Indiana Business Law Blog

On February 25, 2011 I wrote a blog post about Righthaven, LLC, a company that has made a business out of suing owners of web sites for alleged copyright infringement. At the time, Righthaven had filed at least 239 lawsuits against all sorts of defendants, including individuals, small businesses, and nonprofit organizations. The number of lawsuits has now reached at least 275, most of them in either Nevada or Colorado.

Although many of the lawsuits have been settled, some of the defendants have chosen to fight back. For example, in Righthaven LLC v. Buzzfeed, Inc., the defendants recently filed a class action counterclaim on behalf of the defendants in all the Colorado lawsuits. In their counterclaim, the defendants argue that Righthaven has committed abuse of process and violated the Colorado statute against unfair and deceptive trade practices. In support of their counterclaim, the defendants allege, among other things, that

• Righthaven has asked for remedies that it knows it is not entitled to. Specificially, the counterclaim says that Righthaven has tried to lock the defendants' websites and to get ownership of those websites.


• Righthaven has attempted to coerce defendants into monetary settlements by threatening to get statutory damages and to take control of the defendants' websites.


• Righthaven has sued for infringement of copyrights that Righthaven does not own.

The defendants also raise a number of defenses to Righthaven's claims, including the argument that the defendants' use of copyrighted material was covered by the doctrine of fair use and, therefore, was not an infringement.

In the previous post, we pointed out some things that website owners can do to avoid being sued for copyright infringement:

• Assume that everything you find on the internet is subject to a copyright.


• Don't copy text from another website (or, for that matter, from any other copyrighted source) and post it on your website, even if you give credit to the original source, unless you get permission from the owner of the copyright.


• Don't post copyrighted images on your website unless you receive permission from the owner of the copyright.


• Take advantage of the wealth of images that are available free or at low cost from online stock shops such as www.openphoto.net and www.istockphoto.com.

Regardless of how successful the Righthaven defendants are in their attempts to fight back, these tips remain valid. You do not want to be sued for copyright infringement, even if you might ultimately prevail in that lawsuit. It can be very expensive to ultimately prevail. It's better not to be sued in the first place. But if you are sued, you should understand and take advantage of all the weapons that are available to you, both defensive and counteroffensive weapons.

Continue reading "Righthaven Defendants Fight Back" »

Last November I wrote about a new law that expanded the requirement to issue Form 1099 to include reporting of payments made to corporations and to suppliers of goods. The law was set to go into effect for payments made in 2012. In January I wrote that Representative Dan Lungren (R. California) had introduced a bill to repeal the new requirement. On April 14, President Obama signed Congressman Lungren's bill into law, eliminating the expansion of the reporting requirements.

Everyone knows when individual tax returns (Form 1040 or one of its variations) are due. Today. April 15. Right? Not this year! This year individual tax returns are not due until Monday, April 18.

That's because of the "Saturday, Sunday, holiday rule," which says that if April 15 falls on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday, Form 1040 is due on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. You might not have known that April 16 is Emancipation Day, a legal holiday in Washington, D.C. that commemorates the signing of the Compensated Emancipation Act by Abraham Lincoln on April 16, 1862. But this year, April 16 falls on Saturday, so Emancipation Day is being celebrated on Friday, April 15. Therefore, Form 1040 is not due until Monday, April 18.

By the way, if you make quarterly estimated tax payments, that's not due until Monday either.

In my last entry, I discussed the corporate veil and the protection it provides to individuals who own LLCs or have stock in corporations. Corporate veil piercing only becomes an issue when the LLC or corporation does not have enough financial assets to pay a creditor and that creditor wants to find another way to satisfy that debt. To that end, a creditor may try to persuade a court that the business's corporate veil should be pierced, allowing the creditor access to the owner's personal assets. Most of the time, it won't work, but in some circumstances it will. Here are the factors that tend to justify piercing the corporate veil.

• The business is undercapitalized


• The owners have made fraudulent representations


• The owners have used the business to promote fraud, injustice or illegal activities


• The assets of the business have been used to pay the obligations of the owners


• The owners have commingled their own assets and affairs with those of the business


• Business or corporate records are absent


• The owners have failed to observe required corporate formalities


• The owners have otherwise ignored, controlled, or manipulated the corporate entity

Before I dive into the details of each factor, it's important to note that Indiana courts consider veil piercing to be extremely fact sensitive. In other words, judges look at these issues and base their decisions on the very specific facts of each particular case. In one case, the court may not permit the veil to be pierced despite the presence of several factors. In another case, the presence of even one factor may justify piercing the veil. That means that a prudent business owner needs to keep all of them in mind. That said, let's get on with it.

The first factor is undercapitalization, which has been defined by the courts as "capitalization very small in relation to the nature of the business of the corporation and the risks attendant to such business." Of course, almost anytime a creditor tries to piece the corporate veil, the business is, in one sense, undercapitalized because if the business had enough money to pay the creditor, there would be no need to pierce the veil. So the question is not whether the business is undercapitalized when the veil-piercing lawsuit is filed, but whether it was properly capitalized to begin with. The policy underlying this factor may be the notion that business owners should place at least a reasonable amount of capital at risk. As far as these factors go, undercapitalization is a fairly weak one. Taken alone, it is seldom if ever enough to justify piercing the corporate veil. Often, it will be raised as a minor factor where other, stronger considerations are present. Even so, one way small business owners can protect themselves is to make sure the business is not undercapitalized.

The next two factors are related, and they play a significant role in many veil-piercing cases. Both of them deal with fraud. Indiana courts do not have much sympathy for individuals who use a LLC or corporation to perpetrate fraud and it is highly likely they will pierce the corporate veil if there is evidence of fraudulent business activities. Fraud can include misrepresenting facts about the company to customers or other third parties. For instance, making statements you know are false or otherwise misleading someone to induce them to enter into an agreement with your business could be considered fraudulent misrepresentation.

Sometimes however, what is legitimate in one situation is fraudulent in another. Consider two LLCs that are have a common owner. In most circumstances, if the owner wants to move assets from one of the LLCs to the other, it's perfectly legitimate to do so, assuming the owner keeps the books straight and pays any taxes that might be triggered by the transfer. Now imagine that the owner realizes that one of the LLC's is about to be sued and decides to transfer all the assets owned by that LLC into the other. That attempt to use the LLCs to hide assets from creditors can be (and has been) deemed fraudulent and used as a reason to pierce the corporate veil.

So the second and third ways business owners can avoid becoming personally liable for the obligations of the business are to avoid making fraudulent representations and to avoid using the business for fraudulent, unjust, or illegal activities. We'll cover the other factors in the next entry in this series.

Continue reading "Veil Piercing Part TWO: A few ways to protect your business from having its corporate veil pierced in Indiana" »

This is the first of a series of occasional blog entries dedicated to explaining how Indiana courts deal with the "corporate veil" and "veil piercing" and what small business owners can do to protect themselves from being personally liable for the debts and obligations of the business.

"Corporate veil" is a phrase used to describe the liability shield between the owner of a company and the company itself, and, as the name implies, it originated in the context of corporations. Without the corporate veil, corporations could not raise capital by selling stock to investors, and modern stock exchanges could not exist. Imagine that you buy $10,000 worth of a corporation's stock through an online stock broker, maybe the one with those talking baby commercials, hoping to collect some small dividends for a few years, then sell the shares at a nice profit. Now imagine that one day an envelope appears in your mailbox, but instead of a quarterly dividend check, it contains a letter from the company's creditors saying that the company does not have enough money to pay its bills and that, for your convenience,they have enclosed an envelope that you may use to mail in payment of your share of the corporation's debt, which comes to $75,633. And 27 cents. No personal checks, and the post office will not deliver mail without a stamp.

I suspect that would be the last stock you'd ever buy.

The reason that doesn't happen is the corporate veil. Even if a corporation's stock becomes worthless, the shareholder's loss is limited to the money he or she invested in the stock. The shareholder's other assets -- the house, the car, the checking account, the baseball card collection, and the family dog -- are safe from the corporation's creditors. And that's true not only for the shareholders of large, publicly traded corporations; it's also true for the owners of the smallest incorporated businesses. Furthermore, as a previous blog entry explained, the same type of corporate veil prevents the creditors of a limited liability company from reaching the assets of the LLC's members.

At least, that's the way it works most of the time. However, sometimes, in certain circumstances, a court may allow the creditors of the LLC or corporation to reach through the corporate veil and to collect directly from the business owners. That's called "piercing the corporate veil," and one time it can happen is when the owner has used the company to perpetrate fraud. A future entry will discuss in more detail the circumstances that can lead to veil piercing.

But before we get there, business owners need to remember one other limitation of the corporate veil -- it does not protect them from their own liability. That commonly arises in one of two different ways. First, imagine of a group of engineers who start their own engineering firm and organize it as a limited liability company. If one of the owner-engineers negligently makes a mistake on a design project, that particular owner-engineer can be held liable -- not because he or she is an owner of the LLC, but because he or she is the engineer who made the mistake. In addtion, the LLC will also be liable (at least in most cases), but the personal assets of the other owner-engineers will be protected by the corporate veil. (Hopefully, the owners will have heeded my earlier advice to get a good insurance broker, and the LLC will have an errors-and-omissions policy to cover the liabilty of both the LLC and the negligent engineer.)

The second common way that a member of a limited liability company becomes liable for the obligations of the LLC is when the member contractually assumes the obligation. For example, banks and other lenders often will not extend a loan to a small LLC unless the members sign a personal guaranty that obligates them to repay the money if the LLC doesn't. In those situations, the corporate veil does not prevent the lender from reaching the personal assets of a member-guarantor.

Watch for my next entry on this topic to learn about what you can do to protect your company from having its corporate veil pierced. (Sounds painful, doesn't it?)

Continue reading "Veil Piercing Part ONE: What is the "corporate veil" and can it be "pierced" under Indiana law?" »

As our last post explained, for-profit businesses are very limited in their ability to use unpaid interns legally. Unless the internship program meets six different criteria to qualify the intern as a trainee, the intern is an employee subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act (or FLSA), and the business must comply with the requirements to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation. Nonprofit organizations may also have trainees, and the analysis that applies to businesses also applies to nonprofits.

For nonprofits, however, there is a third possibility. The intern may qualify as a volunteer, in which case the intern is not an employee under FLSA and not subject to the minimum wage and overtime compensation requirements. The footnote to Fact Sheet #71 issued last year by the Department of Labor explained that the Department's Wage and Hour Division recognizes an exception to FSLA for individuals who volunteer their time to nonprofit organizations for religious, charitable, civic, or humanitarian purposes, provided they do so freely and without expecting any compensation. In those situations, unpaid internships are generally allowable.

There are some limits, however. Perhaps most importantly, individuals who work in a commercial operation (such as a clothing store or a farm) operated by a nonprofit organization are likely to be deemed employees and therefore subject to the FLSA. That's essentially what happened in the 1985 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation vs. Secretary of Labor. Although that case had the additional factor that the individuals who worked for the nonprofit also received benefits such as clothing and room and board, in my opinion, it is likely the Court would have reach the same decision even if the individuals had received nothing.

In addition, the Wage and Hour Division has hinted that relevant factors might also include whether the intern works full-time and whether the intern displaces any employees. For example, in a 2006 opinion letter, in describing the exemption for volunteers, the Division stated,

"Typically, such volunteers serve on a part-time basis and do not displace paid workers or perform work that would otherwise be performed by employees."

Although the volunteer must work without any expectation of being paid, it is nonetheless permissible for the nonprofit to pay the pay the expenses of the volunteer, to provide some reasonable benefits, and even to pay a nominal fee. In order for the fee to be "nominal," the amount may not depend on the volunteer's productivity or the number of hours worked. In addition, the fee or stipend should not exceed 20% of the amount it would cost the nonprofit organization to pay an employee to perform the same tasks. For more explanation, you might want to read Opinion Letter FLSA2005-51.

A final note of caution: As I mentioned in the entry dealing with business interns, determining whether an intern is either a trainee or a volunteer, and therefore not an employee, is relevant only for the Fair Labor Standards Act. There are many other legal requirements, including state law requirements, that apply to "employees," and each of those requirements has its own definition which may be different from the FLSA definition.

Continue reading "Is it legal for a nonprofit organization to use unpaid interns?" »

With summer vacation approaching, and with the job market being what it is, small business owners may be approached by college or high school students offering to work as undpaid interns. At first, that may seem like a great idea -- the business gets free help for the summer, maybe to fill in for vacationing employees, and the student gains experience and a chance to build a resume. Sounds like a win-win situation, right?

Well, maybe not. In fact, the situation could place the business on the receiving end of a lawsuit or government enforcement action, and I doubt that even Charlie Sheen would consider that "winning." The problem is that most interns at for-profit businesses qualify as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act, or FSLA, and must be paid at least minimum wage and overtime compensation if they work more than 40 hours in a week. In other words, you can't avoid paying minimum wage by paying nothing.

However, there is a very narrow exception for interns that qualify as "trainees." Last April, the Department of Labor published Fact Sheet #71, listing the criteria for determining whether an intern is a tranee. If an internship has all six of the following characteristic, the intern is not classified as an employee under the FLSA.

1. The intern receives training similar to the training he or she would receive in an educational environment. Preferably, the program should be centered on a classroom or academic setting, not on the business's operations. Ideally, the program should be associated with an educational institution that gives the intern academic credit for the program.
2. The internship is for the benefit of the intern. If the intern's activities are primarily for the benefit of the employer (see item 5), the fact that the intern also acquires useful job skills is not sufficient to classify him or her as a trainee. Ideally, the intern will learn skills that are useful to other employers, not just to the business sponsoring the program.
3. The intern does not displace employees. Instead, existing employees closely supervise the intern's work. If the business uses an internship to supplement its staff or to fill in for employees who are absent or on vacation, the intern is an employee, not a trainee.
4. The business does not derive an immediate advantage from the intern's work; in fact, the internship may even impede the business's operations. Although it can probably be argued that the business always derives some amount of benefit from the internship program, the internship must be primarily and predominantly for the benefit of the intern, not the benefit of the business.
5. The business will not necessarily employ the intern when the internship is finished. If the business uses the internship as a trial period for prospective employees, the intern is probably an employee, not a trainee.
6. The intern and the business understand that the intern will not be paid during the internship.

Given those criteria, it's easy to understand why a Department of Labor official told The New York Times last year that most unpaid internships with for-profit businesses are not legal. (The story is different, however, for internships with governmental agencies and nonprofit organizations. That's the topic of a future blog post.)

When the Department of Labor released Fact Sheet #71 last April, some news sources and bloggers described the six criteria listed above as "new regulations." In fact, the criteria are are not new, and they are not regulations. They originated in 1947 with Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court dealing with a training program for prospective railyard brakemen. Since then the criteria have been applied, explained, and refined by lower courts and the Department of Labor. Rather than a new regulation, Fact Sheet #71 can be seen as the Department's warning shot across the bow of businesses that use "unpaid interns" as a source of free labor.

A note of caution about the use of these criteria. If the internship satisfies all six of the above criteria, the intern is deemed to be a trainee and not an employee, but only determining whether the Fair Labor Standards Act applies. That's only one of many contexts in which the categorization of a person as an "employee" carries legal significance, and different criteria apply in each of those different contexts. Even though a trainee is not an employee for FSLA purposes, he or she may be an employee for other purposes, including the relevant state labor laws.

Continue reading "Is it legal for a business to use unpaid interns?" »

Most people understand that signing a contract creates a binding agreement with the other party. Of course, there are some exceptions to this general rule, such as when a court finds that one party was fraudulently induced into signing the agreement. However, Indiana law does not let you recover damages or be released from a contract simply because you did not take the time to read the agreement before signing.

One Indiana physician learned this lesson the hard way. In the case of Krad v. BP Products North America, BP wanted to build a gas station on property owned by Dr. Krad. However, BP need only a portion of Dr. Krad's property, not all of it. With the assistance of a real estate broker, BP approached Dr. Krad with a proposal to lease part of Dr. Krad's property, and the discussions led to a letter of intent that described the approximate size of the parcel that BP would lease. Eventually, BP gave Dr. Krad a proposed lease agreement, and Dr. Krad signed it after a review by his attorney. Although a preliminary survey had been completed, the lease agreement did not contain a legal description of the leased property. Instead, it stated that another survey would be completed within sixty days after the lease agreement was signed, and the final survey report would be attached to it as an exhibit, subject to approval by both BP and Dr. Krad. In other words, the lease agreement would not be complete until Dr. Krad signed the final survey report.

After the lease agreement was signed, BP decided it needed more land than it had anticipated and ordered a final survey of a larger piece of Dr. Krad's property, apparently without discussing it with Dr. Krad. The final survey report, which contained a legal description of the larger piece of property, was delivered by the broker to Dr. Krad at his office. The broker interrupted Dr. Krad while he was with a patient and asked him to sign the survey report so it could be recorded. Dr. Krad signed the report without reading it and without telling his attorney or asking his attorney to review the report, assuming that the report described the piece of property that was originally discussed.

Dr. Krad knew something was amiss when the construction equipment arrived and started site preparation outside the boundaries of the parcel he assumed he had leased to BP. Eventually, Dr. Krad sued BP, asking for additional compensation for the difference between the size of the parcel he thought he had leased and the size of the property actually described in the final survey report.

Dr. Krad lost at both the trial court level and in the Indiana Court of Appeals. As the Court of Appeals wrote,

Under Indiana law, a person is presumed to understand what he signs and cannot be released from a contract due to his failure to read it. . . . Mere neglect will not relieve a party of the terms of an agreement in the absence of some excuse for the neglect, such as fraud, trickery, misrepresentation, or breach of trust or confidence.

Although the court acknowledged that the final survey report was given to Dr. Krad "somewhat abruptly," it found that neither BP nor the broker did anything fraudulent in getting Dr. Krad to sign it. He was free to accept it or to reject it. In addtion, the court pointed out that, without a legal description, the lease agreement was an unenforceable agreement to agree, and, if Dr. Krad had refused to sign the survey report, he could have walked away from the deal or he could have pressed BP for more money.

Continue reading "Always read agreements before signing them" »

[This is the last of a seven-part series of posts discussing the characteristics of limited liability companies and comparing them to the characteristics of corporations, general partnerships, and sole proprietorships. Here's the entire list.

Part 1. Background on sole proprietorships.
Part 2. Background on partnerships.
Part 3. Background on corporations.
Part 4. LLCs are distinct legal entities, separate from their owners.
Part 5. A limited liability company's owners are not liable for the LLC's obligations.
Part 6. Options for an LLC's management structure.
Part 7. Options for an LLC's tax treatment.]

In prior posts, I've discussed several characteristics of LLCs. First, like corporations, LLCs are entities separate from their owners. Second, also like corporations, the owners are not liable for the obliigations of the LLC. Third, they offer choices of management structures: They can be managed directly by the owners, like sole proprietorships and many partnerships, or they can be managed by others who are selected by the owners, in much the same way that shareholders of a corporation elect directors to run the business. This last post of the series looks at the tax characteristics of LLCs.

Interestingly, LLCs do not have a specific category in the Internal Revenue Code or the Tax Regulations. Instead, their tax treatment is governed by the so-called "check-the-box regulation." It provides that the LLC may elect to be treated in one of several ways, and the choices depend on whether the LLC has one member or more than one member.

The default status for a single-member LLC is that it is a "disregarded entity" in that all the income and expenses go directly on the member's personal tax return, just like a sole proprietorship. The LLC itself doesn't even have to file a tax return. The default status for a multi-member LLC is to be taxed as if it were a partnership. Alternatively, either a single-member LLC or a multi-member LLC can elect to be taxed as if it were a corporation, either as a Subchapter C corporation or, if the LLC meets certain criteria, as a Subchapter S corporation. To decide which is the best tax strategy for your LLC, you should consult both your lawyer and your accountant.

Continue reading "Just what IS a limited liability company? Part 7. It's a bundle of tax choices." »

[This is the sixth post in a seven-part series discussing the characteristics of limited liability companies and comparing them to the characteristics of corporations, general partnerships, and sole proprietorships. Here's the entire list.

Part 1. Background on sole proprietorships.
Part 2. Background on partnerships.
Part 3. Background on corporations.
Part 4. LLCs are distinct legal entities, separate from their owners.
Part 5. A limited liability company's owners are not liable for the LLC's obligations.
Part 6. Options for an LLC's management structure.
Part 7. Options for an LLC's tax treatment.]

Previous posts discussed the management structures of the three classic business entities that we're using as a framework for discussing limited liability companies and, in particular, exactly who is responsible for running the business day-to-day.

Sole Proprietorships. Remember Drucker's General Store, the example I used to illustrate sole proprietorships? Sam Drucker ran his own store on a day-to-day basis. In fact, I'm not sure Sam even had any employees. That's the prototypical management structure for a sole proprietorship -- the proprietor himself or herself runs the business on a day-to-day basis.

Corporations. Once again, corporations are at the opposite end of the spectrum from sole proprietorships. As discussed earlier,the owners of a corporation (i.e., the shareholders), have no role in the day-to-day operation of the business. Instead, their role is limited to electing a board of directors who, in turn, usually delegate responsibility to officers and employees of the company. Of course, in a closely held company, it's very common for the owners, acting as shareholders, to elect themselves as directors and then to appoint themselves as officers.

General Partnerships. The management structure of general partnerships varies a bit more, but usually the day to day affairs are managed by the partners themselves -- by all of the partners, or by a management committee composed of partners, or by a single managing partner.

Limited Liability Companies. Fundamentally, there are two different ways limited liability companies can be managed -- by the members themselves or by one or more managers, who are appointed by the members. In other words, a limited liability company has the flexibility to be managed like a sole proprietorship and many partnerships are managed -- by the owners of the business themselves. However, it's also possible for the owners to be relatively far removed from the day-to-day operation of the company, with a role largely restricted to appointing one or more managers to operate the LLC. Note, however, that the members of a manager-managed LLC are free to name one or more of their own as manager(s).

Even a single-member LLC has the same choices of management by the members or management by managers. A few days ago, in explaining why a single-member LLC needs an operating agreement, I touched on some of the reasons that the sole owner of a limited liability company might choose to make their LLC manager-managed.

So one of the advantages of a limited liability company is that it offers choices for management structure. Next we'll see that a limited liability company offers choices for tax treatment as well.

Continue reading "Just what IS a limited liability company? Part 6. It offers choices of management structure." »

A few days ago I wrote about a whole raft of copyright infringement lawsuits that have been filed by a company called Righthaven, LLC. My hope was that drawing attention to those lawsuits might educate business owners and nonprofit organizations about the potential legal problems associated with posting copyrighted material on their websites.

Since then I learned of a company that recently paid $4000 to settle an accusation of infringing the copyright of photograph that would have cost about $10 to license. The company is in the business of writing copy for web sites. Yes, that's correct -- they're copywriters. Apparently, the problem arose when one of them pulled a photo from the internet and placed it on a customer's blog under the mistaken belief that if the photo didn't have a copyright notice, then it was in the public domain and thus fair game. If you read my previous blog entry, you already know how wrong that is. Now the copywriters do, too.

You can read the entire story here.

Under current Indiana law, you can easily start up a limited liability company (LLC) with a credit card and an internet connection. After making a quick trip to the Indiana Secretary of State's website, submitting articles of organization, and paying a fee you could have your very own LLC in about fifteen minutes. But what about creating an operating agreement for your LLC? Nothing about that process requires -- or even mentions -- an operating agreement. Strictly speaking, it's not legally required, and if the LLC has only one member, an operating agreement may even seem pointless. Nonetheless, I advise all my clients with LLCs -- even single-member LLCs -- to have operating agreements.

The reason the Indiana Business Flexibility Act does not require an operating agreement is that it contains default rules that govern the LLC if there is no operating agreement (or if there is an operating agreement but it doesn't address every issue). However, those default rules may or may not be what you want. Having an operating agreement created specifically for the needs and goals of your single-member LLC can help sort out which aspects of the Indiana Business Flexibility Act will apply to your LLC and which will be overridden.

A particular reason that I think single-member LLCs should have an operating agreement flows from the fact that I think most single-member LLCs (at least those owned by individuals rather than by another business entity) should be manager-managed rather than member-managed. Imagine you are the sole member of your own LLC, and it is member-managed. That means that you, and only you, have the authority to take actions on behalf of the LLC. Now imagine that you are in a serious accident and unable to manage your business for an extended period of time. There is no one who can step into your shoes and run the business in your absence.

However, imagine that you set the business up as a manager-managed LLC. You can name yourself as the manager and some other trusted person, such as your spouse, as the assistant manager who has the authority to step in and run the LLC if you are not able to. To do that, you'll need an operating agreement that describes the authority of the other person to run the business when you can't.

It's also likely that third parties, such as banks and the IRS, will want to know various details about how the LLC is organized. An operating agreement includes information like who has the authority to sign contracts for the LLC, the LLC's tax status, and other legally meaningful information. Being able to hand a third party a single document that clearly lays out all of the legally significant details about the LLC can save a lot of time and confusion for the member and the entities the LLC does business with.

Continue reading "Why should a single-member LLC have an operating agreement?" »

[This is the fifth post in a seven-part series discussing the characteristics of limited liability companies and comparing them to the characteristics of corporations, general partnerships, and sole proprietorships. Here's the entire list.

Part 1. Background on sole proprietorships.
Part 2. Background on partnerships.
Part 3. Background on corporations.
Part 4. LLCs are distinct legal entities, separate from their owners.
Part 5. A limited liability company's owners are not liable for the LLC's obligations.
Part 6. Options for an LLC's management structure.
Part 7. Options for an LLC's tax treatment.]

The last entry in this series explained that a limited liability company has its own legal identity, separate from its members. A related concept is that a limited liability company has a liability shield, sometimes called a corporate veil, between itself and its members. That means that the members of a limited liability company are not liable for the debts or obligations of the LLC itself, just as the shareholders of a corporation are not liable for the debts or obligations of the corporation itself.

To see how that works, let's imagine that you and two of your good friends, Jack and Jill, decide to buy a bicycle shop. You consult an attorney, and he recommends that you create a limited liability company to buy the shop. He writes an operating agreement for you, which all three of you sign, files articles of organization in the Indiana Secretary of State's office, and takes care of other details such as obtaining an Employer Identification Number . At that point you are the proud owners of a limited liability company Three Good Friends, LLC . (By the way, there is no such LLC in Indiana. I know that because I ran a search on the Secretary of State's website.) The purpose of the LLC is to buy and run a bicycle shop. To raise the money, you and Jill each drain your savings accounts, and Jack mortgages his house to the hilt. All three of you put the money (called your initial capital contributions) into the LLC, and with that money the LLC buys a bicycle shop, which you rename as Three Good Friends Bicycle Emporium. The LLC's lawyer files a certificate of assumed business name showing that Three Good Friends, LLC is now doing business as Three Good Friends Bicycle Emporium.

While you're working in the shop one afternoon, a delivery truck arrives. A LARGE delivery truck. The driver comes in and asks where you'd like to put the 700 bicycles you ordered. (I don't know if a single truck can actually hold 700 bicycles, but cut me some slack and go with me on this.) You tell him there must be some mistake because you ordered only 7 bicycles. After a frantic search through your computer files, you realize that a mistake was indeed made -- and that you're the one who made it. You really did order 700 bicycles. And they're expensive bicycles. VERY expensive. You make a few phone calls and find out that the bicycles cannot be returned and that the shop will have to pay for them. You also know that there's not nearly enough money in the LLC's bank account to pay for the bicycles.

You tell Jack and Jill what happened, expecting them to be furious -- and Jack is. As Jack often does, he imagines the worst. He says that the bicycle manufacturer is going to sue not only the shop but all three of you. He worries that not only will the three of you lose the business, but that he'll lose his house, which he mortgaged to the hilt to come up with the money for the business. Jill, being her characteristically calm self, tells Jack not to worry. The reason that they set up a limited liability company was so that none of the three good friends can be held liable for the debts of Three Good Friends Bicycle Emporium. She tells Jack that even if the LLC goes bankrupt, his house is safe from the bicycle manufacturer. Is Jill right?

Continue reading "Just what IS a limited liability company? Part 5. It has a liability shield." »

[This is the fourth post in a seven-part series discussing the characteristics of limited liability companies and comparing them to the characteristics of corporations, general partnerships, and sole proprietorships. Here's the entire list.

Part 1. Background on sole proprietorships.
Part 2. Background on partnerships.
Part 3. Background on corporations.
Part 4. LLCs are distinct legal entities, separate from their owners.
Part 5. A limited liability company's owners are not liable for the LLC's obligations.
Part 6. Options for an LLC's management structure.
Part 7. Options for an LLC's tax treatment.]

To set the background for a discussion of the basics of limited liability companies, we've discussed sole proprietorships, partnerships, and corporations. As we'll see, a limited liability company shares some characteristics with corporations and other characteristics with sole proprietorships (if the LLC has one owner, called a member) or partnerships (if the LLC has more than one member).

The first thing to recognize about a limited liability company is that it is a separate legal entity, apart from its owners. How does that compare to the other structures? First, a sole proprietorship is NOT a separate legal entity apart from its owner. If you're running a business as a sole proprietorship, you really ARE the business, and the business is you.

At the other end of the spectrum, a corporation is a distinct legal entity, completely separate from its shareholders. For example a corporation can sue and be sued in its own name, It can enter into contracts in its own name. And it can go into bankruptcy without dragging its owners with it.

In the middle of the spectrum is a partnership. Without getting into all the details, I'll just say that for some purposes a partnership has the characteristics of a separate legal entity, and for other purposes a partnership is treated more like the aggregate of all the partners.

So in this sense, a limited liability company is just like a corporation. It is a separate legal entity, apart from its members. It can sue and be sued; it can enter into contracts; and it can go into bankruptcy, all apart from its members. And all that is true even if the LLC has only a single member.

Next we'll discuss another way that a limited liability company is like a corporation -- the liability shield.

Continue reading "Just what IS a limited liability company? Part 4. It's a separate legal entity." »

Click here for a later post on this topic.

You may not have heard about Righthaven, LLC, a company that has filed 239 (and counting) lawsuits against alleged copyright infringers in less than a year. But if your small business or nonprofit organization has a website, you should pay attention.

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Righthaven searches the internet for newspaper stories that have been copied and posted on websites, acquires the copyright to the stories, and then sues the person who posted the copied material. Righthaven seems to be an equal opportunity plaintiff, willing to sue just about anyone. So far it has taken on The Drudge Report, A Blog About History, Teapartier Sharon Angle, and the Democratic Party of Nevada.

Righthaven doesn't restrict its targets to large organizations or famous names. Over thirty of the Righthaven lawsuits have been filed against individuals who posted on their websites the same copyrighted photograph from the Denver Post photo featuring a Transportation Security Administration officer patting down a passenger at Denver International Airport. While some of the defendants admit to copying the photo directly from the newspaper's website, most of them claim they found the image somewhere else on the internet and had no idea the photo was copyrighted until they received notice of the lawsuit.

Not even charitable organizations get a free pass. Trauma Intervention Program of Southern Nevada Inc. (TIP), a Las Vegas non-profit organization, was sued by Righthaven for re-posting news articles to their website. TIP organizes volunteers and sends them to emergency scenes to comfort traumatized witnesses of accidents, crimes, fires, etc. In response to the lawsuit, TIP replaced the full length articles with links back to the newspaper's website.

As you might imagine, there are some strong and differing opinions about Righthaven. Some of its critics refer to it as a "copyright troll," and to the defendants in Righthaven lawsuits as its "victims." On the other hand, some copyright owners, such as the Denver Post complain about widespread copyright infringement and see Righthaven as a means of enforcing their copyrights.

No matter how you feel about Righthaven, it's important to guard against infringing a copyright that belongs to someone else. The first step is to assume that everything you find on the internet is protected by copyright. At one time, material subject to a copyright had to be marked as such, but that hasn't been true for years. Although some materials are in the public domain, it's far safer to assume that everything you find on the internet is copyrighted even if it does not explicitly say so! Unless you have received permission from the owner, never post copyrighted text, images, or videos on your website.

It's true that under some circumstances, copyright law allows a limited amount of copying under the doctrine of fair use. The problem is that the boundary between fair use and infringement is very difficult to discern. To say it's fuzzy is an understatement. Summarizing or paraphrasing the original story are better ways to provide the same information to your readers without potentially infringing someone else's copyrighted material. Remember: a copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself.

But what about pictures? Fortunately there are sites on the Internet you can find images and obtain free or low-cost licenses to them. Stock photo websites allow you to use keywords to search for all different types of images. Take a look at our blog - almost every entry includes a photo, and we found all of them on stock photo sites! Well, all of them except the picture of the Indiana Statehouse. That photo demonstrates another way to avoid infringing someone else's copyright. It's an original photo taken by a member of our staff and is therefore copyrighted exclusively for the use of Smith Rayl Law Office.

Remember, just because it is relatively simple for you to find a picture or news story online does not mean you should post it! There can be real consequences to copyright infringement, even when it is unintentional.

Continue reading "Owners of websites: Learn from the Righthaven lawsuits!" »