Yesterday’s post discussed California’s “absolute” right of shareholders to inspect the shareholder list established by Section 1600 of the California Corporations Code. Some additional points are briefly worth noting:
-
Neither the articles of incorporation or bylaws may limit this statutory inspection right. Cal. Corp. Code § 1600(d).
-
The right to inspect the shareholder list is distinct from the right to inspect the accounting books and records and minutes, which is governed a different statute – Cal. Corp. Code § 1601.
-
A corporation has a statutory responsibility to cause its transfer agent to comply with Section 1600.
Does California Prohibit Alien Implants?
Some people believe that extra-terrestrials have visited this planet and implanted objects into human beings. These stories caused me to wonder whether these visitors could be held liable under Section 52.7 of the California Civil Code. That statute generally provides that “a person shall not require, coerce, or compel any other individual to undergo the subcutaneous implanting of an identification device”. A violators are subject to, among other things, an initial civil penalty of no more than $10,000, and no more than one thousand dollars $1,000 for each day the violation continues until the deficiency is corrected.
It seems to me that a victim would have a difficult time proceeding under Section 52.7. First, would be the problem of effecting proper service on the defendants. The defendants may be unreachable and even if they are still here, I doubt that many process servers would be willing to attempt service. Personal jurisdiction may be an issue as there may be insufficient contacts to establish general jurisdiction. However, I suspect that special jurisdiction could be established if the defendants entered California for the purpose of effecting these implants. I wonder, however, whether an alien would be a “person” as defined by the statute. Section 52.7(h)(2) defines a “person” as “an individual, business association, partnership, limited partnership, corporation, limited liability company, trust, estate, cooperative association, or other entity”. ET doesn’t seem to fit within any of those categories. Yet another problem might be that the implant is not a “subcutaneous identification device” as defined in the statute. I’m not quite sure what the purpose of an alien implant might be, but it may be for purposes other than those defined in the statute.
Section 52.7 was enacted in 2007 (SB 362 (Simitian)) in response to the Federal Drug Administration’s approval of a human implantable RFID system. See Senate Floor Analysis (Aug. 29, 2007).
