Saturday, December 31, 2011

Stop Online Piracy Act Faces Uncertain Future

Opponents of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) are gaining momentum, reports
Not long ago the controversial law known as the Stop Online Piracy Act was poised to sail through Congress. But it lost traction at a Congressional earlier hearing this month and this week it suffered an additional two setbacks.

The bill called SOPA is backed by Hollywood and would force a wide range of internet players—from search engines to ad networks to payment processors—to cut off services to so-called ‘rogue websites’ that sell fake goods. Journalists and tech companies responded by warning that the bill is a gross overreach and that it will result in censorship and technical damage to the internet.
See also How SOPA Would Affect You: FAQ, Declan McCullagh, CNet, December 21, 2011

Cross-posted at California Business Law Blog.

Monday, September 26, 2011

Nevada Cracks Down on Incorporation and Registered Agent Firms

Some non-attorney Nevada incorporation services are operated by convicted felons, Reuters reports:
Reuters detailed its discovery of former felons in the mass-incorporation industry to Nevada state officials. In response, [Secretary of State Ross] Miller said he plans to introduce a bill barring felons from running incorporation firms. In early September, he announced the creation of a Corporate Ownership Fraud Task Force to fight abuses of Nevada incorporation rules.
Special report: Nevada's big bet on secrecy, September 26, 2011

See also Shell games: A cautious crackdown in Nevada, Reuters, September 26, 2011:
Early this month, Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller's office shut down a Las Vegas registered agent called Power Point Management and revoked the corporate status of its 427 active clients.

It was an example of how his office will "aggressively enforce our statutes and regulations," Miller said, warning that his state's 'business friendly' ethos "should not be interpreted to mean 'haven for bad actors.'"

Power Point is part of Nevada's booming industry of business incorporators and registered agents, more than 700 firms in all, whose key service is to receive on behalf of the companies they've registered any notices of litigation, tax documents and other records required by the state. Like most, it's a small operation. It has offices at the end of a winding interior hallway in a faded, stucco, two-story office park on Las Vegas' Flamingo Road. The building's rental manager, Laba Singh, says the firm sends in its "$200-something" rent check by mail each month, but he has never seen the tenant.

The issue that got Power Point in trouble seems minor: It claimed that it, and every one of its clients, was a home-based business making under $27,000 a year. Such businesses don't have to pay Nevada's $200 annual licensing fee. If all 427 of Power Point's clients falsely claimed the $200 exemption, then Nevada lost out annually on $85,400 in total. ...
Nevada incorporation attorney
Nevada registered agent service (a/k/a resident agent service)

Saturday, September 3, 2011

New Nevada Law Ensures Single-Member LLC Charging Order Protection

It has long been speculated as to whether charging order protection afforded to a limited liability company (LLC) extends to a single-member LLC. A charging order becomes relevant where an LLC member (owner) incurs "outside liability", that is, a liability arising from personal or other business activities, rather than from the LLC's business (which would be "inside liability", the type of liability one usually thinks about when discussing limited liability entities such as LLCs and corporations).

An example of inside liability is liability generated from the business operations of the LLC. With proper setup and corporate maintenance, such that any attempt to pierce the corporate veil is unsuccesful, the losses in the worst case scenario are limited to the capital contributed to the company by its founders.

An example of outside liability is a judgment against a business entity owner incurred as a result of a personal automobile accident exceeding any applicable liability insurance policy limits [FN1].

One advantage of the LLC (with so much misinformation around online, it is worth noting that there are also disadvantages of LLCs) is that in the case of outside liabilty, the judgment creditor is limited to a charging order. A charging order is a lien that entitles the creditor to any distributions from the LLC that would go to the member. With a properly-drafted operating agreement, the LLC will usually have great discretion about the timing and amount of such distributions, which generally leads to a settlement with the judgment creditor that is favorable to the judgment debtor.

The theory behind charging orders relate to the origins of limited liability companies. Basically, they are partnerships with limited liability protection. The charging order remedy limitation protects the other partners from having an unwanted partner enter the partnership without their consent. The flip side of this rationale is that, in a single-member LLC, there are no other partners to protect. Thus, in 2003, a U.S. bankruptcy court found that a single-member LLC's assets could be made available to the bankruptcy trustee to satisfy the owner/bankrupt's debts (In re Albright). While not binding on state courts, this decision has long case doubt on charging order protection for single-member limited liability companies. A further blow occurred in 2010, when the Florida Supreme Court found that the state's charging order statute did not apply to a single-member LLC (Olmstead v. FTC).

In response to this uncertainty and these unfavorable (although not binding) precedents, effective 2011, the Nevada legislature has amended its LLC charging order statue to expressly include single-member LLCs. Nevada is the first in the nation to do so, and its statue will surely encourage residents of other states to "forum shop" and choose Nevada LLCs over their home state's law. The change in law is effective October 1, 2011.

[FN1] Most states' automobile insurance minimums are woefully inadequate compared to the potential liabilities involved in operating a motor vehicle.
Nevada requires that automobile liability insurance policies carry minimum coverage of $15,000 for bodily injury or death of one person in any one accident; $30,000 for bodily injury or death of two or more persons on any one accident; and $10,000 for injury to or destruction of property of others in any one accident.

By way of comparison, California requirements are similarly inadequate: $15,000 for injury/death to one person; $30,000 for injury/death to more than one person; and $5,000 for damage to property.
As anyone who has been to a body shop or hospital recently can attest, these limits aren't going to cover much. Scrape the rear bumper of a luxury car, and the property damage limits are exceeded, and, more relevant to the discussion above, a serious accident resulting in death or disability, will obviously exceed the policy limits of even more reasonable insurance policy limits of $100,000 or more. Out of lack of attention or knowledge, or a desire to keep insurance affordable for lower-income drivers, these limits have not been raised to keep up with modern realities, assuming they were ever sufficient. In the meantime, it is recommended that you obtain higher policy limits and consider an umbrella policy on top of that, that are more in accordance with the realities of auto repair and health care costs and your net worth. Limited liability business entities should be only one piece of an overall liability minimization and contingency plan.

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy / Comment Policy

Legal Information/Terms: Nevada Business Law Blawg. Copyright © 2011-2017 Law Office of Jonas M. Grant, A.P.C. All rights reserved. Terms last updated 2011. Nothing herein shall be deemed legal advice, nor shall it create an attorney-client relationship. Postings are believed accurate when made, but may not be complete; are not updated, reviewed or revised on a regular basis; and may not apply to your particular circumstances. For legal advice, retain an attorney in your jurisdiction. None of the contents of this blog are intended as attorney advertising, nor as soliciation for legal services, in any jurisdiction where this site does not comply with all of the laws, rules, regulations, and ethical mandates of that jurisdiction. All excerpts from copyrighted materials of third parties are intended to, and believed to, fall within fair use; copyright owners who believe the use to exceed fair use should contact the firm with their concerns:

Privacy policy: This is a web site of Law Office of Jonas M. Grant, A.P.C. Our postal address is 20700 Ventura Blvd., #328, Woodland Hills, CA 91364. We can be reached via e-mail at jonas [-at-] incorporatecalifornia [-dot-] com or you can reach us by telephone at 818-786-4876. For each visitor to our Web page, our Web server automatically recognizes no information regarding the domain or e-mail address. We collect the e-mail addresses of those who post messages to our bulletin board, but no information on consumers who browse our Web page. The information we collect is used for internal review and is then discarded and/or is used to improve the content of our Web pages. With respect to cookies: We use cookies to ensure that visitors are not repeatedly sent the same banner ads and in conjunction with Google Adsense's serving of Google ads on this site (web beacons may be used also or instead). If you do not want to receive e-mail from us in the future, please let us know by sending us e-mail at the above address. With respect to Ad Servers: To try and bring you offers that are of interest to you, we have relationships with other companies that we allow to place ads on our Web pages. As a result of your visit to our site, ad server companies may collect information such as your domain type, your IP address and clickstream information. For further information, consult the privacy policies of From time to time, we may use customer information for new, unanticipated uses not previously disclosed in our privacy notice. If our information practices change at some time in the future we will post the policy changes to our Web site to notify you of these changes and provide you with the ability to opt out of these new uses. If you are concerned about how your information is used, you should check back at our Web site periodically. Customers may prevent their information from being used for purposes other than those for which it was originally collected by e-mailing us at the above address. If you feel that this site is not following its stated information privacy policy, you may contact us at the above addresses or phone number.

Comment Policy: Comments, anonymous or otherwise, are accepted and welcomed; however, all comments are moderated and those that are spam, primarily advertising, do not add to the discussion, off-topic, duplicative, etc. may not be published. The author reserves the right to publish, edit, or delete any post at any time. Comments become the property of the author upon submission. If you disagree with this comment policy, don't submit a comment.

Note: If you arrived at this page seeking assistance with reviewing or drafting terms of service, privacy policy, or related Internet law contracts for your California or Nevada business, then we can assist, please contact us for details.