[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 ›

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 ›

[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 ›

[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 ›


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 Harshman Ponist Smith & Rayl.

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 ›

[This is the third 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.]

Let’s get back to our trek toward a discussion of the basics of limited liability companies. The first two types of business structures we’ve looked at — sole proprietorships and partnerships — have two significant features in common. First, the owner or owners are liable for the obligations of the business. Second, the business itself does not pay taxes. Instead, the income and other tax items are “passed through” to the owner or owners, who pay tax on the income. Things change with corporations, the third type of business structure.

Although corporations are not as old as sole proprietorships or partnerships, business organizations with at least some of the characteristics of corporations have been around for centuries. For example, the oldest corporation in North America, Hudson’s Bay Company, was incorporated in 1670.

Perhaps the most important feature of a corporation is that the owners of the corporation — called stockholders or shareholders — are NOT liable for the obligations of the business. And that’s very good news for people who owned stock in Lehman Brothers, which melted down into the largest bankruptcy in American history. Or, going back a little further to previous record holders, people who owned stock in Enron and Worldcom. Even though the people who owned stock in those corporations may have lost everything they invested, they were not liable to the corporations’ creditors, and they did not get pulled into the corporate bankruptcies. That protection against shareholders being held liable for the corporation’s obligations is sometimes called a liability shield or a corporate veil, and it doesn’t exist for sole proprietorships or general partnerships.
Continue reading ›

Most employers know (or should know) to be very careful about taking adverse action against an employee who has filed a claim of employment discrimination. The need for vigilance is even more important following last week’s decision of the United States Supreme Court , holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act includes “third-party reprisal” claims. Now, an employee may have a successful retaliation claim if he or she was fired because another employee filed a discrimination complaint.

In Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, a man was fired after his fiancée filed a sexual discrimination charge against their mutual employer. He, in turn, brought a lawsuit against the company claiming the termination of his employment was in retaliation for his fiancée’s discrimination complaint. The Supreme Court agreed that the man could raise the claim, reversing the decisions of two lower courts that had held that he could not. The Supreme Court held that the man had a right to sue because of his “close relationship” with the woman who filed the original discrimination complaint.

The result may be surprising to some people, perhaps more so because the eight Supreme Court Justices who participated (recently appointed Justice Kagan did not) were unanimous. In reacting to the decision of the Court written by Justice Scalia, Jacquelyn A. Berrien, chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, expressed approval, stating that the decision “reaffirms the importance of preventing retaliation against those seeking to protect their civil rights.” Read the entire EEOC press release here. As Justice Ginsburg noted in her concurring opinion (in which Justice Breyer joined), the Court’s decision is consistent with the EEOC’s long-standing position.

One of the questions that a business should consider when thinking about firing an employee (or taking any other adverse action) is whether that employee has lodged any discrimination complaints and might later claim that the action was taken in retaliation for the complaint. But until now, many employers were probably concerned only with complaints filed by that particular employee. Now, the employer must also consider complaints that may have been filed by some other person with a close relationship. But what qualifies as a “close relationship?” Unfortunately, the Supreme Court did not completely answer the question, saying only that “firing a close family member will almost always” meet the standard. Because of the facts of the Thompson case, we also know that the relationship between two engaged employees is close enough, but would a dating relationship count? What about a pair of really close friends? Or second cousins, once removed? For now, we can only speculate.
Continue reading ›

Earlier this week, Friendly Family Productions, LLC, the company that produced the television series Little House on the Prairie settled its lawsuit against a nonprofit corporation that operates a small museum outside Independence, Kansas. The museum is located at the site of the original house that Laura Ingalls Wilder wrote about in her book of the same title. Friendly Family Productions alleged that the museum infringed the trademark LITTLE HOUSE ON THE PRAIRIE. According to complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, the predecessor to Friendly Family Productions acquired rights to that trademark from the author’s descendants in 1974.

What got Friendly Family Productions all riled up (to use a term that Ms. Wilder would have been comfortable with) was the use of the trademark on merchandise that the museum sold, including the merchandise that it sold through a website with the domain name www.littlehouseontheprairie.com. Friendly Family Productions acknowledged that it had no quarrel with the museum using the words “little house on the prairie” to describe the homesite or the museum, because a purely descriptive use like that does not infringe a trademark. On the other hand, Friendly Family Productions had considerable quarrel with the museum putting those words on merchandise (caps, T-shirts, magnets, note cards, key chains, and other items typical of promotional merchandise) and selling them over the internet. Friendly Family Productions claimed that the use of those words implied that the merchandise came from the owner of the trademark, when it did not. That is, in a nutshell, the reason trademarks exist — to identify the source of the goods that bear the mark.

According to an article in the Topeka Capital-Journal and other sources, Friendly Family Productions originally offered to pay the museum $40,000 if it would stop using the trademark. The museum refused the offer, choosing instead to fight the lawsuit. The terms of the settlement agreement are confidential, but we know that the nonprofit corporation has changed its name from Little House on the Prairie, Inc. to the more descriptive Little House on the Prairie Museum, Inc., and www.littlehouseontheprairie.com is no longer active.

There’s no way to know how much the two-year litigation cost the parties.
Continue reading ›

[This is the second 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.]

In the last entry, I began a discussion of the basics of limited liability companies. To start that discussion, I began by describing the first of three other types of business structures: sole proprietorships. This entry is about partnerships, and the next will describe corporations.

In a sense, a general partnership is like a sole proprietorship, but with multiple proprietors. Each partner is liable for all of the obligations of the partnership. In other words, a creditor of the partnership can sue any or all of the partners to collect what the partnership owes. Income taxes are also similar, but things get a little more complicated with multiple owners.

For tax purposes, a general partnership is a “pass-through entity.” Unlike a sole proprietorship, a partnership has to file a tax return, called Form 1065. However, the partnership itself does not have to pay taxes. Form 1065 is used to calculate the partnership’s profits or losses and other “tax items,” which are allocated to the partners, most often in proportion to their ownership interests. In other words, the tax items are “passed through” to the partners, and each partner receives a report from the partnership called a Schedule K-1 that tells the partner how much income, etc. to report on his or her own personal tax return. Then the partner pays income tax as an individual.

One more point worth noting about taxes. If the partner is actively involved in the operation of the partnership — in essence, if the partner is “employed” by the partnership — he or she is considered to be self-employed and must pay self-employment tax on his or her share of the partnership’s income. Again, being a partner is very much like being a sole proprietor, except for the “sole” part.

The general partnership is an old form of business association. For instance, in Dickens‘s A Christmas Carol, Ebenezer Scrooge and Jacob Marley were partners. “The firm was known as Scrooge and Marley. Sometimes people new to the business called Scrooge Scrooge, and sometimes Marley, but he answered to both names. It was all the same to him.” Id. at p. 3. Of course, I’m not holding out Scrooge and Marley as a typical partnership or as a model of customer service. The example came to mind only because last month our family attended the Indiana Repertory Theater’s annual production of A Christmas Carol, and I’ve always liked that line.

In the next entry, I’ll describe corporations, and then (finally!) get around to discussing limited liability companies.
Continue reading ›

Contact Information