Corporate Owner of 'Women's Business' Leads to Court's Rejection of Business Certification
In an unpublished opinion, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the denial of an application for the certification of a "women's business" by a division of the state's treasury department because that business is owned by another corporation.
February 13, 2023 at 03:00 PM
3 minute read
In an unpublished opinion Monday, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the denial of an application for the certification of a "women's business" by a division of the state's treasury department because that business is owned by another corporation.
The appellant, Stone Industries, appealed a determination made by the Division of Revenue and Enterprise Services, which is responsible for certifying to public agencies business eligibility to bid on contracts as a women's business, according to the opinion. The division maintains a database listing all such businesses. Inclusion in that list means that the business would be eligible for state programs and initiatives that are designed to ensure equal opportunity for women's businesses.
According to the opinion, the definition of a women's business is spelled out in a state statute. Such a business is a sole proprietorship owned and controlled by a woman, a partnership or joint venture controlled by women with 51% ownership where the management and daily business operations are controlled by women owners, or a corporation or other entity whose management and daily business operations are controlled by one or more women who own at least 51% of the business. If stock is issued, at least 51% must be owned by one or more women.
Stone applied to the division for certification as a women's business, according to the opinion. In that application, Stone stated that 56% of Stone was owned by Janet R. Braen and Samantha L. Braen. However, Stone submitted tax returns for another company called Braen Commercial Holdings as part of its application, along with letters from accountants for Stone and BCHC. Those letters stated that Stone is a wholly owned qualified subchapter S subsidiary of BCHC and included a reorganization statement filed as part of BCHC's 2002 tax return, according to the opinion.
"Because Stone was '100% owned, controlled, and operated by another entity BCHC,' the division concluded that Stone's 'majority owner is not a woman' or women as required by N.J.S.A. 52:27H-21.18(i)(3)," the per curiam opinion said. "Therefore, the division denied Stone's application for certification as a women's business."
On appeal, Stone argued that the decision by the division was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable and should be reversed. Stone further contended that the decision "runs contrary to" the legislative intent governing the certification of women's businesses, according to the opinion.
Judges Michael J. Haas and Stephanie Ann Mitterhoff stated that under the relevant statute, the division found that a women's business must be both controlled by and owned by women.
"Stone, however, is owned and controlled by a corporation," the judges said.
Stone argued that since the division certified the business as a women's business in 2003, and again in 2008, those decisions should bind future determinations. However, the judges disagreed, explaining that "the fact that Stone received prior certifications following its reorganization into a wholly owned subsidiary of BCHC does not bind the state to grant certification again, especially when doing so would be contrary to the requirements of the applicable law."
The judges stated that, after 2008, Stone did not reapply for certification until 2021. In that intervening period, the division approved BCHC for certification as a women's business four times, most recently in 2018.
"Stone is owned by a corporation, BCHC," the judges said. "While BCHC might qualify for certification on its own based on its ownership structure, Stone plainly does not."
Neither counsel for Stone, Jason J. Waldstein of Schenck, Price, Smith & King, nor the Attorney General's Office on behalf of the Department of the Treasury responded to a request for comment.
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 All'Point Us to the Plain Language': NJ Supreme Court Grills Defense Statutory Requirements for Affidavit of Merit
5 minute read3rd Circuit Judges Zero In on Constitutional Challenges to Medicare Drug Pricing Program
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
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