• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
MacElree Harvey, Ltd.

MacElree Harvey, Ltd.

Initiative in Practice

  • Home
  • Legal Services
        • Banking & Finance Law
        • Business & Corporate Law
        • Criminal Defense
        • Employment Law
        • Estates & Trusts Law
        • Family Law
        • Litigation Law
        • Mediation and Arbitration
        • Personal Injury Law
        • Real Estate & Land Use Law
        • Tax Law
  • Our Team
        • Joseph A. Bellinghieri
        • Patrick J. Boyer
        • Jeffrey P. Burke
        • Robert A. Burke
        • Matthew C. Cooper
        • John C. Cronin
        • Daniel T. Crossland
        • Marie I. Crossley
        • Harry J. DiDonato
        • Jaycie DiNardo
        • Caroline G. Donato
        • Lindsay A. Dunn
        • Sally A. Farrell
        • Brian J. Forgue
        • William J. Gallagher
        • Patrick J. Gallo, Jr.
        • Mary Kay Gaver
        • J. Charles Gerbron, Jr.
        • Leo M. Gibbons
        • Joseph P. Green, Jr.
        • Carolina Heinle
        • Court Heinle
        • Frank W. Hosking III
        • Katherine A. Isard
        • J. Kurtis Kline
        • Peter E. Kratsa
        • Mary E. Lawrence
        • Daniel R. Losco
        • Michael G. Louis
        • Jamison C. MacMain
        • John F. McKenna
        • Matthew M. McKeon
        • Brian L. Nagle
        • Lance J. Nelson
        • Timothy F. Rayne
        • Michael C. Rovito
        • Duke Schneider
        • Tiffany M. Shrenk
        • Andrew R. Silverman
        • Ashley B. Stitzer
        • Robert M. Tucker
        • Natalie R. Young
  • About Us
    • Our History
    • Our Approach
    • Social Responsibility
    • Testimonials
  • Careers
  • News & Updates
    • Articles by Our Attorneys
    • News
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
    • Newsletters
  • Offices
    • Centreville, DE
    • Hockessin, DE
    • Kennett Square, PA
    • West Chester, PA
  • Contact
  • (610) 436-0100

Articles by Our Attorneys

How to Form a Delaware Corporation

August 15, 2019 by Andrew R. Silverman, Esq.

business incorporation - ID 113895525 © Andrei Rahalski | Dreamstime.com

By Andrew R. Silverman, Esquire-

Delaware is a proper jurisdiction for business incorporation because its well-developed corporate law and capable judiciary make the resolution of legal issues predictable and efficient. In addition, Delaware is generally regarded as business-friendly, making it a great place for your start-up.

Fortunately, forming and organizing a Delaware corporation is an intuitive process.

Here is how it is done:

  1. Draft a Certificate of Incorporation – This is the “birth certificate” of your new entity and it contains general information about the corporation. Once filed with the Delaware Secretary of State, a Certificate of Incorporation can only be amended by the vote of the stockholders. Thus, it is common that an incorporator will include governing rules that it does not want the board of directors or minority stockholders to change easily (e.g., preemptive rights and jurisdiction and forum selection clauses). A Certificate of Incorporation is signed by the person who files it, who is known as the “incorporator.”
  2. Draft Bylaws – If a Certificate of Incorporation is the “birth certificate” of your corporation, the bylaws are its “constitution.” Bylaws will contain, among other things, voting procedures for the board and stockholders, annual meeting requirements, and provisions concerning officers. This document is not filed with the Delaware Secretary of State but should be kept with the corporation’s important documents.
  3. Prepare the Action of Incorporator – The incorporator should sign a document that is often called the “Organizational Action of the Incorporator.” This document can do a number of things but, most importantly, it identifies the first board of directors of the corporation and formally adopt the bylaws.
  4. Hold an Initial Meeting – Whether through an initial meeting or a consent of the board, the board will usually appoint officers, ratify the acts of the incorporator, and grant banking power to certain officers or directors. Most importantly, the corporation will also issue stock to the corporation’s first stockholders (also known as shareholders). The easiest way to do this is through an Initial Consent in Lieu of Organizational Meeting,” which is a document that sets forth the foregoing. To comply with Section 141(f) of the Delaware General Corporation Law, the unanimous written consent must be signed by each director. If the board cannot unanimously agree to the matters in the consent, it must hold a meeting and vote on each item. With respect to the issuance of stock, the secretary of the corporation generally issues stock certificates to the new stockholders following the initial meeting or after the consent is executed.

Additional documents are sometimes necessary or prudent. We often recommend that stockholders also enter into a stockholders (or shareholders) agreement that provides for management and stock transfer provisions that are not typically contained in a corporation’s bylaws.


Andrew Silverman is an attorney in the firm’s Business Department whose practice includes complex corporate governance and financing matters. If you are a Delaware business owner and desire guidance in forming a corporation, call (610) 840-0286 or email [email protected].

Filed Under: Articles by Our Attorneys Tagged With: Andrew Silverman, Business law

Third Circuit Court of Appeals Decision Finds Amazon Liable For Faulty Products

August 9, 2019 by Timothy F. Rayne, Esq.

Amazon Product Liability_Photo 70456388 © M-sur - Dreamstime.com

On January 12, 2015, Heather Oberdorf returned home from work, put a retractable leash on her dog, and took the dog for a walk.[1] Unexpectedly, the dog lunged, causing the D-ring on the collar to break and the leash to recoil back and hit Oberdorf’s face and eyeglasses.[2] As a result, Oberdorf is permanently blind in her left eye. Oberdorf bought the collar on Amazon.com.[3]

As a result of the accident, she sued Amazon, including claims for strict products liability and negligence.[4] According to section 402A of the Second Restatement of Torts, “[o]ne who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer.”[5] The basis of strict products liability is the longstanding rule of the “special responsibility for the safety of the public undertaken by one who enters into the business of supplying human beings with products which may endanger the safety of their persons and property, and the forced reliance upon that undertaking on the part of those who purchase such goods.”[6]

“Section 402A specifically limits strict products liability to ‘sellers’ of products.”[7] Amazon asserted that it is not a “seller” within the confines of Section 402A “because it merely provides an online marketplace for products sold by third-party vendors.”[8]

Originally, the District Court agreed, stating that under Pennsylvania law, Amazon was not liable for Oberdorf’s injuries because it is not a “seller”.[9] In its opinion, the District Court emphasized that a third-party vendor—rather than Amazon itself—listed the collar on Amazon’s online marketplace and shipped the collar directly to Oberdorf.[10]

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in a 2-1 panel decision, vacated the District Court’s ruling, stating that Amazon is a “seller” under Section 402A and thus strictly liable for consumer injuries caused by defective goods purchased on Amazon’s website.[11] According to the Court, Amazon’s involvement in transactions extends beyond a mere editorial function; it plays a large role in the actual sales process.[12]

As the Third Circuit noted, under Pennsylvania law, four factors should be considered when determining whether an actor is a “seller” under Section 402A:

(1) Whether the actor is the ‘only member of the marketing chain available to the injured plaintiff for redress’; (2) Whether ‘imposition of strict liability upon the [actor] serves as an incentive to safety’; (3) Whether the actor is ‘in a better position than the consumer to prevent the circulation of defective products’; and (4) Whether ‘[t]he [actor] can distribute the cost of compensating for injuries resulting from defects by charging for it in his business, i.e., by adjustment of the rental terms.’[13]

The Third Circuit ultimately concluded that each factor weighed in favor of imposing strict liability on Amazon.[14]

Senior Judge Jane Richards Roth, who wrote the majority opinion, pronounced that Amazon is a “seller”, “even though the products are sourced and shipped by third-party vendors . . . Amazon’s involvement in transactions extends beyond a mere editorial function; it plays a large role in the actual sales process.”[15] Amazon’s involvement includes “receiving customer shipping information, processing customer payments, relaying funds and information to third-party vendors, and collecting the fees it charges for providing these services.”[16]

Amazon Seeks En Banc Review of Panel Decision Holding It Liable for Products Sold by Third-Party Vendors

Now, Amazon has asked for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to reexamine their decision, en banc,[17] (a session where the entire membership of the court will participate in the decision rather than the regular quorum[18]) requesting a fresh look at the case.

Amazon contends that the Third Circuit’s decision could have wide-ranging implications for online retailers in Pennsylvania.[19] In their motion, Amazon claimed that “the majority’s new rule was not grounded on clear and unmistakable precedent from any Pennsylvania court. Rather, the majority relied on a host of policy considerations—acting, in effect, as a super-legislature.”[20]

In its request for further review by an expanded panel, Amazon noted that other courts, including the Fourth Circuit, the Northern District of California and the Southern District of New York, have determined Amazon was not a “seller” for strict liability purposes.[21]

For now, at least, Amazon can be held strictly liable in Pennsylvania because, according to the Third Circuit, their role in the retail process amounts to being in the business of selling or marketing merchandise, rather than simply performing a tangential role.


Timothy F. Rayne, Personal Injury Attorney

Tim Rayne is a Personal Injury Lawyer with the Pennsylvania law firm MacElree Harvey.  Tim has law offices in Kennett Square and West Chester Pennsylvania.  For over 25 years, Tim has been helping injured victims of accidents receive fair compensation from insurance companies.

For a free consultation, contact Tim Rayne at (610) 840-0124 or [email protected] regarding your injury claim.

[1] Oberdorf v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 18-1041, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 19982, at *1 (3d Cir. July 3, 2019).

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Restat 2d of Torts, § 402A.

[6] Id.

[7] Oberdorf, No. 18-1041, at *9.

[8] Id.

[9] Id., at *1.

[10] Id.

[11] Oberdorf v. Amazon.com Inc, No. 18-1041 (3d Cir. 2019), Justia, https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/18-1041/18-1041-2019-07-03.html.

[12] Id.

[13] Oberdorf, No. 18-1041, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 19982, at *11 (quoting Musser v. Vilsmeier Auction Co., 562 A.2d 279, 282 (Pa. 1989)).

[14] Id. at *12-17.

[15] Id. at 27.

[16] Id.

[17] Max Mitchell, Amazon Seeks En Banc Review of Panel Decision Holding It Liable for Products Sold by Third-Party Vendors, The Legal Intelligencer, July 22, 2019, https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2019/07/22/amazon-seeks-en-banc-review-of-panel-decision-holding-it-liable-for-products-sold-by-third-party-vendors/?printer-friendly.

[18] En Banc, The Free Dictionary By Farlex (2019).

[19] Max Mitchell, Amazon Seeks En Banc Review of Panel Decision Holding It Liable for Products Sold by Third-Party Vendors, The Legal Intelligencer, July 22, 2019, https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2019/07/22/amazon-seeks-en-banc-review-of-panel-decision-holding-it-liable-for-products-sold-by-third-party-vendors/?printer-friendly.

[20] Id.

[21] Id.

Filed Under: Articles by Our Attorneys

Subject Matter Jurisdiction: What is it and Why is it Relevant in a Divorce Case?

August 5, 2019 by Patrick Boyer, Esq.

subject matter jurisdiction Free photo 1104204 © Steve Holsderfield - Dreamstime.com

Subject matter jurisdiction refers to a Court’s authority to hear a particular case. It can be raised as a defense by any party at any time. In divorce cases, a party must typically be a bona fide resident of the state for six months or more preceding the filing of the action for a Court to have subject matter jurisdiction. A person domiciled in the state is considered a bona fide resident. Domicile refers not just a physical presence, but an intent to remain permanently.

What does and does not constitute domicile is often very fact-specific.  A college student, who spends a semester or two out of state, may not be a domiciliary of that state if they intend to return to their original state.  Factors to consider when evaluating domicile are things such as whether the person has bank accounts, driver’s licenses, and or voter registrations in a particular state. Do they have a lease or a permanent home in the state? Finally, it is important to consider the purpose of being in that state, is it for a special occasion or a limited purpose or is it for a more permanent purpose?

If you have questions regarding which state you should file a divorce action in, you should contact one of our attorneys.


Patrick J. Boyer, Family Law Attorney

Patrick J. Boyer concentrates his practice on family law. He advocates in various areas including, but not limited to, divorce, property division, alimony, child custody and visitation, child support, and domestic violence.

In addition, Patrick assists his clients with issues involving guardianship and third-party visitation. He is licensed in Delaware and Pennsylvania and works out of the firm’s Centreville, Delaware office.

If you have a family law matter or are considering divorce, contact Patrick J. Boyer at (302) 654-7294 or [email protected].

Filed Under: Articles by Our Attorneys

Stockholder Agreements in Delaware Corporations

July 26, 2019 by Andrew R. Silverman, Esq.

Stockholder-Agreements_MacElree-Harvey-Andrew-Silverman

By Andrew R. Silverman, Esquire-

A Delaware corporation is governed, first, by its Certificate of Incorporation and, second, by its bylaws. These agreements cover important but basic and default rules concerning governance of the corporation. A stockholders agreement (sometimes called shareholders agreement or, in the LLC context, a members agreement) contains more complex and, often, heavily negotiated provisions.

Typical issues covered in a stockholders agreement include:

  • Management and voting. In a stockholders agreement, stockholders can agree that they will vote for certain individuals as directors and officers. If the corporation is a party to the agreement, the stockholders may also agree to reserve certain business decisions to the stockholders rather than the board.
  • Restrictive Covenants. The stockholders may desire to bind each other to restrictive covenants that prevent the stockholders from competing against the company or soliciting the company’s clients during and after the stockholders’ ownership of stock in the company. The stockholders may also want to address confidentiality, trade secrets, and anti-disparagement in the stockholders agreement.
  • Transfer Provisions. The stockholders may desire to restrict the transfer of stock or to determine, in advance, how and when transfers may occur. For instance, a stockholders agreement may provide the stockholders options to purchase upon a stockholders’ death, divorce, disability, or bad conduct. A stockholders agreement is also where stockholders will find preemptive rights (if not in the Certificate of Incorporation), tag-along rights, rights of first refusal and first offer, drag-along rights, put and call rights, and change in control procedures.

Stockholders agreements are not required by the Delaware General Corporation Law, but they are advisable for some start-ups, closely-held or small corporations where the stockholders need to describe in detail the manner by which the corporation should be managed and how shares should be transferred, stockholders who desire anti-dilution provisions, and countless other scenarios.


Andrew Silverman is an attorney in the firm’s Business Department whose practice includes complex corporate governance and financing matters. If you are a Delaware business owner and desire guidance in establishing stockholder agreements, call (610) 840-0286 or email [email protected].

Filed Under: Articles by Our Attorneys Tagged With: Andrew Silverman, Business law

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 28
  • Page 29
  • Page 30

Primary Sidebar

  • Articles by Our Attorneys
  • News
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Newsletters

Footer

(610) 436-0100

LEGAL SERVICES

  • Banking & Finance Law
  • Business & Corporate Law
  • Criminal Defense
  • Employment Law
  • Estates & Trusts Law
  • Family Law
  • Litigation Law
  • Personal Injury Law
  • Real Estate & Land Use Law
  • Tax Law

ABOUT US

  • Our History
  • Our Approach
  • Social Responsibility
  • Testimonials

NEWS & INSIGHTS

  • Articles by Our Attorneys
  • News
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Newsletters

OFFICES

Centreville, DE

5721 Kennett Pike
Wilmington, DE 19807
302-654-4454
Learn More

Hockessin, DE

724 Yorklyn Rd #100
Hockessin, DE 19707
302-239-3700
Learn More

Kennett Square, PA

209 East State Street Road
Kennett Square, PA 19348
610-444-3180
Learn More

West Chester, PA

17 West Miner Street
West Chester, PA 19382
610-436-0100
Learn More

  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Staff Only
  • Careers

© 2025 and all rights reserved by MacElree Harvey, Ltd.