Reverse Piercing the Corporate Veil<\/h1>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n

WHAT IS CHARGING ORDER PROTECTION?<\/h2>

A \u2018Charging Order\u2019 is actually a limited creditor remedy. But the remedy is so limited, it is viewed as being protective from an asset protection standpoint. Thus, all entities that benefit from the charging order are called \u201cCharging Order Protected Entities\u201d or COPEs.<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nGenerally, a creditor of partner or member of a GP, LLC, LLP, LP, or LLLP (all of which are COPEs) may not seize ownership, become a member\/partner, attach company assets, manage the company, or force assets out of the company.\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t

<\/div>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

They can only get a charging order, which is the right to receive a distribution instead of the owner-debtor, IF and WHEN the distribution is made. Usually, a distribution is not made if it would only go to a creditor, meaning the creditor usually ends up with nothing.<\/p>\n

Most creditors do not even attempt to get a charging order since they believe it won\u2019t get them anywhere. By way of example, I worked with an attorney whose firm handled 20,000 asset protection<\/a> cases over a 45 year period. He set up well over 10,000 LLCs. Many of his clients had creditor problems. Only 3 or 4 ever got a charging order against them.<\/p>\n

Most creditors do not even attempt to get a charging order since they believe it won\u2019t get them anywhere. By way of example, I worked with an attorney whose firm handled 20,000 asset protection cases over a 45 year period. He set up well over 10,000 LLCs. Many of his clients had creditor problems. Only 3 or 4 ever got a charging order against them.<\/p>\n

Sometimes the other members\/partners will buy the debtor members’ interest out before a charging order attaches.Or, the debtor or other members\/partners buy off the creditor for pennies on the dollar. The creditor may be amenable to this since otherwise, they wouldn\u2019t get a dime.<\/p>\n

Or, you don\u2019t distribute anything to the creditor, but you structure the LLC so the creditor has to pay LLC taxes for undistributed profits. (See IRS Rev. Rul. 77-137). A charging order does NOT mean this will automatically happen. The operating agreement must be drafted so as to give a creditor sufficient \u201cdominion and control\u201d over the member\u2019s interest, but not too much control! Or, just gift them the debtor\u2019s member interest and then hit the creditor with a tax bill.<\/p>\n

CHARGING ORDER PROTECTION \u2013 WHEN IT CAN FAIL<\/h3>\n

A creditor may circumvent charging order protection if:<\/p>\n

The debtor is the only owner of the entity (single-member LLC), or owners are all debtors to the same creditor.<\/p>\n

\n
• The state\u2019s statute does not list the charging order as the \u201cexclusive creditor remedy\u201d against owners of an entity. This was an issue in the recent Florida case Olmstead v. FTC (2010). Note that very few states list the charging order as the exclusive creditor remedy for partnerships, but not for LLCs (Florida!) In which case an LP or LLP may be preferable to an LLC.<\/li>\n
• The entity is used improperly, which allows it to be reverse-pierced.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

  What is Reverse piercing?<\/h3>\n

  REVERSE PIERCING A COPE<\/b>. This is tougher to do than normal piercing. Reverse piercing is where creditors of a business owner trying to reach assets of the company. Because this would generally harm other owners, and may also harm legitimate creditors of the business itself, it is often not allowed and is the main reason for statutory charging order protection<\/a> in the first place. But, on occasion, it is allowed if no one that is not a party to the suit or debt would be harmed.<\/p>\n

  \u201cWe recognize \u2026 that there are other equities to be considered in the reverse piercing situation \u2013 namely, whether the rights of innocent shareholders or creditors are harmed by the piercing.\u201d LFC Marketing Group, Inc. v. Cebe W. Loomis, 116 Nev. 896; 8 P.3d 841 (Nev. S.C., 2000).<\/p>\n

  Another case echoes this sentiment in greater detail:<\/p>\n

  \u201cIn addition, reverse-pierce theory presents many problems. \u2026third parties may be unfairly prejudiced if the corporation\u2019s assets can be attached directly. Although \u2026 our particular concern was with non-culpable third-party shareholders of the corporation being unfairly prejudiced, no greater culpability should attach to the third party corporate creditors harmed by reverse-piercing in this case.<\/p>\n

  See id. (\u201c\u2026 the doctrine cannot be applied to prejudice the rights of an innocent third party.\u2019\u201d) (quoting 1 William Meade Fletcher et al., Fletcher Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations \u00a7 41.20, at 413 (1988 Supp.)) \u2026; see also Hamilton v. Hamilton Properties Corp., 186 B.R. 991, 1000 (Bankr. D. Col. 1995) (\u201cThe reverse piercing theory is an aberration which, if invoked, would prejudice . . .<\/p>\n

  …the rightful creditors of the corporation whose assets are subsumed for the benefit of the creditors of the individual. What of the creditors of [the corporation] who relied on its separate corporate existence in doing business with it?\u201d); Cargill, Inc. v. Hedge, 375 N.W.2d 477, 479 (Minn. 1985) (holding that in considering the propriety of reverse pierce, \u201calso important is whether others, such as a creditor or other shareholders, would be harmed by a piercing\u201d). Floyd v. I.R.S., 151 F.3d 1295, 1300 (10th Cir. 1998).<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

  Reverse Piercing the Corporate Veil Generally, a creditor of partner or member of a GP, LLC, LLP, LP, or LLLP (all of which are COPEs) may not seize ownership, become a member\/partner, attach company assets, manage the company, or force assets out of the company.https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=jojz8prTPag They can only get a charging order, which is the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":49,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[49,47],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.assetprotectiontraining.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/408"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.assetprotectiontraining.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.assetprotectiontraining.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.assetprotectiontraining.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/49"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.assetprotectiontraining.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=408"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.assetprotectiontraining.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/408\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.assetprotectiontraining.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=408"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.assetprotectiontraining.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=408"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.assetprotectiontraining.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=408"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}