Question: I was checking the Arizona Corporation Commission’s website to make sure that all the information about my Arizona limited liability company displayed is correct. I clicked on the “Check Corporate Status” button in the upper right hand corner of the page. The site said my LLC is in good standing, but I noticed a button on the bottom left titled “Print Certificate.” When I clicked on the Print Certificate button I was taken to a page where I could pay $45 with my credit card and then print a Certificate of Good Standing for my Arizona limited liability company. Should I purchase a Certificate of Good Standing?
Answer: No. The purpose of the Certificate of Good Standing is to prove to people or companies that your Arizona LLC was formed and is in good standing with the Arizona Corporation Commission. You do not need the Certificate of Good Standing unless a third party requests it. If you do get a request for a Certificate of Good Standing the requester will want a current Certificate of Good Standing, not one created months or years before the date of the request.
The most common reason you might need a Certificate of Good Standing is your LLC wants to borrows money from a financial institution. Lenders frequently ask for a Certificate of Good Standing because they want to confirm that the LLC exists and is in good standing with the Arizona Corporation Commission when the lender loans the money.
In conclusion, don’t waste your money on getting a Certificate of Good Standing unless somebody asks for it and complying with the request is important to your LLC.
The post Do I Need a Certificate of Good Standing for My LLC? appeared first on Arizona Limited Liability Company Law.
Question: “Does a member of an Arizona limited liability company owe other members of the company any fiduciary duties?
Answer: A March 27, 2014, Arizona Court of Appeals opinion in the case of TM2008 Investments, Inc., vs. ProCon Capital Corp. says that the members of an Arizona limited liability company do not owe any fiduciary duties to the other members unless the members signed an Operating Agreement that creates and imposes contractual fiduciary duties on the members.
Since the TM2008 Investments case involves fiduciary duties we should first explain what the term means. The Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute says the following about fiduciary duties:
“A fiduciary duty is a legal duty to act solely in another party’s interests. Parties owing this duty are called fiduciaries. The individuals to whom they owe a duty are called principals. Fiduciaries may not profit from their relationship with their principals unless they have the principals’ express informed consent. They also have a duty to avoid any conflicts of interest between themselves and their principals or between their principals and the fiduciaries’ other clients. A fiduciary duty is the strictest duty of care recognized by the US legal system.”
If a person owes a fiduciary duty to another person it also means it is much easier for the principal to sue the fiduciary for breach of a fiduciary duty and win a judgment because there is a higher standard of care associated with the fiduciary duty than would otherwise apply.
The TM2008 Investments, Inc., vs. ProCon Capital Corp. case arises from a dispute among the two members of Doveland Developments, LLC, a company formed to buy land and develop it into homes. Unfortunately the project was not successful. The lender threatened to foreclose and sell the land and go after the owners of the two members (Steve Tackett and Bonnie Vanzant) of Doveland Developments, LLC, because they had personally guaranteed the payment of the loan. The members of Doveland Developments, LLC, are TM2008 Investments, Inc., and ProCon Capital Corp.
When the lender notified the parties that the loan was in default Bonnie Vanzant paid the loan in full. She then sued Steve Tackett under an indemnification agreement they had signed to collect from Steve one half of the money Bonnie paid to the lender under her personal guaranty of the loan. TM2008 Investments filed a petition to dissolve and liquidate Doveland Developments due to the inability to conduct business in light of the members’ substantial disagreements. ProCon Capital filed counterclaims against TM2008 Investments for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (count 1) and breach of contract (count 3), and against TM2008 Investments and the Bonnie and James Vanzant personally for breach of fiduciary duty (count 2).
The lawsuits were consolidated. The trial court granted Bonnie Vanzant’s motion for summary judgment on the indemnification claim, but denied TM2008 Investments’ motion for summary judgment on the counterclaims. Just before trial, ProCon Capital voluntarily dismissed with prejudice counts 1 and 3. After jury trial on the claim for breach of fiduciary duty, the jury returned a verdict in favor of ProCon Capital and against TM2008 Investments and the Vanzants personally for $1,039,754. The losers appealed.
The primary issue before the Arizona Court of Appeals was whether or not Arizona’s limited liability company law provides that a member of an Arizona LLC owes a fiduciary duty to the other members of the LLC. ProCon Capital argued that because Arizona corporate and partnership law create fiduciary duties on shareholders and partners, respectively, Arizona law must therefor create fiduciary duties on members of an Arizona LLC. The appellate court disagreed. The court said:
“We decline in this case to mechanically apply fiduciary duty principles from the law of closely-held corporations or partnerships to a limited liability company created under Arizona law. The legislature did not explicitly outline any such duties for members of an LLC; instead, the LLC Act allows the members of an LLC to not only create an operating agreement, but also delineate in that agreement the duties members owe one another.”
Translation: The court said Arizona’s LLC statutes do not subject members of Arizona LLCs to any fiduciary duties and neither do any Arizona appellate court opinions.
However, the court said that an Operating Agreement can contain language that creates one or more fiduciary duties on members. The Operating Agreement of Doveland Developments, LLC, contained this clause that ProCon Capital aruged created a fiduciary duty on TM2008 Investments, Inc, and Bonnie and James Vanzant:
It is agreed any Member shall not be liable to the Company or any other Member for any damages or the like relating to any vote, decision, action, inaction or the like taken on behalf of the Company in accordance with these provisions and other provisions of this Agreement if such is done in good faith and with reasonable business judgment including the duty to make management decisions with the care of an ordinarily prudent person in a like position and similar circumstances and in a manner believed to be in the best interests of the Company.
The appellate court found that the above quoted language did not create a fiduciary duty on the members.
The court reversed the trial court and sent the case back to the trial court.
Lessons to Be Learned
The TM2008 Investments, Inc., vs. ProCon Capital Corp. case stands for the following:
The issue of whether the Operating Agreement of a multimember Arizona LLC should or should not contain fiduciary duty provisions is a topic for another article. Hint: A member in control of an Arizona LLC would not want any fiduciary duties in the Operating Agreement, but the minority member would want the opposite.
The post Do Members of an Arizona LLC Owe Fiduciary Duties to Other Members? appeared first on Arizona Limited Liability Company Law.
Question: I have heard the term “piercing the veil” of a corporation or a limited liability company. What does the term mean and why do owners of LLCs need to understand it?
Answer: “Piercing the veil” means that a court disregards the shield or veil created by state law that says the owners of a corporation or an LLC are not liable for the debts of the entity.
Example 1: Homer Simpson’s LLC called World Wide Widgets, LLC, borrowed $25,000 from Ned Flanders. The LLC signed the promissory note, but Homer didn’t. The LLC does not pay. World Wide Widgets, LLC, doesn’t have any assets so Ned knows if he gets a judgment against the LLC he can’t collect it. Ned never gets his money.
Example 2: Same facts as Example 1, but in operating the LLC Homer did not follow Arizona LLC law and did not follow proper procedures. Ned sues the LLC and Homer and asks the court to pierce the veil and hold Homer liable for the LLC’s debt. The court finds there are grounds to pierce the company veil and holds Homer personally liable for the LLC’s $25,000 debt. This is the bad result for the LLC member and frustrates the reason people form an LLC, i.e., to protect themselves from liability for the debts of the LLC.
Jay Adkisson, a nationally known asset protection lawyer, said the following in response to a recent court ruling in a case called Shermane Hector v. Mo–Dad Environmental Serv., LLC:
The veil-piercing/alter ego challenges to LLCs are going to be interesting because they start out with the intended lack of formality of corporations, and then their owners often get loosey-goosey about how the company is operated, how it is capitalized (and continues to be capitalized), etc. IMHO, the real challenge for planners is not so much in the meticulous drafting of LLC management agreements and the like, but in the education of owners as to how the entity needs to be run after all the ink dries.
How true. The vast majority of people think that if they file the Arizona Corporation Commission’s fill in the blanks form Articles of Organization they are home free and their life savings are protected from the LLC’s debts. Ignorance may be bliss, but ignorance of the legal concept called “piercing the company veil” can cost LLC members big bucks.
Most people who form an LLC don’t know that they must comply with Arizona’s LLC law or risk a court piercing the veil and holding them liable for the LLCs debts. For example, Arizona LLC law requires that every Arizona LLC maintain certain records. If you own an Arizona LLC don’t you think it would be a good idea to comply not only with that statute, but other Arizona LLC laws too?
The Shermane Hector v. Mo–Dad Environmental Serv., LLC court said this about veil piercing:
Some of the relevant factors considered in determining whether to apply the alter ego doctrine include: commingling of corporate and shareholder funds; failing to follow statutory formalities for incorporating and transacting corporate affairs; undercapitalization; failing to maintain separate bank accounts and bookkeeping records; and failing to hold regular shareholder and director meetings”
In forming 4,000+ Arizona LLCs I learned a long time ago that I must educate my LLC clients about Arizona LLC law. I accomplish this two ways:
To learn more about this very important topic read my article called “Two Phases in the Life of an LLC.”
The post What is Piercing the Veil of an LLC & Why is Do You Need to Understand It? appeared first on Arizona Limited Liability Company Law.
Question: I am named in the original Articles of Organization of an Arizona limited liability company as a member. Another member of the LLC signed an amendment to the Articles of Organization that removed me as a member. Is that legal and does it terminate my membership in the LLC?
Answer: No and no unless the member who signed the amendment had a contractual right to sign and file the amendment that removes you as a member of the LLC. Arizona LLC law does not give a member of an Arizona LLC the right or power to unilaterally terminate the membership interest of another member.
As an Arizona limited liability company attorney who formed my first AZ LLC in October of 1992 and who has formed 4,000+ LLCs since then I must say that this is a very common scenario. People think that the mere fact they file an amendment to the Articles of Organization that removes a member that the filed document has legal significance, i.e., that the person or entity that was a member yesterday is suddenly no longer a member today merely because the Articles were amended.
When a person or an entity acquires a membership interest in an Arizona LLC that person or owner has a property right recognized by Arizona law. The owner of a property right cannot be divested of the property merely because somebody files a false document. Example: Homer Simpson owns a parcel of Arizona land. Ned Flanders signs a deed that says Homer Simpson conveys the land to Ned and then records the deed. This false deed does not transfer title to the property to Ned. Ned’s deed is a legal nullity because it was not signed by the owner of the property.
The same concept applies to the property right that attaches to the member of an Arizona LLC. If Ned Flanders signs and files an amendment to the Articles of Organization that removes Homer Simpson as a member that document does not cause Homer to cease to be a member. There are four ways that Homer can cease to be a member of the company:
Warning: Arizona Revised Statutes Section 29-613.A states: “A person who . . . signs any articles, statement, report, application or other document filed with the commission that is known to the person as false in any material respect is guilty of a class 4 felony.”
The post Can One Member of an Arizona LLC Expel Another Member? appeared first on Arizona Limited Liability Company Law.
Question: I know the fee to file Articles of Organization to create a new Arizona limited liability company is $50 or $85. Why would I pay the $85 filing fee?
Answer: The main reason to pay the $85 expedited filing fee is because the Arizona Corporation Commission will review the new LLCs Articles of Organization and approve it (hopefully approve rather than reject) within 5 – 8 business days rather than the 30 – 35 business days that applies to the standard $50 filing fee. You should pay the $85 fee if any of the following apply to your LLC:
To see the exact number of days for the ACC to review regular filings and expedited filings go to its document processing times webpage.
The post Should I Pay the $50 or $85 Arizona LLC Filing Fee? appeared first on Arizona Limited Liability Company Law.