|
|
|
|
|
|
by tfehring
2646 days ago
|
|
|
The "breach of duty" condition as defined there seems awfully ambiguous given that that article doesn't detail what duty is owed. Nolo [0] restates the same condition as: > The company's actions were wrongful or fraudulent. which seems like a fairly stringent requirement. Though it also notes [1]: > [Single member LLCs] are also susceptible to "piercing the corporate veil," which occurs when the courts find that the entity and the owner are not really separate and thus the owner is personally responsible for the business’s debts. The easiest way an opposing party can prove this is by demonstrating a lack of adherence to the LLC operating agreement or that the operating agreement is riddled with errors. which seems like a more significant concern for well-intentioned freelancers. [0] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/personal-liability-p... [1] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/single-member-llcs.h... |
|
|