I agree with Kevin and John. When this arose as an issue here, some years ago, we wrote down a policy for our cataloguers, which said:

 

Sometimes the term of incorporation used by a body has changed (for example, from “Ltd.” to “PLC”), where the substantive name has not changed. When a term of incorporation has been retained to make it clear that a name is for a corporate body, and the term of incorporation changes (but not the name), then the term of incorporation should be removed and replaced with "Firm", and the heading used for both states of the body. Refer from the forms that include the terms of incorporation.

 

The result was, e.g. n  81117678:

 

n  81117678

1102   British Nuclear Fuels (Firm)

4102   British Nuclear Fuels Limited

4102   British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.

4102   British Nuclear Fuels plc

4102   British Nuclear Fuels Inc.

 

(some refs omitted)

We felt that though the term of incorporation had changed, the name of the body hadn’t. It would also be very hard for a cataloguer sorting out an existing catalogue to determine accurately which resources belonged at which putative variant. And it wouldn’t help the user.

 

Regards

Richard

 

_________________________

Richard Moore

Authority Control Team Manager

The British Library

                                                         

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806                      

E-mail: [log in to unmask]                            

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Hostage
Sent: 24 June 2013 21:41
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Pantone--corp. body AR questions

 

This is all fascinating stuff, but for cataloging purposes we don't usually have access to or care about things like form of ownership, place of incorporation, and the like.  We care about how a corporate body represents itself in its publications and distinguishing it from others, if necessary.

On its Our history page, Pantone says "Pantone was acquired by X-Rite, Incorporated in October 2007."  They seem to consider it the same entity under new ownership.  I think the 2 options are to
1) create a new NAR for Pantone LLC and link it to Pantone, Inc.
or
2) revise the existing NAR to Pantone (Firm) and use it for the whole history of the company.

 

------------------------------------------

John Hostage

Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger

Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services

Langdell Hall 194

Harvard Law School Library

Cambridge, MA 02138

+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)

+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Chris Baer [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 15:09
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Pantone--corp. body AR questions

Legally, “Pantone, Inc.” and “Pantone LLC” are two distinct corporate bodies.  The name change reflects the fact that there has been a change of ownership and that the company has been “taken private,” that is, it is now owned by X-Rite Incorporated and its shares cannot be bought on any exchange.  The change of name represents an asset swap and the dissolution or restructuring of the old company, of which anyone could buy shares over-the-counter.  There was also a change of jurisdiction, as Pantone, Inc., formerly Pantone Press, Inc., was a New York corporation and Pantone LLC is incorporated in Delaware, so there has been a complete reorganization and new creation, not just a cosmetic name change.  A search of the Delaware corporation data base shows nine other active (and certainly related) corporate entities whose name begins with “Pantone.”   

 

Two linked records should be created.  “Pantone” by itself does not suffice, unless you think an undifferentiated corporate name is desirable when an undifferentiated personal name is not.  The uses of library-type qualifiers instead of legal ones all but mandates the creation of undifferentiated corporate names based on brand identity or common words.  Pantone, Inc., and Pantone LLC  are variants of some Platonic Pantone-ness only to the same degree that William and Henry James are variants of an overarching James-ness, or James family DNA, or even James family fame.  Many of these supposed “Firms” are not even firms at all but parts of firms or, like “Dominion (Firm)” merely registered trademarks.  

 

The games, by the way, are played for big stakes, like cashing out for your heirs before you die, picking up bargains, getting rid of drags on the balance sheet, easing regulatory, reporting and tax burdens, protecting intellectual property rights in names like “Pantone,” and so on.  What strikes me as interesting, is that librarians swallow the work of modern “branding” consultants hook, line and sinker, thereby changing their records with every new image or design change that truly represents nothing more than a succession of novel variants on an underlying reality.  See for example “The Henry Ford,” or “The Franklin.”

 

Perhaps there should be parallel thesauri for the shopping- and brand-conscious and for the legal- and ownership-conscious.

 

Complexity in the corporate world (and in personal, biological lineages for that matter) lies in the “creative destruction” and morphing and multiplication of entities.  Complexity in the literary world lies in the constant proliferation and morphing of works,  expressions and manifestations.  Personally, I am glad that my work deals with the former and almost never involves the latter.

 

Yours truly,

Christopher T. Baer

Assistant Curator

Manuscripts & Archives

Hagley Museum and Library

[log in to unmask]

(302) 658-2400

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 1:19 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Pantone--corp. body AR questions

 

This is a situation in which I think using a generic qualifying term, instead of a term indicating incorporation, would be preferable—IF it's determined that qualification is needed at all.  If "Pantone" isn't sufficient, then I'd want to use "Pantone (Firm)", with "Pantone, Inc." and "Pantone, LLC" as variants.  I don't see any benefit to having separate AAPs for "Pantone, Inc." and "Pantone, LLC".  My hunch is that the change from "Inc." to "LLC" is related to a merger or acquisition; in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if maybe Pantone, Inc. was dissolved and Pantone, LCC was created as a "new" company.

 

Of course, there are also those cases where two levels of hierarchy have the same base name.  What I'm used to seeing is the creation of something like "Useless Corporation, Inc." become a subsidiary of a newly created "Useless Corporation Holdings"—and then that new parent gets absorbed into some other entity, or otherwise changes its name.  So, I suppose it is possible that Pantone, Inc. and Pantone, LCC both existed simultaneously at one time?  If that's so, it become a little trickier, but there is certainly precedent in AACR2 for putting both under the same established heading, with variants for the specific entities.

 

Don't you just love all these games corporate bodies play...

 

Kevin M. Randall

Principal Serials Cataloger

Northwestern University Library

[log in to unmask]

(847) 491-2939

 

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 10:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Pantone--corp. body AR questions

 

I am cataloging a Pantone color guide.  The company, Pantone, was established under AACR2 as Pantone, Inc. (n  86084523 / 1852846).  The record in NAF is still coded as AACR2.

 

It now represents itself (see, e.g.: http://www.pantone.com/pages/pantone.aspx?pg=19306) as "Pantone LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of X-Rite Incorporated."

 

I seek the wisdom of the NACO membership on two points:

 

1. Should the 110 be changed?  The rules suggest it should but I'm not sure of the practical implications.  I see approximately 200 records in OCLC under "Pantone, Inc.", though almost none of them are full-level PCC records.  

 

2. Does the form "Pantone" alone suffice? Or does it need to be changed to Pantone LLC, "to make it clear that the name is that of a corporate body" (see: 11.2.2.0 "Terms indicating incorporation...")?  (And if  the LLC is to be retained, does that mean Patone, Inc. --> Pantone LLC is a change in name and two linked records should be created?)

 

Thanks,
Ben

 

Benjamin Abrahamse

Cataloging Coordinator

Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems

MIT Libraries

617-253-7137

 

**************************************************************************
Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk
 
The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html
 
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook
 
The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
 
*************************************************************************
 
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the [log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.
 
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
 
*************************************************************************
 Think before you print