Illegal Pete's Restaurant Group Challenges Rejection of Its Request to Form Del LLC
According to the complaint, officials took issue with the company's name and cited a provision of Delaware's corporation law that allows the state to reject certificates for businesses that "might cause harm to the interests of the public."
April 24, 2019 at 12:51 PM
4 minute read
Restaurant group Illegal Pete's Inc. has sued two state officials in federal court over their refusal to convert the Colorado-based company to a Delaware limited liability company, arguing they based their decision on the notion that its “name has a negative connotation.”
The lawsuit, filed Monday, accused Deputy Secretary of State Kristopher Knight and Margaret Magnusen, the corporations section manager of the state division of corporations, of violating its constitutional rights with the decision late last year. The filing was first reported by the Associated Press on Tuesday.
According to the complaint, officials took issue with the company's name and cited a provision of Delaware's corporation law that allows the state to reject certificates for businesses that “might cause harm to the interests of the public.”
In a Nov. 9 voicemail, Knight told Illegal Pete's that the state had provided the company with the reasoning behind its decision and ”will not be changing an opinion that the name filing requested has not been accepted,” the filing said.
Illegal Pete's argued in its complaint that the statute cited by the state only referred to banks and was not applicable to its request. The company's name, it said, was chosen to honor the founder's father, who was described on Illegal Pete's website as “a bit of a good-natured hell-raiser in his day.”
The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, as well as attorney fees and costs from the state.
“Defendants' sole basis for refusal, that plaintiff's name 'has a negative connotation' that 'might cause harm to the interests of the public or the state' is unconstitutionally vague and standardless,” the company's attorney's wrote in the eight-page complaint. “Defendants' decision to deprive plaintiff of its liberty interest of expression and free speech is arbitrary and capricious, in violation of plaintiff's right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.”
A spokesman for Delaware's Division of Corporations declined to comment Wednesday, saying the agency does not comment on pending litigation.
The filing comes as Delaware is facing increasing scrutiny for its oversight of alternative entities, which have been linked to a series of abuses and illegal activity. In January, the Division of Corporations said that it would require additional screening for registered agents acting on behalf of companies and LLCs to ensure that they have not been sanctioned by federal authorities or otherwise barred from doing business in the United States.
Meanwhile, an open government group has argued that the changed don't go far enough and earlier this year called on Delaware's congressional delegation to sponsor legislation to create a national database that would track information on beneficial owners of the entities.
Delaware LLCs in recent years have been associated with money laundering schemes and sex trafficking conspiracies, and critics have argued that the state's lenient formation system enables criminal conduct among a small population of the more than 974,000 active LLCs in the First State.
Illegal Pete's is represented in the suit by Duane A. Bosworth of Davis Wright Tremaine in Portland, Oregon, and David L. Finger of Finger & Slanina in Wilmington. The company, founded in 1995, operates in Colorado and Arizona.
An online docket tracking service Wednesday did not list counsel for the state officials, who were sued in their official capacity.
The case, captioned Illegal Pete's v. Knight, has not yet been assigned to a judge.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBeyond Meat Faces Shareholder Suit Over Ability to Produce Product at Scale
New Derivative Suit Says Kraft Heinz Shareholders Were Misled on Post-Merger Losses
3 minute readSupreme Court Will Again Be Focus of IP World in 2023
Trending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250