In a major win for corporations worried about choice of law, the Delaware Court of Chancery held that forum selection bylaws adopted by corporation boards are at least facially valid as a matter of contract under Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL). Boilermakers Local 154 Retirement Fund v. Chevron Corporation stands for the proposition that bylaws which designate a specific forum for legal dispute resolution will stand up in court, taking some of the concern away for corporations in the realm of multiforum litigation.

In the case at bar, both Chevron and FedEx had adopted bylaws in their certificates of incorporation which indicated that Delaware would be the sole forum for any stockholder litigation. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ challenge of these forum selection provisions and held that the DGCL in fact does permit this kind of forum designation contractually.

The court’s reasoning was in part that the DGCL permits corporations to regulate themselves in order to function smoothly, and these kinds of bylaws assisted the smooth governance of the corporation. The court also found that both federal and Delaware law rendered forum selection bylaws contractually enforceable. This finding is based on the fact that the charters of the corporations in question granted unilateral power to the boards to adopt bylaws, and that this binding power was known to stockholders.

If you have any questions about this topic, please feel free to email us.

Tags: articles of incorporation, Boilermakers Local 154 Retirement Fund, Chevron Corporation, choice of law, corporate bylaws, corporate governance, corporate law, Delaware Chancery Court, Delaware General Corporation Law, delaware law, DGCL, forum selection, multiforum litigation, stockholder litigation

A Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled today that an employee’s private right of action under the Massachusetts Wage Act under G.L. c. 149, § 148 did apply in the case of a traveling salesman who rarely set foot in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This choice of law case basically states that where the Commonwealth has a close connection to the employment relationship of the parties, local law should be applied to the claim.

In this case the plaintiff worked as a salesperson Starbak, Inc., a Delaware corporation that had its a sole place of business in Massachusetts. He resided in Florida and conducted most of his sales activity across the country for Starbal. When Starbak closed its doors, it terminated his employment with significant commissions outstanding. The plaintiff then brought suit against the company’s chief executive officer, a Massachusetts resident, seeking unpaid sales commissions of more than $100,000, certain unreimbursed expenses, wages in lieu of accrued vacation time, treble damages, and attorney’s fees. The question here was whether Massachusetts law would apply given that the plaintiff rarely visited the state.

The Court found that the nature of the plaintiff’s work was such that only Massachusetts was tied to it. The employment agreement governing the work relationship provided that Massachusetts law would be applied in the event of a dispute. Starbak was located there and as a result customers who dealt with the plaintiff entered into business with the company in Massachusetts. The plaintiff’s business cards identified his contact information as the same as Starbak’s, based in Massachusetts. His paychecks were issued from Massachusetts, and he communicated with the company daily. The plaintiff was in fact required to return to Massachusetts several times each year, and when he did return he would generally work in the same office space each time.

While distinguishing a case cited by the defendant where the Wage Act was not applied to an Australian employee operating outside the United States, importantly, the Court did acknowledge that the application of the Wage Act may be different in the case on a non-US employee.

This case should caution businesses that employ workers from a distance. While it does not seem to indicate that all remote employees will always be able to access remedies afforded by the local law of the businesses they work for, this is certainly something for businesses to consider when drafting employment agreements and establishing relationships with remote workers.

If you have any questions about this topic, please feel free to email us.

Tags: choice of law, corporate law, labor law, local law, massachusetts appeals court, Massachusetts law, Massachusetts Wage Act, remote employees

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently held that managers of LLCs can be held liable individually for unpaid wages under the Massachusetts Wage Act. Specifically, a “manager who ‘controls, directs, and participates to a substantial degree in formulating and determining’ the financial policy of a business entity may be a ‘person having employees in his service’ under G.L. c. 149, § 148, and thus may be subject to liability for violations of the Wage Act,” [citations omitted].

The issue before the court was whether the legislative intent was to include managers of LLCs in the group of possible violators of the Massachusetts Wage Act, and the court found that it did. The court found a clear legislative intent to hold all individuals who contribute to a business’ fiscal and employment policies responsible for how employees are treated.

What does this mean for day to day business? LLCs of all sizes now have one more thing to consider when taking out director and officer and employee practices liability insurance. Since these kinds of policies are crucial to risk management for any business and this case signals a new kind of risk, this case should be on your radar.

If you have any questions about this topic, please feel free to email us.

Tags: corporate law, D&O, D&O policies, directors and officers, employee practices, employee practices liability, employee practices liability insurance, individual liability, LLC managers, Massachusetts law, massachusetts supreme judicial court, Massachusetts Wage Act, unpaid wages