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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT