  Maryland, Vermont, Virginia and New Jersey have 
        adopted benefit corporations.  Hawaii, Michigan, New York, North 
        Carolina, Pennsylvania and Virginia have introduced legislation to 
        create benefit corporations.  

        This measure stems from the California Working Group for New 
        Corporate Forms (10 attorneys) that has been looking into creating a 
        FPC since 2008.  The goal of the working group was to design a new 
        division in the Corporations Code to facilitate the organization of 
        companies in California with greater flexibility for combining 
        profitability with broader social or environmental purpose.  

         FPC  .  A FPC would encourage and expressly permit companies to be 
        formed or converted from other forms to pursue one or more purposes 
        in addition to creating economic value for shareholders.  
        FPCs would be required to set forth their special purpose in their 








                                                                     SB 201
                                                                     Page  5


        articles of incorporation.  That special purpose mission would be 
        anchored, unless and until two-thirds of each class of voting shares 
        decided otherwise (or a greater threshold, if so specified in the 
        articles of incorporation).  The directors of a FPC would be 
        protected from decisionmaking involving trade-offs between 
        profitability and the special purpose(s).  Any merger or 
        reorganization materially altering or eliminating an existing FPCs 
        special purpose, and any decision by any other business entity to 
        become a FPC would require the same supermajority vote.  Each FPC 
        would be required to provide annual reports on its impact toward 
        achieving its special purpose(s), and an estimate of future 
        anticipated expenditures.  Shareholders of a FPC who object to an 
        action requiring a shareholder vote in connection with a conversion, 
        reorganization, or merger would have dissenter's rights, which would 
        allow them to cash out their shares in the FPC.  Dissenters' rights 
        would not be available for shareholders who object to a material 
        change in a FPCs special purpose.  

        In contrast, a traditional corporation must be mindful of 
        shareholder interests in the profits of the corporation.  In a 
        traditional corporation directors are required to utilize good faith 
        in taking actions for the best interests of the corporation and the 
        shareholders.  A main goal is to maximize shareholder value.  
        Directors are liable to shareholders in cases where shareholders 
        disagree with not-for-profit activities.  This bill has the 
        intention to make it easier for corporations to adopt and implement 
        meaningful strategies by allowing directors the flexibility to 
        pursue social and environmental purposes in addition to 
        profitability.  

        How does a FPC differ from a benefit corporation (B-Corp)?  A B-Corp 
        allows corporations to engage in activities that benefit non-profit 
        interests.  According to the Working Group the main differences 
        include:  

        a)B-Corp lives under a legislative prescribed standard that requires 
          a material positive impact on society and the environment, taken 
          as a whole, as compared FPCs that must include one or more special 
          purposes in their articles;

        b)B-Corp requires that the benefit being achieved be measured in 
          accordance with the third-party standard, whereas, FPCs are 
          provided added protection in they apply "best practices"; 









                                                                     SB 201
                                                                     Page  6


        c)In determining what is in the best interests of the corporation, 
          the directors of a B-Corp must consider the impacts of any action 
          or proposed action upon various constituents or stakeholders of 
          the corporation, whereas, the directors of a FPC must consider the 
          impacts of any action of any special purpose; 

        d)B-Corp legislation requires the appointment of a Benefit Director 
          and Benefit Officer who must certify compliance with the public 
          benefit, whereas the FPC legislation does not; and,

        e)B-Corp legislation creates a new right of action for enforcement 
          of benefit, whereas, the FPC legislation relies on the 
          transparency of requirements and seeks to provide the fullest 
          measure of protection to directors in order to permit innovation 
          and an unfettered application of their business judgment in making 
          any necessary trade-offs between special purpose and maximizing 
          shareholder value without fear of litigation. 

        In addition to the B-Corp, another alternative is the L3C or low 
        profit limited liability company.  This alternative exists in five 
        other states:  Illinois, Michigan, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming.  It 
        is a statutory type of limited liability companies (LLC) that 
        permits LLCs to be organized both for income and wealth accumulation 
        and for socially beneficial purposes.  This form would be utilized 
        by a for-profit company with a charitable purpose wishing to attract 
        program related investments by foundations.  The charitable purpose 
        of the company would be the primary purpose with making a profit the 
        secondary purpose.  

         EXAMPLE  .  According to an article titled, "Protecting your Mission:  
        Legal tools to keep your Company on the Righteous Path," Ben Cohen 
        and Jerry Greenfield founded Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream in 1978.  The 
        mission of Ben and Jerry's was to create top quality ice cream and 
        give back to the community.  They donated 7.5% of pretax profits to 
        charity and partnered with nonprofits to open shops in inner city 
        neighborhoods to employ low-income residents.  The company's feel 
        good image attracted the interest of multinational corporations.  In 
        2000, Unilever made a buyout offer to the company's shareholders.  
        Even though Ben and Jerry did not want to sell out, they had little 
        choice.  The board could not risk accepting a lower competing offer 
        without exposing itself to litigation from shareholders asserting 
        their right to the highest possible return at the expense of other 
        considerations- a right upheld by many courts.  Since the takeover, 
        the donations and inner-city shops have gone by the wayside.








                                                                     SB 201
                                                                     Page  7




         Analysis Prepared by  :    Kathleen O'Malley / B. & F. / (916) 
        319-3081

                                                                 FN:  0001632