Archive

Posts Tagged ‘small business’

Detroit Startup Week Kicks Off – Schedule Now Available, Includes Legal Workshops

Today starts art festival in Grand Rapids – I took this photo just minutes ago.

Summer is coming fast and so is Detroit Startup Week. Scheduled from June 18-22.

6.1

According to its website, Startup week is:

“A week long celebration of Detroit’s entrepreneurs. Volunteer-led and completely free for attendees, we are aiming to create a community driven event that builds a stronger startup ecosystem. Startup Week is held in dozens 

of cities around the world.”

Crain’s Detroit reported  that the venue will be moved to outdoors where a crowd of 8,000 – 10,000 is expected, up from last year’s 6,500.

Crain’s reports that Startup week will consist of similar “weeklong collection of panel discussions, speeches, activities, networking and competitions is bringing back its women-tailored entrepreneur events.”

 

The Schedule is Now Available

Check out the great workshops and events for entrepreneurs which will take place in Detroit in the coming weeks.

Last year the week kicked off with Detroit’s Small Business Legal Academy.

 

This year there are several types of legal workshops including:

  • Social Enterprise/non-profit.

Social Enterprise is definitely a trending area in Michigan.

 

I think it is no secret – that startup businesses would do well to get some basic legal  during their business startup

 

I had a client send me this e-mail, below (unprompted) which I was given permission to share – it is extremely on point:

 

“I don’t think you understand how valuable your assistance is. A small guy like me, without you, would sign whatever they put in front of me and get into big trouble because of that someday.  The problem is that most small businesses don’t understand how critical legal review is either.” – client

 

The reality is that there are a host of legal areas that can turn into pitfalls for startup businesses – over the years I have written on quite a few of those areas, including:

Terms and Conditions in Contracts

Non-Competition Agreements

Entity Formation and Personal Liability

Personal Guarantees

 

 

Cash flow is a barrier for startups. This doesn’t mean you should avoid educating yourself on the legal issues affecting your business.

Take advantage of the resources available.

Consult with an attorney – Particularly law firms friendly to startup businesses.

 

e-mail: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com

www.dwlawpc.com

twitter: @JeshuaTLauka

Advertisements

Small Businesses and Startups: What you Don’t Know Can Hurt You.

It is truly starting to feel like summer in downtown Grand Rapids! This was the scene today from my office.

5.17.18

 

Summer is coming fast and so is Detroit Startup Week. Scheduled from June 18-22.

 

According to its website, Startup week is:

“A week long celebration of Detroit’s entrepreneurs. Volunteer-led and completely free for attendees, we are aiming to create a community driven event that builds a stronger startup ecosystem. Startup Week is held in dozens of cities around the world.”

 

Crain’s Detroit reported this week that the venue will be moved to outdoors where a crowd of 8,000 – 10,000 is expected, up from last year’s 6,500.

Crain’s reports that Startup week will consist of similiar “weeklong collection of panel discussions, speeches, activities, networking and competitions is bringing back its women-tailored entrepreneur events.”

Last year the week kicked off with Detroit’s Small Business Legal Academy.

I think it is no secret – that startup businesses would do well to get some basic legal  during their business startup

 

I had a client just yesterday send me this e-mail, below (unprompted) which I was given permission to share – it is extremely on point:

 

“I don’t think you understand how valuable your assistance is. A small guy like me, without you, would sign whatever they put in front of me and get into big trouble because of that someday.  The problem is that most small businesses don’t understand how critical legal review is either.” – client

 

The reality is that there are a host of legal areas that can turn into pitfalls for startup businesses – over the years I have written on quite a few of those areas, including:

Terms and Conditions in Contracts

Non-Competition Agreements

Entity Formation and Personal Liability

Personal Guarantees

 

Cash flow is a barrier for startups. This doesn’t mean you should avoid educating yourself on the legal issues affecting your business.

Take advantage of the resources available.

Consult with an attorney – Particularly law firms friendly to startup businesses.

 

e-mail: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com

www.dwlawpc.com

twitter: @JeshuaTLauka

 

Business Law Update: When Can a Business Sue Another Business over its Corporate Status?

March 29, 2018 Leave a comment

I (like much of West Michigan) am headed out the office and on vacation for my kids’ Spring Break. But before I go I wanted to share an interesting business law case that came out a few days ago.

2016-01-09 12.56.14

Check out the March 27, 2018  case:

Michigan Radiology Society v OMIC, LLC et al

The first sentence of the opinion sums up the dispute:

This case arises from plaintiff’s effort to prevent defendants from continuing the
operation of their business.

 

 

 

 

Facts:

 

  • Plaintiff is a non-profit corp. Its owners are radiologists licensed to practice medicine in Michigan.
  • Defendant OMIC, LLC,  is a for-profit LLC.
  • OMIC  provides diagnostic imaging to the public and is solely owned and managed by defendant SusanSwider.
  • Defendant Susan Swider is not a licensed physician.
  • Plaintiff sued, claiming that defendants were in violation of:
    • the Michigan Limited Liability Company Act (LLCA)
    • the Business Corporation Act (BCA),  and
    • the Public Health Code (PHC)

 

Plaintiff sued asking for declaratory and injunctive relief.

Basically, Plaintiff claimed “You can’t do that! You need to be properly licensed!”

The case was dismissed by the Trial Court.

A reasonable question to ask is: Why?  

 

Why was the case dismissed by the Trial Court?

Answer: Plaintiff was not a proper party to enforce a claimed violation under the statutes.

Plaintiff did not have “standing”.

 

Who has Standing to Bring a Claim?

The Court of Appeals cited the long standing law of our constitution:

Our constitution requires that a plaintiff possess standing before a court
can exercise jurisdiction over that plaintiff’s claim. This constitutional standing
doctrine is longstanding and stems from the separation of powers in our
constitution. Because the constitution limits the judiciary to the exercise of
“judicial power,” Const 1963, art 6, § 1, the Legislature encroaches on the
separation of powers when it attempts to grant standing to litigants who do not
meet constitutional standing requirements.” Id page 3.

 

So in this case, Plaintiff sued Defendants saying they violated 3 statutes. The question presented was, did the Plaintiff have standing to sue Defendants under those statutes?

“Statutory standing…necessitates an inquiry into whether a statute
authorizes a plaintiff to sue at all.” Id. Page 3.

Basically, the Court held that the statutes above that the Plaintiff sued under (LLCA, BCA PHC), only allowed the Attorney General to sue to enforce a violation.

“[T]he Attorney General alone has the authority to challenge corporate status.” Id. Page 3,  citing  Miller v Allstate Ins Co, 481 Mich 601, 606-608; 751 NW2d 463 (2008)

 

Lesson:

If you are a business and believe another business is operating “illegally” it doesn’t mean you are the proper party to sue them.

Think about this another way: You are business and know of a business that is gouging a client of yours – does that give you the right to sue that business? Do you have standing to sue that business.

Something you should talk with your lawyer about…

For all of those traveling on Spring Break – safe travels!

 

e-mail: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com

Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka

Business Law Update: Michigan LLCs Filing with LARA: Pardon the Delays and Thank you for your Patience.

February 22, 2018 1 comment

Happy Thursday, all! I took this photo earlier today – the sun is out in downtown Grand Rapids, Michigan and people are enjoying  the ice rink at Rosa Parks Circle.

IMG_2195

Last week I posted about an update I received from the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (“LARA”) extending the deadline to file annual statements and reports for LLCs and PLLCs to March 1, 2018.

Annual Statements are Due on February 15th each year, “however, due to increased demand for pre-assigned Customer ID Number (CID) and PIN information, an automatic 14-day extension will be granted.

 

In my post I also mentioned that I wasn’t surprised at the filing extension, given the fact that my experience with LARA lately has been frustrating to say the least. My clients have been experiencing serious delays in returned filings from LARA.

 

Today, I received an update from LARA’s Director Julia Dale, thanking me, and other system users for our patience in the delays that we have been experiencing.

In part, Director Dale acknowledged that:

“The Corporations Division serves more than 800,000 customers doing business in Michigan and reviews more than 240,000 documents and 640,000 annual reports each year…For the last two years…LARA worked diligently to bring the agency’s aging Corporations database into the modem era by completely replacing the outdated server-based technology with a new web-based system… The database was unstable, utilized unsupported technology and the fax-based filing system had become a burden for customers and staff.”

 

I am glad that my reasonable frustrations are being acknowledged by LARA. Thank you, Director Dale.

 

Many of my clients, (real estate investors, small business owners, entrepreneurs, etc..) rely on quick turn around for corporate filings. The fact that LARA’s e-filing system has not been reliable has been troubling for my clients – and therefore troubling to me.

 

I forewarn all clients who are looking for new entity filings that they should expect to experience delays.

If the particular filing is time sensitive, you have a deal closing soon and need an entity prepared ASAP, then you may want to consider paying extra to the State for expedited processing.

 

Questions? Comments?

E-mail: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com

http://www.dwlawpc.com

Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka

Michigan Limited Liability Companies: LARA extends 2018 Annual Statement Filing Deadline to March 1. Stay in Good Standing and Maintain your Corporate Formalities.

February 15, 2018 1 comment

It is the middle of the dreary season – February 15th. Not too long and I, like many folks in West Michigan with school-aged kids will be heading to Florida for Spring Break.

2017-04-09 21.33.41

This is a photo I took last year – sunnier days ahead.

Anyway, on to the point of this post:

 

Today I received an e-mail from The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs(“LARA”) reminding that all annual statements and reports for LLCs and PLLCs are due March 1, 2018.

 

 

 

 

Annual Statements are Due on February 15th each year, “however, due to increased demand for pre-assigned Customer ID Number (CID) and PIN information, an automatic 14-day extension will be granted.

 

As a practical note, if you are experiencing delay in receiving filings from LARA – just know that LARA has recently transition to an electronic filing system – and disposing of the fax filing.

All things considered, I am not surprised at the extension, and it is good news.

 

Per LARA’s announcement:

“Annual statements and reports can be submitted online at www.michigan.gov/corpfileonline. The first step to submit annual statements and reports online is to login to the system with the entity’s CID and PIN. If you have forgotten the CID or PIN, please contact the Corporations Division at LARA-CSCL-CorpPIN@michigan.gov or call (517) 241-6470 to obtain that information. Please do not send multiple email requests for CID/PIN numbers, as this will slow processing time.”

For more information about LARA, please visit www.michigan.gov/lara

 

 

Consequences for Failing to File:

LARA also reminds that:

“Section 909(2) of the Michigan Limited Liability Company Act, 1993 PA 23, provides that if a domestic or foreign professional limited liability company does not file the annual report by February 15, then in addition to its liability for the fee, a $50.00 penalty is added to the fee.”

“Penalties will be assessed for 2018 annual reports received after March 1, 2018.”

Further LARA reports that, an LLC that “fails to file its annual statement/report or the filing fee is not paid for two years, the limited liability company will not be in good standing.  The status of the limited liability company will be “active, but not in good standing.”

“A limited liability company that is not in good standing is not entitled to a certificate of good standing; its company name will be available for use by another entity, and no document will be filed on behalf of the company other than a certificate of restoration.”

 

Is your LLC in Good Standing?

Occasionally I will have a business client come in and I will ask – just to make sure – “is your business still in good standing?”

The common answer is “I think so.”

And of course, after I perform a quick internet check with the State of Michigan it is all too common that I discover that either the LLC is “not in good standing” or worse, the company has been dissolved automatically for failure to file annual statements.

A Word on Resident Agents:

My law firm is happy to provide our business clients with resident agent services. One of the benefits of an LLC is that it provides its owners a level of privacy protection.

 

You can check out a recent ABAJournal Article on how a Court is making Jared Kushner’s real estate partners disclose their identity.

 

Michigan law requires Limited Liability Companies to have appointed a Resident Agent.

MCL 450.4207(1)(b) requires an LLC to have a resident agent. A person, or business with a physical presence in the State of Michigan.

Michigan law does not require that an “owner” of the LLC be the resident agent.

“The resident agent appointed by a limited liability company is an agent of the company upon whom any process, notice, or demand required or permitted by law to be served upon the company may be served.” MCL 450.4207(1)(b).

Many of my real estate investment clients will utilize my law firm as resident agent when filing their articles of organization with the State of Michigan.

In Conclusion:

Business owners, if you get these annual statements from the State of Michigan, or from your attorney – do not disregard them! Maintain your Corporate Formalities.

Questions? Comments?

E-mail: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com

http://www.dwlawpc.com

Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka

Business Law Update for LLCs: The Words You Use In Your Operating Agreement Matter.

October 18, 2017 1 comment

Good morning, all! Yesterday was a beautiful day, see the photo I took overlooking downtown Grand Rapids. The leaves are already changing color.

Today I read a Court of Appeals Case that came out yesterday that provides a good example for business owners.

Background – Today LLCs are generally the entity of choice.

Most businesses that were formed in Michigan last year were Lim

IMG_1858

ited Liability Companies. This is for several reasons:

Limited liability (Once a limited liability company comes into existence, limited liability applies, and a member or manager is not liable for the acts, debts, or obligations of the company. “Duray Dev., LLC v. Perrin, 288 Mich. App. 143, 151 (2010))

Flexibility (centralized management – generally no distinction between owners/managers) 

No double taxation (like in traditional C-Corporations).

 

Your Operating Agreement is an Important Document

However, just forming the LLC by filing the articles of organization with the State of Michigan is not enough to fully protect your business.

One fundamental document is your operating agreement.  It is that document that spells out how the business affairs of the company are conducted.

It also spells out the “exit” – in what event and on what terms can a member leave the company?

I have often written about why your operating agreement matters.

Today I read an unpublished court of appeals decision that provides another illustration on why not only having the operating agreement matters, but also the exact language in your operating agreement matters.

 

Healthwise Medical Clinic, PLLC, and NP DREAMS,LLC

 

Facts:

The parties:

Plaintiff Rhonda Keller, LNP and Defendant Kasandra Lechel, licensed nurse practitioners.

They were the sole members of two LLCs – HealthWise was the “operating company” and NP Dreams owned the real estate used by HealthWise.

Keller and Lechel had entered into operating agreements governing
HealthWise and NP Dreams.

The HealthWise Agreement had a “personal and professional standard of conduct” section that required a member to withdraw from the company if they violated the provision.

Keller found out that Defendant Lechel had taken actions that she deemed should require Lechel to resign. Lechel did not resign and therefore Keller sued to compel withdrawal from the company.

There were other claims and counter-claims made between the parties; however, the issue relevant for purposes of my article is regarding the buy-out provision in the Operating Agreement.

The Operating Agreement required the Company to buy out a withdrawing member under certain terms.

Plaintiff sued to expel Lechel, claiming she committed bad acts that required her removal. As such, Plaintiff should not be required to compensate her buy out.

 

Trial Court’s Decision

The Trial Court agreed.

With regard to the HealthWise and NP Dreams Agreements and compensation due to Lechel, the trial court held that “neither the buyout nor the liquidation option provides a logical and just resolution.” The court pointed to uncontroverted proofs that the corporate debts exceeded assets. Further, the trial court explained, because Lechel had breached the contract first, she was not entitled to recover on it. The trial court issued an order stating that Lechel “is not entitled to any compensation for her interests in the two Limited Liability companies.” Id. Page 4.

 

 

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

Court of Appeals reversed on this issue.

Law: Your Operating Agreement is a Contract. Courts will interpret a Contract in accordance with its plain meaning.

The Court of Appeals analyzed this issue as follows:

“Our primary goal in interpreting a contract is to honor the intent of the parties by enforcing the plain and unambiguous language of the agreement. See Klapp v United Ins Group Agency, Inc, 468 Mich 459, 473; 663 NW2d 447 (2003); Defrain, 491 Mich at 367. Clear and unambiguous language will be enforced as written. Farmers Ins Exch v Kurzmann, 257 Mich App 412, 418; 668 NW2d 199 (2003).

 

The Court reviewed the Operating Agreement and held that the language was clear and unambiguous:

“[i]f such Member shall fail to voluntarily withdraw, the Company shall take such
action as may be required to compel resignation under the same terms.” Section 5.2 lists the terms for voluntary withdrawal, including 2 options for compensating the withdrawing member: either (1) payment of 80% of the member’s share of the agreed-upon value of the company, which amounts to $40,000 to defendant.” Id. at Page 7.

 

The Court’s language in its opinion is very telling. It was not going to apply “equity” since the parties were free to contract how they saw fit.

Despite testimony that HealthWise’s liabilities exceeded its assets, we see no reason to apply an equitable remedy when a contractual remedy is available. See Tkachik v Mandeville, 487 Mich 38, 45; 790 NW2d 260 (2010).

The parties were free to bargain for protection in the event of a court-ordered withdrawal, and they did so.

 

 

Lesson:

Take care in drafting your operating agreement. If you desire a penalty in the event of termination of a membership interest – then make sure that language is included in your operating agreement. The courts will enforce clear language in an operating agreement.

 

 

Questions? Comments?

e-mail: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com

http://www.dwlawpc.com

Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka

 

 

Business Law Update: Another Call to Clear Contract Drafting.

September 26, 2017 Leave a comment

It is Artprize again in downtown Grand Rapids! See one of the exhibits on Monroe Avenue in front of the Venue.

2017-09-14 13.08.48

 

Question:

Did you know: “Shall” has a different meaning then “May”?

One is mandatory.

The other is permissive.

In business, it pays to be clear in the contract language you use.

 

Check out this recent Michigan Court of Appeals decision on why you need to take care in drafting contracts.

 

 

This case was a dispute over a commercial lease contained in a “letter agreement” – and the legal concept of contra proferentem that ambiguities in contracts should be construed against the drafter.

 

 

According to the Court of Appeals: “the primary question presented in this case is
whether the following paragraph of the letter agreement precluded plaintiffs from filing this lawsuit:
“10. The failure of either party to perform the preliminary duties outlined in
this agreement will permit the obligee of the duty to declare a default and
terminate this preliminary agreement to lease or other remedy that may be agreed
to by the parties.”

The trial court found that this language precluded the tenant from suing.

The court of appeals disagreed.

The Court of Appeals evidently found this language to be ambiguous.

“It is an elementary rule of construction of contracts that in case of doubt, a contract is to be strictly construed against the party by whose agent it was drafted.” Shay v Aldrich, 487 Mich 648, 673; 790 NW2d 629 (2010).

This rule of construction is known as “contra proferentem”.

The contra proferentem rule is applicable only as a last resort, when other techniques of interpretation and construction have not resolved the question of which of two or more possible reasonable meanings the court should choose. It is a tie breaker when there is no other sound basis for choosing one contract interpretation over another.”
Klapp v. United Ins. Group Agency, Inc., 468 Mich. 459, 460, 663 N.W.2d 447, 449, 2003 Mich. LEXIS 1224, *1 (Mich. 2003).

However, in this case, the Court seemed to make much of the fact that the drafter, who was a party to the contract, was an attorney.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court decision and found that the language did not preclude the tenant from filing suit and the case needed to proceed to trial.

 

Conclusion:

Small business owners often times are wearing many “hats”. They are working with limited cash flow and are forced to make many choices. Many of these choices are in areas outside of their expertise.

Oftentimes startups and small business owners will “cut corners” to be more efficient and cost-effective.

When it comes to signing a legally binding contract – it is simply not worth cutting corners on.

The cost of what you do not know can be significant.

Question? Comments?

e-mail: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com

http://www.dwlawpc.com

Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka