Exemptions For Corporations: California Law Execution

California law provides for a variety of exemptions for corporations and individuals. These include exemptions from qualification for the sale of securities, as well as exemptions from execution and garnishment. For example, under California law, certain transactions and agreements between issuers and underwriters may be exempt from qualification requirements. Additionally, individuals are protected from excessive garnishment of their earnings and bank accounts. It is important to note that these laws and their specific provisions are subject to change and may have been updated since the time of writing.

California's death penalty moratorium

The moratorium was supported by 48% of California's registered voters, according to a UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll in April 2021. The poll also found sharp racial and partisan divides on the issue, with Democrats opposing the death penalty 63%-37% and Republicans supporting it 68%-32%.

The debate over capital punishment in California has a long history. In 1972, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Furman v. Georgia, resulting in a de facto moratorium on executions across the country. In 1973, California modified its constitution to reinstate capital punishment under Proposition 17, making the death penalty mandatory for several crimes, including first-degree murder and kidnapping during which a victim dies. However, the implementation of Proposition 17 was delayed due to continued legal challenges, and the death penalty was not restored in California until after People v. Frierson in 1979.

The state's first post-Anderson execution was carried out in 1992. Since then, there have been 13 executions, yet hundreds of inmates have been sentenced to death. The last execution that took place in California was in 2006. As of February 2025, there are 598 inmates awaiting execution in California, the lowest number since 2011. This decrease is attributed to various factors, including suicide, death from other causes, fewer juries willing to sentence people to death, and resentencing by newly elected district attorneys.

Securities and exemptions

The state of California has a number of securities exemptions in place, allowing for the offer and sale of securities without federal registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission or qualification with the California Department of Business Oversight.

Limited Offering Exemption

The limited offering exemption allows the promoters of small businesses to sell securities to family members, friends, business associates, and sophisticated investors with whom the issuer does not have a pre-existing relationship. While there is no limit to the number of investors to whom offers can be made, the actual number of purchasers is limited to 35. There are no disclosure requirements under the limited offering exemption, but untrue statements or omissions of material facts are prohibited.

Small Offering Exemption

The small offering exemption is useful in cases where the limited offering exemption cannot be satisfied. Under this exemption, the offer and sale of securities are exempt from qualification when there are fewer than 35 beneficial owners of the securities, and the securities are issued in only one class of ownership. The small offering exemption does not allow for any offer or sale to be advertised and does not permit the payment of selling expenses in connection with the offer and sale.

Other Exemptions

Other securities exemptions in California include:

• Any offer or sale of any evidence of indebtedness, whether secured or unsecured, and any guarantee thereof, in a transaction not involving any public offering.
• Any offer (but not a sale) not involving any public offering and the execution and delivery of any agreement for the sale of securities pursuant to the offer if the agreement contains a provision stating that the sale of securities is unlawful unless qualified or exempt from qualification.
• Any offer or sale of a security to a 'qualified purchaser' as defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
• Securities issued by the United States, any state, county, city, or political subdivision thereof.
• Any security issued or guaranteed by and representing an interest in a direct obligation of a national bank or a bank or trust company incorporated under the laws of California.

Writ of execution and notice of levy

A writ of execution is a court order that authorises a sheriff or similar official to take possession of a judgment debtor's property. This can include real property, deposit accounts, property in safe deposit boxes, and accounts receivable. If the property in question is real property, it is typically sold at a sheriff's sale, with the proceeds going towards satisfying the judgment. If the property is personal property, the sheriff or process server can take possession by levying on the debtor's bank account, for example.

In California, the rules regarding the collection of judgment debts are governed by the California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) sections 699.510-699.560. The writ of execution shall require the levying officer to enforce the money judgment and shall include the following information:

• The date of issuance of the writ
• The amount required to satisfy the money judgment on the date the writ is issued
• The amount of interest accruing daily on the principal amount of the judgment from the date the writ is issued
• Whether any person has requested notice of sale under the judgment, and if so, the name and mailing address of such person
• The sum of the fees and costs added to the judgment
• Whether the writ of execution includes any additional names of the judgment debtor pursuant to an affidavit of identity

The levying officer may not levy upon any property under the writ after the expiration of 180 days from the date the writ was issued. The notice of levy required by Article 4 shall inform the person notified of the following:

• The capacity in which the person is notified
• The property that is levied upon
• The person's rights under the levy, including the right to claim an exemption or make a third-party claim
• The person's duties under the levy
• All names listed in the writ of execution pursuant to an affidavit of identity, if any

In any case where property has been levied upon, a copy of the writ of execution and a notice of levy are required by statute to be posted or served on or mailed to the judgment debtor or other person. However, failure to do so does not affect the execution lien created by the levy.

Code of Civil Procedure (CCP)

The Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) in California outlines the process for enforcing judgments and includes exemptions from enforcement. Here is an overview of the relevant sections of the CCP:

Article 2: Writ of Execution and Notice of Levy

This article outlines the procedures for executing a writ of execution, which is a court order directing a levying officer to seize property to satisfy a judgment. The article specifies the duties of the levying officer, including executing the writ within 180 days of its issuance and providing notice to the person whose property is being levied upon. It also mentions the person's rights under the levy, including the right to claim exemptions under Chapter 4.

Exemptions from Enforcement of Judgments

The CCP includes exemptions that protect certain types of property from being seized or levied upon to satisfy a judgment. These exemptions are outlined in the Judicial Council form EJ-155, which lists the most commonly claimed exemptions and the corresponding code sections. However, it's important to note that the guide may not include all possible exemptions, and the amounts and sections are subject to change.

Corporate Securities Exemptions

While not specifically part of the CCP, it's worth mentioning that the California Corporations Code provides exemptions related to the sale of securities. Sections 25102, 25104, and 25103 offer various exemptions, such as the non-issuer exemption for private sales without advertising or brokers, and exemptions for transactions that meet specific conditions outlined in federal regulations.

Capital punishment in California

California has had a complex and evolving history regarding capital punishment. On April 24, 1972, the Supreme Court of California ruled in People v. Anderson that the state's existing death penalty laws were unconstitutional. This decision spared the lives of 105 death row inmates, including Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin of Robert F. Kennedy, and the serial killer Charles Manson. However, the Constitution of California was later modified to reinstate capital punishment through an initiative called Proposition 17.

In 1976, the Supreme Court of California again held the state's death penalty statute as unconstitutional, as it did not allow the defendant to present mitigating evidence. This decision led to the commutation of sentences for an additional 70 prisoners. The statute was then updated to address these issues, and life imprisonment without the possibility of parole was added as a punishment for capital offenses.

In February 2006, U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy D. Fogel blocked the execution of convicted murderer Michael Morales due to a lawsuit challenging the lethal injection protocol. The lawsuit argued that the three-drug lethal injection procedure could cause suffering for the condemned if administered incorrectly, potentially violating the constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. This case resulted in a de facto moratorium on capital punishment in California, as the state could not secure the services of a licensed medical professional to perform the execution.

In 2016, California voters approved Proposition 66, which grants prison officials the authority to transfer condemned inmates to any state prison capable of providing the required level of security. According to Penal Code 3600, every male sentenced to death must be delivered to the warden of the designated California state prison for the execution of the death penalty. The individual is to remain in a California prison until the execution of the judgment.

On March 13, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order imposing a moratorium on the death penalty in California, granting a reprieve to all individuals sentenced to death. This executive order also called for the repeal of California's lethal injection protocol and the immediate closure of the execution chamber at San Quentin State Prison.

The debate surrounding capital punishment in California has been influenced by concerns about racial bias, innocence of those on death row, and the higher cost of prosecuting death penalty cases compared to standard murder cases. According to a 2005 study published in the Santa Clara Law Review, individuals convicted of killing whites in California were more than three times more likely to receive a death sentence than those convicted of killing Black individuals and over four times more likely than those convicted of killing Latinos. Additionally, the National Academy of Sciences estimates that at least four percent of men and women on death row are innocent, translating to at least 28 innocent individuals among California's condemned. Furthermore, death penalty cases are more expensive to prosecute at every stage of the legal proceedings compared to standard murder cases, with taxpayers bearing the cost of counsel for both prosecution and defense.

Frequently asked questions