Tl 706: Fill & Download for Free

Tl;dr — “Minor” in this context means “lesser”. It expresses the humility of Saint Francis and of the brothers who follow him.The Order of Friars Minor, also called the Franciscan Friars, was founded at the beginning of the 13th century (around 1210) by Francesco Bernardone whom we know today as Saint Francis of Assisi. It began as a group of young friends who wanted to live an evangelic (gospel) lifestyle, modeling themselves after the life of the apostles as they understood it. The Order’s official website describes it in this way: Francis[…]heard a sermon on how Jesus’ disciples were sent out “without silver or gold”. This passage from the Gospel of St. Matthew made such an impression on Francis that he decided to devote himself totally to living poorly, like the apostles. He dressed in a rough garment, went barefoot and with “no bag for the journey, nor a staff”, he began to preach repentance. [1][1][1][1]The material poverty was just an expression of a spiritual idea of “minority”. As Amy Neff explains in her interesting article “Lesser Brothers: Franciscan Mission and Identity at Assisi” in The Art Bulletin (Vol. 88, No. 4 (Dec., 2006), pp. 676-706, also available online[2][2][2][2]):In contrast to other contemporary groups, secular or ecclesiastical, Francis’s companions were to be brothers of equal worth, none esteemed superior to the other, each caring for the other and living a life that was minor or “lesser,” according to the Gospels. […] In concept fraternal minority placed the Franciscan below and outside society’s institutions and structures…When the time came to become official, they took the name Order of Friars Minor, the “lesser brothers”, expressing this central principle of their communal life.Footnotes[1] About the Franciscan Friars - Ordo Fratrum Minorum[1] About the Franciscan Friars - Ordo Fratrum Minorum[1] About the Franciscan Friars - Ordo Fratrum Minorum[1] About the Franciscan Friars - Ordo Fratrum Minorum[2] Lesser Brothers: Franciscan Mission and Identity at Assisi[2] Lesser Brothers: Franciscan Mission and Identity at Assisi[2] Lesser Brothers: Franciscan Mission and Identity at Assisi[2] Lesser Brothers: Franciscan Mission and Identity at Assisi

U.S. Healthcare spending as a % of GDP is 17.9%, or about $3.5 trillion, which is about $10,800 per person (CMS data), and this metric is also compared to other countries on the first link. Breakdown by insurance:Medicare: $706 billion;Medicaid: $582 billion;Private insurance: $1.18 trillion; andOut of pocket: $365.5 billionU.S. Healthcare spending as compared to other countries’ healthcare spending. Takeaways from this article include:The U.S. spends disproportionately more as a % of GDP than any other countryThe U.S. spends more per capita on healthcare than any other countryThe U.S. is increasingly spending more than any other country on healthcare (i.e., the gap is widening)Distribution of Healthcare spending (2017 data). TL;DR breakdown by facility:Hospitals: 33%Physicians / Clinics: 20%Prescription Drugs: 10%Nursing Care: 5%Dental Care: 4%Home Health Care: 3%Other Health (post-acute is probably lumped in here): 27%Year over year Healthcare spending growthThis Kaiser-sponsored website has a ton of information on healthcare expendituresThis CMS report is also a great resource.Also, if interested, I cover things like this on the Healthy Muse from time to time.

Dana H. Shultz may have the correct answer (yes) but let’s provide some context here.Mike Prozan’s comment to the original author was: Why would you even bother having a non-voting shareholder sign a shareholders’ agreement if their shares are non-voting? That is,If the shares are non voting, I do not understand why it matters.TL;DR —Yes, non-voting shareholders may enter into legally binding voting agreements or shareholders agreements with a corporation to vote as a single class with common (voting) shareholders for a transaction that involves (i) certain Amendments to the Articles of Incorporation, and (ii) Mergers and Acquisitions with 16.66% or more in voting dilution. But to see why this applies to non-voting shareholders, please read below.The Rule. California law, specifically Section 400(a) of the California General Corporations Code, allows corporations to issue one or more classes or series of shares that have “full, limited or no voting rights.” In other words, a California corporation is authorized to issue non-voting shares.Two Exceptions to the Rule. There are two notable exceptions where a shareholder with non-voting shares is nonetheless entitled to vote:Amendments to the Articles of Incorporation. Section 903(a) mandates that a proposed amendment to the articles of incorporation must be approved by the outstanding shares of a class, “whether or not such class is entitled to vote thereon by the provisions of the articles,” if the amendment would have an effect on the class, including any change to the rights, preferences, privileges or restrictions on the shares of that class.Mergers and Acquisitions (Reorganizations). Section 1201(a) generally requires a shareholders’ vote whenever there is a reorganization with more than minimal dilution, or more than 1/6th (or 16.66%) voting dilution. In other words, a vote of each class of outstanding stock is required unless the shareholders of the acquiring corporation [A] have more than 5/6ths (83.33%) of the voting power of the continuing or combined enterprise after the consummation of the reorganization [A>T]. The big difference from Amendments to Articles of Incorporation is that in M&A transactions with some dilution, two classes of common shares differing only as to voting rights (e.g., Class A Non-Voting Common and Class B Non-Voting Common) are considered as a single class of shares. Accordingly, non-voting shareholders may vote as a single class with common (voting) shareholders.PRACTICAL EXAMPLES:Section 903(a) Amendments. The first voting exception is applicable when a corporation seeks to raise new capital by amending the Articles of Incorporation in any way which would change the rights, preferences, privileges or restrictions of the Non-Voting class of shareholders, which would trigger the need to seek shareholder approval from “each class of outstanding shares.” Legal scholars have written that California intended Class A Common and Class B Common (non voting vs. voting) to be treated as separate classes of stock (even if they are the same class of stockholders for purposes of tax law), so in effect, it would grant non-voting shareholders a veto right. Notably, any “change” in the rights, preferences, privileges, or restrictions of stock would include both pro and adverse changes — e.g., giving voting rights to non-voting shareholders.Reorganizations. This is a term defined under Section 181 and includes many different types of corporate mergers and acquisitions. Section 1201(a) states that the principal terms of a reorganization must be approved by holders of “each class” of shares. Unlike Section 903(a), however, Section 1201(a) provides that “two classes of common shares differing only as to voting rights shall be considered as a single class of shares” for purposes of a single class of shares.Why this matters?Delaware corporations may even get sucked into this voting requirement, despite the fact the corporation is incorporated in another state. Under Section 2115, Section 1201 (and other provisions) are made applicable to foreign corporations if more than half of their shareholders reside in California and they do more than half of their business in California as determined by the factors used in allocating income for franchise tax purposes. These provisions apply to so-called “pseudo-foreign corporations” and include the voting provision referred to above, that is, Section 1201 (non-shareholders must vote in certain mergers and acquisitions).SOLUTIONS: To avoid having your non-voting shareholders vote as a separate class of stock, you should speak to your corporate lawyer to draft a Voting Agreement or Shareholders Agreement (Section 706) which would get your non-voting shareholders to vote a certain way, such as adding a Drag Along right, getting them to sign a shareholders agreement/voting agreement, or some other legal mechanism that would accomplish what you’re trying to do.Agreements Against Public Policy are Always VoidableNotwithstanding everything written above, a court could certainly find other ways to unwind the transaction and award a more favorable result to the non-voting shareholders if there is any evidence of intentional wrongdoing, breaches of fiduciary duty, or other tort claims involved. No contract or amendment can overrule Section 204(a)(10) of the Corporations Code, which provides that the articles of incorporation “may not eliminate or limit the liability of directors [to the corporation] for acts or omissions that involve intentional misconduct ... or that involve the absence of good faith on the part of the director...” See Neubauer vs. Goldfarb.