ILNews

7th Circuit affirms in questionable merger case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The judges of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals took a plaintiff to task for filing a frivolous appeal and evading regulations of the Securities Act of 1933.

In MAS Capital Inc. v. Biodelivery Sciences International Inc., No. 07-3138, the appellate court affirmed the U.S. District Court grant of summary judgment in favor of Biodelivery on MAS Capital's suit to collect what it claims is due for services rendered to Biodelivery. But the judges have issues with those services MAS Capital provided, which essentially were designed to evade the requirements the Securities Act imposes on companies that go public.

MAS Capital incorporated a shell company, MAS Acquisition XXIII - which it represented as having tradable securities - and arranged for Biodelivery to merge with the shell company. The newly merged company changed its name to Biodelivery Sciences International and now had stock that could be bought or sold.

Because this process is illegal, the SEC has started proceedings against MAS Capital and its president and sole director, Aaron Tsai. The SEC required Tsai to sell any stock and options he issued, which he did. He also signed a release that states neither he nor MAS Capital have any right to compensation from Biodelivery.

MAS Capital filed this suit against Biodelivery to try and collect additional compensation. In order to get around that release, MAS Capital claimed some of its services were in fact performed by MAS Financial. Because MAS Financial and Tsai didn't sign the release in his capacity as an agent for MAS Financial, Tsai asserted that a merger occurred between the two companies and MAS is the surviving firm. Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote that neither the District judge nor the 7th Circuit judges are amused by Tsai's actions.

"Tsai and his corporations take the law, and their promises, entirely too lightly. Tsai himself performed the services; any claim that MAS Financial (and thus MAS Capital) may have is derivative of his endeavors, and he has released any claim," wrote the judge.

The 7th Circuit is going to send copies of this opinion to the SEC and NASDAQ for their ongoing administrative proceedings against Tsai and his companies. The appellate court also directed MAS Capital to show cause within 14 days why the court shouldn't impose sanctions for filing a frivolous appeal.

Also within this case is the issue of how 28 U.S.C. 1332 treats domestic corporations with principal places of business outside of the U.S. Biodelivery removed the suit from state court to federal court. Biodelivery is incorporated in Delaware, but its principal place of business is New Jersey. Biodelivery thought MAS Capital was both incorporated and had a principal place of business in Indiana. However, it turns out MAS Capital was incorporated in Nevada but had its principal place of business in Taiwan. Although the 7th Circuit never addressed this issue of having incorporation in the U.S. but principal business in another country, other circuits have ruled that the foreign place of business does not count, so jurisdiction is proper under Section 1332 (a)(1), and MAS Capital will be treated in the suit as a citizen of Nevada alone.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Im very happy for you, getting ready to go down that dirt road myself, and im praying for the same outcome, because it IS sometimes in the childs best interest to have visitation with grandparents. Thanks for sharing, needed to hear some positive posts for once.

  2. Been there 4 months with 1 paycheck what can i do

  3. our hoa has not communicated any thing that takes place in their "executive meetings" not executive session. They make decisions in these meetings, do not have an agenda, do not notify association memebers and do not keep general meetings minutes. They do not communicate info of any kind to the member, except annual meeting, nobody attends or votes because they think the board is self serving. They keep a deposit fee from club house rental for inspection after someone uses it, there is no inspection I know becausee I rented it, they did not disclose to members that board memebers would be keeping this money, I know it is only 10 dollars but still it is not their money, they hire from within the board for paid positions, no advertising and no request for bids from anyone else, I atteended last annual meeting, went into executive session to elect officers in that session the president brought up the motion to give the secretary a raise of course they all agreed they hired her in, then the minutes stated that a diffeerent board member motioned to give this raise. This board is very clickish and has done things anyway they pleased for over 5 years, what recourse to members have to make changes in the boards conduct

  4. Where may I find an attorney working Pro Bono? Many issues with divorce, my Disability, distribution of IRA's, property, money's and pressured into agreement by my attorney. Leaving me far less than 5% of all after 15 years of marriage. No money to appeal, disabled living on disability income. Attorney's decision brought forward to judge, no evidence ever to finalize divorce. Just 2 weeks ago. Please help.

  5. For the record no one could answer the equal protection / substantive due process challenge I issued in the first post below. The lawless and accountable only to power bureaucrats never did either. All who interface with the Indiana law examiners or JLAP be warned.

ADVERTISEMENT