Deal Description: On October 18, 2018, Valero Energy Corporation (NYSE: VLO) and Valero Energy Partners LP (NYSE: VLP) announced a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which VLO will acquire all of the outstanding public common units of its master limited partnership, VLP. The transaction is structured as an all cash transaction, with VLP public unitholders receiving $42.25 for each VLP common unit. Following consummation of the merger, VLP will become a wholly owned subsidiary of VLO. 

Baker Botts represented Valero Energy Corporation.

Baker Botts Lawyers/Office Involved:
Corporate: Jeremy Moore (Partner, Houston); Joshua Davidson (Partner, Houston); Eileen Boyce (Senior Associate, Houston); Jude Dworaczyk (Associate, Houston); Ieuan List (Associate, Houston)
Tax: Steve Marcus (Partner; Dallas)

For more information, please see VLO’s and VLP’s news release here.
Next Story /

California in the Spotlight - California Passes Historic Law Requiring Women on Corporate Boards

U.S. Federal and many state laws have long prohibited discrimination in the workplace based on sex or gender. Diverse representation on corporate boards of directors has been the subject of numerous productivity and economic studies. Nonprofits have formed to funnel women into these coveted seats including "leadership training" designed for women-only. Some European countries have implemented board quotas. In 2015, Germany passed a law mandating that its largest public companies allocate 30% of their board seats to women. Belgium, France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands have tried quotas with varying degrees of success.

And California, once again, moves back into the spotlight to become the first state to mandate women on corporate boards. On October 1, 2018 Gov. Brown signed SB 8261 into law. SB 826 adds two sections to the California Corporations Code, mandating that each publicly traded company whose principal executive offices are located in California have, by the end of 2019, at least one female director on its board and, by the end of 2021, have additional female directors in proportion to the size of the board. For example, boards with five members must have at least two women and boards with six or more must have at least three women. And according to the bill's text, California sees three women as an ideal number for positive corporate impact.

The law cites research that companies with women on their boards have higher earnings per share, return on investment, and net income growth, among other metrics. Gov. Brown wrote in a letter accompanying his signing that while "[t]here have been numerous objections and serious legal concerns" to SB 826, "it's high time corporate boards include the people who constitute half the "persons" in America.2 The bill noted in particular, "If measures are not taken to proactively increase the numbers of women serving on corporate boards, studies have shown that it will take decades, as many as 40 or 50 years, to achieve gender parity among directors." California wants to shorten that window.

Applicability and Scope. SB 826 applies to any publicly held domestic or foreign corporation that has its principal executive offices, as set forth in the corporation's SEC 10-K form, in California. "Publicly held" is defined as a corporation with outstanding shares listed on a major United States stock exchange.

No later than July 1, 2019, the California Secretary of State will publish a report on its website documenting the number of domestic and foreign corporations whose principal executive offices are located in California and who have at least one female director. And no later than March 1, 2020 and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State will publish a report on its website reporting, among other items, (1) the number of corporations in compliance; (2) the number of corporations that moved their US headquarters to California or out of California during the preceding calendar year; and (3) the number of corporations who were subject to the law and are no longer publicly traded.

SB 826 specifies that the requirements set forth shall apply to a foreign corporation that is a publicly held corporation to the exclusion of the law of the jurisdiction in which the foreign corporation is incorporated.

Requirements. By the end of calendar year 2019, any such corporation must have on its board a minimum of one female director which may include increasing the total number of its directors on the board in order to comply.

By the end of calendar year 2021, covered corporations must have additional female directors on the board depending on the total size of the board: if there are six or more directors on the board, at least three must be female; if there are five directors, at least two must be female; if there are four or fewer directors, one must be female.

The law specifies that "female" means an individual who self-identifies her gender as a woman regardless of designated sex at birth.

Enforcement. A corporation is in violation of the statute for each director seat required to be held by a female if that seat is not held by a female for at least a portion of the calendar year. The Secretary of State may impose fines for a first-time violation of $100,000 and, for subsequent violations, of $300,000.

The Secretary of State may also impose fines of $100,000 for a corporation's failure to file board member information.

Potential challenges and conflicts. One-fourth of California's public companies on the Russell 3000 index have no women on their boards of directors; and for the rest of the companies, women hold only 15.5 percent of the board seats. California companies who do not yet meet this requirement in current board composition will have to make some near-term choices about whether to comply or face fines and possible negative media attention by being listed on the California Secretary of State's website.

SB 826 may raise constitutional questions in relationship to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as the U.S. Supreme Court has held that "statutory classifications that distinguish between males and females are subject to scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause."3 The Supreme Court recently rejected a challenge to an affirmative action program in higher education, but much of the reasoning in that case applied specifically to the context of education.4 Whether the Court would apply the same logic to [law] remains for a challenge yet to occur. The California Constitution also provides for the "equal protection of the laws" and state law challenges could also occur.

In addition, there is the potential for conflict for companies that have a principal executive office in California but are incorporated elsewhere. Delaware applies the internal affairs doctrine, which holds that only the state of incorporation may govern the internal affairs of a corporation.5 Challenges are likely to arise to SB 826 on the basis that it improperly seeks to govern the internal affairs of corporations incorporated outside California.

In anticipation of the changes to California law that will go into effect on December 31, 2019, companies with principal executive offices in California should consider the compositions of their boards and whether the addition of new directors is in order.

1 Available at
2 Letter, available at
3 Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197 (1976) (internal citation and indicia of quotation omitted)
4 Fisher v. Univ. of Texas at Austin, 570 U.S. 297 (2013).
5 See, e.g., Examen, Inc. v. VantagePoint Venture Partners 1996, 873 A.2d 318, 324 (Del. Ch. 2005), aff'd, 871 A.2d 1108 (Del. 2005).

Next Story /

Intellectual Property Report - October 2018

SAP America v. InvestPic: A New Formulation for Patentability?
Thomas Mathew
Ever since the landmark Supreme Court case on patent eligibility, Alice v. CLS Bank, the Federal Circuit has endeavored to articulate the proper framework for determining whether a patent claim is too “abstract” to be patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Much of the case law relating to § 101 since Alice has focused on developing various carve-out formulations for describing the traits of claims that are not abstract, and therefore patentable. For example, the Federal Circuit has held that claims may not be abstract in some cases where they provide a technological improvement. Its recent opinion in SAP America v. InvestPic outlined a formulation that appears to add a new requirement to this technological-improvement standard.

To read more, click here.

In Re Maatita: Two-Dimensional Disclosure, Three-Dimensional Protection
Aaron Jagoda
In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit has enabled design patent applicants to seek broader protection for three-dimensional designs—specifically those that, despite being embodied in three-dimensional articles, are “capable of being disclosed and judged from a two-dimensional, plan- or planar-view perspective.” In In re Maatita, the court articulated a standard for definiteness of design patent claims that may be familiar to most patent practitioners – whether one of ordinary skill in the art, when judging the claim and figures from the perspective of an ordinary observer, would understand the scope of the design with reasonable certainty. Therefore, while the “reasonable certainty” standard set forth in Nautilus is applicable in the design patent context, it is judged not simply from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, but from the perspective of that person of ordinary skill when viewing the disclosure as would an ordinary observer. By connecting the standard for indefiniteness with the test for infringement in the design patent context, the court concluded that design patent claims should not be rejected simply because a design for a three-dimensional article is claimed in fewer than three dimensions.

To read more, click here.

Baker Botts to Co-Chair the 56th Annual Intellectual Property law Conference
The 56th Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference will take place on November 12 - 13 in Plano, TX at The Center for American and International Law. Baker Botts will be sponsoring the conference and Christa Brown-Sanford, Partner at Baker Botts, will serve as the event Co-Chair.

Click here to register or learn more, and we look forward to seeing you there!

Are Database Systems Patentable?
Rob Maier
The late 1990s and early 2000s brought the gold rush of software patents in the United States. On the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in State Street Bank, which confirmed that business methods and related software inventions could be patented in the United States, and in the midst of the dot-com boom, thousands flocked to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office to file new patent applications on software inventions. Many of those patents were related to the ways in which data could be stored and manipulated in computer systems.

To read more, click here.
*This article first appeared in The New York Law Journal in September 2018

Discovery Under the GDPR
Cynthia J. Cole, Neil Coulson
For many years, litigants in the United States found themselves bound to the preservation and discovery obligations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, even where those obligations came into conflict with foreign laws protecting personal data. However, within the European Union, violation of these laws rarely resulted in penalties, leaving U.S. parties free to pursue discovery without much fear of reprisals by E.U. authorities. This landscape is set to change, though, as the General Data Protection Regulation came into effect on May 25, 2018. Under the GDPR, the European Union has committed to much greater protections for personal data and has created significant penalties for any firms in violation of these protections (up to €20 million or 4% of worldwide revenue).

To read more, click here. To listen to the Data Privacy 2019: Look Back to Look Ahead webinar, click here.
*This article was first distributed by Wolters Kluwer in September 2018

Aatrix, Berkheimer And The Future Of Patent Eligibility
Rob Maier, Jonathan Cocks
Under the current state of the law, the two-part Alice/Mayo test is used to evaluate a patent claim’s subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This test first asks whether the claim is “directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” If answered in the affirmative, this does not mean that a claim is necessarily rejected; the test next asks whether the claim’s “additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.”

To read more, click here.
*This article first appeared in Law 360 in September 2018

Next Story / DEAL BRIEF

Baker Botts Represents Liberty Latin America in Acquisition of Remaining Unowned Interest in Liberty Cablevision Puerto Rico

Deal Description: October 17, 2018 - Liberty Latin America Ltd. (“Liberty Latin America”) (NASDAQ: LILA and LILAK, OTC Link: LILAB), a leading telecommunications company with operations in Chile, Puerto Rico, the Caribbean and other parts of Latin America, announced that it has acquired the remaining 40% stake in Liberty Cablevision Puerto Rico that it did not already own from funds affiliated with Searchlight Capital Partners, L.P. for consideration of 9,500,000 Liberty Latin America Class C (NASDAQ: LILAK) shares. Following the acquisition, Liberty Latin America owns 100% of Liberty Cablevision Puerto Rico.

Baker Botts represented Liberty Latin America in the transaction.

Baker Botts Lawyers/Office Involved: 
Corporate: Jonathan Gordon (Partner, New York); Catherine Gallagher (Partner, Washington, D.C.); John Kaercher (Senior Associate, Austin); Quentin Wiest (Associate, New York).
Tax: Jon Lobb (Partner, Houston)
Antitrust: Paul Cuomo (Partner, Washington D.C.)
Next Story / DEAL BRIEF

Baker Botts Represents Valero Energy Corporation in its Acquisition of Valero Energy Partners LP