Comments for Unincorporated Business Entities Law

Comment on Creditors and SMLLCs. Olmstead v. FTC (Fla. 2010) by Law Office of Deven S. Kane, P.C. » Asset Protection with Single Member LLCs in the aftermath of Olmstead

Fri, 27 Aug 2010 22:21:13 +0000

[...] a creditor to seize the membership interest of a single-member LLC. At least one commentator has noted that the majority opinion is not a model of clarity and ultimately relies on the difference in the [...]

Comment on LLC Member Liable under Municipal Law for Violations of Housing Code. Allen v. DackMan (Md. 2010) by Unincorporated Business Entities Law - Topic Research, Trends and Surveys

Unincorporated Business Entities Law - Topic Research, Trends and Surveys — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 00:38:25 +0000

[...] … the City Council intended to expand the meaning of the term “owner” so that it … Read More RECOMMENDED BOOKS REVIEWS AND OPINIONS Local Search Ranking Factors, Vol 3 [...]

Comment on The Joint Venture Fable by grosin

grosin — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:47:13 +0000

That said, Texas has enshrined the joint operating agreement among owners of mineral interests as a non-partnership. Tex. Bus. Org. Code 152.052(b)(4)

Comment on The Joint Venture Fable by Doug

Doug — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 13:30:30 +0000

Hooray! I am sick of seeing arguments that the joint venture is a distinct form of business organization. Old Texas case law is particularly bad on this point.

Comment on Choice of Law and Hotel 71 Mezz Lender LLC v. Falor by Charging Orders and Two Kinds of Exclusivity « Unincorporated Business Entities Law

Sun, 27 Jun 2010 21:21:31 +0000

[...] creditors’ remedies to reach interests in LLCs formed under the laws of other states. As I’ve discussed earlier, at least the Appellate Division panel recognized, via forum non conveniens, that it might be [...]

Comment on Creditors and SMLLCs. Olmstead v. FTC (Fla. 2010) by Charging Orders and Two Kinds of Exclusivity « Unincorporated Business Entities Law

Sun, 27 Jun 2010 21:09:58 +0000

[...] Unincorporated Business Entities Law Agency, Partnerships, LLCs and Closely-Held Corporations « Creditors and SMLLCs. Olmstead v. FTC (Fla. 2010) [...]

Comment on 2010 Amendments to Delaware LLC Act by Daniel S. Kleinberger

Daniel S. Kleinberger — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:12:29 +0000

Gary,

Well quipped – although the statute does permit a “no oral modification provision” and integration clause. Presumably, the Delaware courts will respect those.

Regards,

Dan

Comment on Creditors and Interests in LLEs: A Rant on Reading Hotel 71 Mezz Lender LLC v. Falor by Brian West

Brian West — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:17:28 +0000

In fact, on February 16, 2010, the NY Court of Appeals overturned the Appellate Division in Hotel 71 Mezz Lender LLC v Falor, and determined, based on Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda (a 2009 decision of the NY Court of Appeals), that the Judgment Creditor (“JC”) could attach the Judgment Debtor’s (“JD”) interests in the out of state LLEs. This attachment (or the garnishment of corporate stock in the Koehler case) is not attempting to take the assets of the entities, but rather to gain access over the JD’s actual ownership interest (LLC or stock) in the LLE. A charging order is appropriate when the JC is trying to gain access to the actual assets held by the LLE in which the JD holds an interest – the charging order allows the same only at the time and to the extent the LLE would have distributed assets to the JD. The attachment/garnishment of the LLE interest (in Koehler or Hotel 71) and the charging order you discuss are trying to get at two entirely different bundle of rights held by the JD.

Comment on Deadlock, Judicial Dissolution and Liquidation. In re Ravitz (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) by Goodwill as a Firm Asset. In Re Ravitz (NY App. Div. 2009) « Unincorporated Business Entities Law

Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:58:10 +0000

[...] Unincorporated Business Entities Law Agency, Partnerships, LLCs and Closely-Held Corporations « Deadlock, Judicial Dissolution and Liquidation. In re Ravitz (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) [...]

Comment on Transactional Perspectives on Casavecchia v. Mizrahi by Unincorporated Business Law Prof Blog

Unincorporated Business Law Prof Blog — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 02:06:53 +0000

Allocations vs. Distributions. More on Casavecchia v. Mizrahi

As mentioned in my earlier post on the Casavecchia v. Mizrahi series of cases, the essence of the Casavecchia’s claims was that the LLC had been formed to develop a single real estate development, Hills of the Heartland, the development