[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Show us the facts Jack. "Russ Boyd Sucks" is not a liability argument.
[/ QUOTE ]
I do apologize that I do not have the time right now to further expand upon the many ways that corporate shareholders or managers can be held liable for the debts of a corporation, however if you would like to learn more, a good starting place would be
HERE
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the condescending link. But I'm not asking your distinguished opinion about whether a corporate veil can be pierced due to fraud or other reasons. I'm asking you to support your assertion that "indeed, based on the facts of this case, it sounds like he would be liable, at least under U.S. law". I do apologize for asking you to take the time to back up your statement.
Just asking for facts. I think that if you had them, you would state them.
[ QUOTE ]
Note also that I did not say Dutch Boyd WAS Definitely liable, just that he COULD BE Liable, in response to your assertion that, "Anyone who has taken business 101 knows that he CAN'T be liable." (You made an absolute statement, and your absolute statement was incorrect).
[/ QUOTE ]
I can quote you correctly, why can't you quote me (or whoever you are thnking of) correctly? As far as I can tell, you manufactured this little gem out of thin air: "Anyone who has taken business 101 knows that he CAN'T be liable." Nobody has said that.
If you could argue against my actual position, then you surely would. Instead, you make up strawman crap and tear it down.
My position is simple: I'm interested in what happened here, I've spent several evenings googling around trying to learn everything that I could, and I'd like to know more. But you can't help - you can't deliver any info, and you can't distinguish your feelings from your facts.
[ QUOTE ]
You're right, I would need all the facts of the case, and clearly, I don't have that because everything is word of mouth, thirdhand or fourth-hand. I merely asserted, that there are several different bases upon which Boyd COULD be liable. That assertion is correct.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ahhh, a slight backing off from the indefensible position.
Can an apology be far away?
[ QUOTE ]
Edit: I'm also assuming here that Boyd's company was organized as a corporation, if it wasn't, than its even easier to go after Boyd as being personally liable, especially in light of the fact that appears to have committed fraud.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good assumption, since it appears to be uncontradicted. So now let's talk about "appearing to commit fraud." Hint: that's not the same as screwing up and going bankrupt.
Got any facts? I think we know the answer to that.
[ QUOTE ]
Edit: Also, in the U.S. at least, the only types of companies in which an owner is shielded from personal liability, are corporations, and some specific types of limited liability companies and limited liability partnerships. In all other regular businesses, the owners ARE personally liable for the debts of the business.
[/ QUOTE ]
True, but that really doesn't seem relevant - in view of the pretty much publicly undisputed information that he had a corporation. He's also a lawyer, but there's always the chance he screwed up completely and botched the articles of incorporation. But I wouldn't assume that; did I mention that I tend to prefer facts?
Another quirk of US law that you may be unaware of: running a failed business is not considered to be prima facie evidence of fraud. Neither is having bad business partners. Not all companies fail because they're Enron-style crooks. Sometimes they fail because - surprise - they're just poorly run companies.
Proof by assertion, condescension, faked quotes, strawman arguments - everything but facts. Let's just agree on the following:
- Dutch Boyd not being a model citizen.
- Your admission that facts would be preferable to assertions (oh, if only you had some).
I'd love to be shown that Russ Boyd comingled funds, siphoned off the profits to support his lifestyle, committed acts of fraud - any of the above. It would make it so easy to just condemn the guy completely.
But from where I sit (with no horse in the race), it doesn't really look like that's what happened. More likely a sharp young kid got in way over his head, had nowhere near the necessary tools to run a growing business, had a few things go wrong with partners, screwed up a few decisions while hoping for the best, made all the wrong moves talking to his customers once things were coming unglued, and picked the wrong deal in his last best chance to salvage something. He maybe even convinced himself that he could eventually assume those debts and pay them back, but maybe he's rationalized those thoughts away - who knows. There's no excuse for it; it's just a sad story all around.
And by the way, it was a horrible thing that MS Sunshine and all the others went through. We all feel very badly for those folks, and if I were one of them, I'd be super angry to this day. If I had lost one one hundredth of what Sunshine lost I'd still be hopping mad.