I don't see limited liability in that statute - quite the reverse in fact. Greg: can you please take me to authority regarding the limited liability provisions to which you referred?? On 09/07/15 15:40, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I most certainly don't see the UA happen, in particular as far as ccTLDs are concerned, but Auntie Google reveals:
http://law.justia.com/codes/california/2011/corp/title-3/18250-18270/18270/
reads
2011 California Code Corporations Code TITLE 3. UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS [18000 - 24001.5] CHAPTER 5. Liability and Enforcement of Judgments Section 18270
[...]
(a) A judgment creditor of a member, director, officer, or agent of an unincorporated association may not levy execution against the assets of the member, director, officer, or agent to satisfy a judgment based on a claim against the unincorporated association unless a judgment based on the same claim has been obtained against the unincorporated association and any of the following conditions is satisfied:
(1) A writ of execution on the judgment against the unincorporated association has been returned unsatisfied in whole or in part.
(2) The unincorporated association is a debtor in bankruptcy.
(3) The member, director, officer, or agent has agreed that the creditor need not exhaust the assets of the unincorporated association.
(4) A court grants permission to the judgment creditor to levy execution against the assets of a member, director, officer, or agent based on a finding that the assets of the unincorporated association subject to execution are clearly insufficient to satisfy the judgment, that exhaustion of the assets of the unincorporated association is excessively burdensome, or that the grant of permission is an appropriate exercise of the court s equitable powers.
[...]
As the UAs will not have any or much assets, (a)(1) and/or (a)(4) are not very high hurdles...
el
On 2015-07-09 15:07, Greg Shatan wrote:
Nigel,
A California unincorporated association is a limited liability vehicle, as it is in certain other jurisdictions. If we were to go down the route of have SO/ACs be/create/empower (three different options) a legal entity, one would expect a choice to be made that would shield SO/ACs and their members from unlimited legal liability (and there are a variety of options to do so). While this should be implicit by now in this discussion, since it has been explicitly discussed in the past, I'm glad for the opportunity to make it explicit once again. Suggesting someone cross the street is not equivalent to telling them to walk into traffic.
Greg
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:
Greg, all
I have a deadly serious question.
Why would any Member of an SO voluntarily submit to the danger of unlimited monetary liability?
So why is anyone even considering UA status for more than 10 seconds?
Nigel
See http://www.scvo.org.uk/setting-up-a-charity/decide-on-a-structure/voluntary-... [...]
-- The Directors, Omadhina Internet Services Ltd. Registered in Alderney, C.I. Reg'd No. 1770 Office: 4&5 St Anne's Walk, Alderney GY9 3JZ Tel. 01481 520618 Email: directors@omadhina.net