California 2017-2018 Regular Session

California Senate Bill SB340

Introduced
2/14/17  
Introduced
2/14/17  
Refer
2/23/17  
Refer
2/23/17  
Report Pass
3/29/17  
Report Pass
3/29/17  
Refer
3/29/17  
Engrossed
4/20/17  
Engrossed
4/20/17  
Refer
5/18/17  
Refer
5/18/17  
Refer
5/30/17  
Refer
5/30/17  
Report Pass
7/11/17  
Report Pass
7/11/17  
Refer
7/11/17  
Refer
7/11/17  
Report Pass
8/23/17  
Enrolled
9/5/17  
Enrolled
9/5/17  
Chaptered
9/23/17  
Chaptered
9/23/17  
Passed
9/23/17  

Caption

Corporations: dissolution: bankruptcy.

Impact

The bill broadens the classification of individuals authorized to execute dissolution certificates, thereby potentially increasing the number of cases processed under this framework. This adjustment impacts the existing legal structure around corporate dissolutions, particularly for those companies undergoing bankruptcy proceedings, and could affect the timelines in which such dissolutions are executed, directly benefiting stakeholders involved in the reorganization of bankrupt corporations.

Summary

Senate Bill No. 340 amends the California Corporations Code, specifically Section 1401 and adds Section 1401.5, to facilitate the dissolution of corporations by allowing representatives appointed by the court, such as trustees or liquidating agents, to file a certificate of dissolution without requiring additional approval from corporate boards or shareholders. This change streamlines the process for corporations involved in bankruptcy reorganizations, enabling them to efficiently complete the dissolution process as prescribed by a court's reorganization plan.

Sentiment

The sentiment around SB 340 appears to be supportive, particularly among proponents who view the bill as a necessary step to streamline corporate dissolution during bankruptcy processes. Stakeholders may appreciate the efficiency and reduced bureaucratic hurdles provided by the legislation, as it helps expedite the resolution of corporate debts and liabilities, allowing businesses to move forward more quickly.

Contention

Notably, the bill was crafted to avoid the necessity for the state to reimburse local agencies for any costs associated with its implementation, due to the creation or adjustment of crimes or infractions that it mandates. This may be perceived as a point of contention among local governments that could be affected by the changes to their regulatory environments, although there appears to be broad consensus on the need for such amendments to support corporations in distress.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA SB356

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District.

CA AB548

Omnitrans Transit District.

CA AB1270

Redevelopment: successor agency: City of Lake Forest.

CA SB189

Fort Ord Reuse Authority: member agencies: land use and zoning: dissolution.

CA AB2663

Property taxation: change in ownership: exclusion: local registered domestic partners.

CA AB872

Property taxation: change in ownership: parent to child transfer: stock.

CA SB904

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District.

CA AB918

Health care district: County of Imperial.