Archive

Posts Tagged ‘startup’

Business Law Update: Lessons From Court on Deadlock Between Business Owners.

July 12, 2017 2 comments

This morning was rainy and gray in Grand Rapids.

It is one of those days that prompted me to write on a topic that can be downright depressing – when relationships between shareholders go bad.

I had a client come in recently and ask me to set up an LLC for him.

rainy dayClient planned on owning the LLC 50/50 with a business partner. Someone he trusts (right, because no one goes into business thinking it will end in a lawsuit.) Regardless of the best intentions between these business partners, The 50/50 ownership can be problematic.

For an example, look no further than the May 11, 2017 Court of Appeals Decision in Shamee Catwilmat, LLC v Shamee Development Company, LLC et al.

The Shamee case originated out of Kent County’s Business Court Docket. (A little pride here, for our esteemed business court).

 

Shamee was a convoluted case regarding default on a Note, Mortgage and collateralized business assets – and ended in a mess for both sides. In essence, the Bank erroneously  foreclosed on only a portion of the Property that was otherwise secured by the mortgage.

However, of particular note for the purpose of this post is how the LLC was owned and the resulting problems:

50/50 ownership between members – Shah and Mead.

According to the Court:

“At some point, Shah and Mead began to disagree about the management of Shamee Development. Unable to reconcile their conflicting viewpoints, they reached a “membership deadlock” that prevented Shamee Development from continuing to service its debt to the Bank and from taking the necessary steps to refinance or renegotiate such debt. After Shamee Development failed to make payments as agreed, the Bank accelerated the debt, including the mortgages, and instituted this action against
defendants.”

 

Thus, one equal member had the power to halt business operations, fail to service its debt, and the result was this lawsuit foreclosing on real estate and an appeal.

There are several ways the members could have avoided this scenario, here are just a few:

  1. Create an Operating Agreement that contained a deadlock provision.  This provision could call for mediation/arbitration, or even a buy-out in the event that equal owners halt the business from making key business decisions.  Going back to my client mentioned above, that was my solution for him. Creating a deadlock provision in his Operating Agreement.
  2. Negotiate different ownership prior to forming your business: someone  has majority control, someone has minority.
  3. Set up the LLC as a manager-managed LLC – give certain powers to a single manager to take care of the daily business affairs of the Company – and retain some of the “major” decisions, such as amendment of operating agreement, admission of new members, dissolution, etc… to the members.

 

Lesson:

When setting up a business, you should always have the end in mind. How does a business owner get out of the business?  You should also make sure that one member does not have the power to halt business operations, like in the Shamee case.

 

Questions? Comments?

e-mail: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com

http://www.dwlawpc.com

Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka

 

 

Advertisements

Business Law Update: Michigan Supreme Court’s May 15, 2017 Decision on Minority Oppression

 

There are relatively few court opinions covering the Michigan Limited Liability Company Act. There have been even less on the issue of minority oppression claims.

It has been almost 3 years since the Michigan Supreme Court issued its Opinion in the  Madugula v Taub  case on Michigan’s shareholder/member oppression statutes.

The Madugula clarified that a claimant is not entitled to a jury a trial undmoney-73341_640er the Act; and breach of a Shareholder/Operating Agreement can be evidence of “oppressive” conduct.

On May 15, 2017 the Michigan Supreme Court issued its Opinion in Frank, et al v. Linkner, et al.

In summary, the Supreme Court held:

  • that MCL 450.4515(1)(e) provides alternative statutes of limitations, one based on the time of discovery of the cause of action and the other based on the time of accrual of the cause of action; and
  • That a cause of action for LLC member oppression accrues at the time an LLC manager has substantially interfered with the interests of a member as a member, even if that member has not yet incurred a calculable financial injury. See Frank, id. page 1.

 

The facts of Frank are admittedly, interesting (and unfortunate if you are the Plaintiffs):

Facts:

  • Defendant ePrize was founded by defendant Joshua Linkner in 1999 as a Michigan LLC specializing in online sweepstakes and interactive promotions.
  • Plaintiffs are former employees of ePrize who acquired ownership units in ePrize.
  • Plaintiffs allege Linkner orally promised them that their interests in ePrize would never be diluted or subordinated.
  • In 2005, plaintiffs’ shares in ePrize were converted into shares in ePrize Holdings, LLC.
  • In 2007, ePrize ran into financial difficulties and required an infusion of cash.
  • To remedy this problem, ePrize obtained $28 million in loans in the form of “B Notes” from various defendantmembers of ePrize and other investors;
  • plaintiffs were not invited to participate in these investments.
  • In 2009, ePrize remained struggling to meet its loan obligations and therefore issued new “Series C Units.”
  • These units were offered to various investors, including those who had obtained B Notes.
  • In exchange for the Series C Units, investors were required, amo
    ng other things, to make capital contributions, guarantee a portion of a $14.5 million loan from Charter One Bank, and convert their B Notes into “Series B Units.”
  • On August 20, 2012, ePrize sold substantially all of its assets and, pursuant to the Operating Agreement, distributed nearly $100 million in net proceeds to the holders of Series C and Series B Units.
  • Plaintiffs received nothing for their common shares.

Procedural History

Plaintiffs sued on April 19, 2013 alleging among other claims, minority oppression under MCL 450.4515. The trial court dismissed the claims, indicating that they were “untimely” under the 3 year statute of limitation period. The Court of Appeals reversed. This matter then went to the Supreme Court.

 

 

In General – Michigan Minority Oppression Statute

Michigan law provides a cause of action against the shareholders/members who are in control of a company and oppressing minority owners:

Minority Shareholder Oppression, MCL 450.1489 (Minority Member Oppression, MCL 450.4515)

“A shareholder may bring an action…to establish that the acts of the directors or those in control of the corporation are:
illegal;
fraudulent;
or willfully unfair and oppressive to the corporation or to the shareholder.” 
“If the shareholder establishes grounds for relief, the circuit court may make an order or grant relief as it considers appropriate, including, without limitation,
an order providing for any of the following:
(a) The dissolution and liquidation of the assets and business of the corporation.
(b) The cancellation or alteration of a provision contained in the articles of incorporation, an amendment of the articles of incorporation, or the bylaws of the corporation.
(c) The cancellation, alteration, or injunction against a resolution or other act of the corporation…
Therefore, if a court finds that those in control of the business committed misconduct against a minority owner amounting to “oppression”, the Court has broad discretion to create the type of relief it deems is best.
Back to the Supreme Court’s Decision in Frank…
a. Statute of Limitations
The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that:
“MCL 450.4515(1)(e) contains two alternative statutes of limitations:”
1. (2 years) predicated upon discovery of the cause of action and
2. the other (3 years) predicated upon accrual of the cause of action. Id. at pg 6.
The Supreme Court clarified that under the statute “A plaintiff has two years from the time he or she ‘discovers or reasonably should have discovered the cause of action” to bring a claim [under the minority oppression statute]”. Id pg 13. “…a plaintiff cannot bring a claim three years after accrual of the cause of action, even if he or she did not discover and reasonably would not have discovered the cause of action during that period.”
b. when does an oppression claim accrue?
The Plaintiffs/minority members argued that their claims “did not accrue until they first incurred a calculable financial injury after ePrize sold substantially all of its assets in 2012.” Id. pg 16. They reasoned that no monetary damages occurred until the company was liquidated. Id.
The Supreme Court, however reasoned that the “plaintiffs’ argument conflates monetary damages with ‘harm'”.  The Court held that:
the actionable harm for a member-oppression claim under MCL 450.1515 consists of actions taken by the managers that “substantially interfere with the interests of the member as a member,” and monetary damages constitute just one of many potential remedies for the harm.
Therefore, the Court held that :the Court of Appeals erred by focusing on the availability of monetary damages, rather than on when plaintiffs incurred ‘harm’.” The Court reversed the Court of Appeals on this issue. Id. 17.
“Once a plaintiff proves that a manager engaged in an action or series of actions that substantially interfered with his or her interest as a member, the “harm” has been incurred, and therefore the claim has accrued.” Id.
Application 
In application, the Supreme Court therefore found that the alleged harm occurred when the minority members’ interest were subordinated (in 2009) by amendment of the operating agreement and not when the sale occurred (in 2012). Id. at 20.
So, unless plaintiffs can show fraudulent concealment, Plaintiffs’ claims for monetary damages are barred.

 

Take away for Business owners/Investors/Entrepreneurs:

 

1. Get an attorney involved before the business relationship begins and clearly document the business relationship, especially your shareholder/operating agreement. That will contain the exit strategy and relevant buy-out language. Further, any conduct the parties agree to in their shareholder/operating agreement will not be deemed “oppressive”. However, a breach of the agreement, may deemed interference with your rights sufficient to constitute “oppression” however, this is based on a highly fact-intensive analysis.

2. If you believe you are being frozen out of control/profits in a business – do not wait. The Michigan Supreme Court has held that your claim accrues when the harm occurs. Learn from the Frank Decision.  Michigan law gives you broad remedies, including the minority shareholder/member oppression statutes.

Questions?

Comments?

e-mail: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com

http://www.dwlawpc.com

Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka

Detroit Startup Week Kicks off with Legal Panels: There are Legal Matters Startups Need to Know.

April 18, 2017 Leave a comment

Detroit Startup Week is about a month away.

It is exciting to see the growth in downtown Detroit.  Detroit was recently ranked the No. 4 City where Downtown is Making a Comeback.

It must be an exciting time to be part of the downtown Detroit community.  The city promises to be buzzing during Detroit Startup Week.

 

Working in downtown Grand Rapids, I can’t help but mention some of our local startup groups.

We have some great organizations that support small business and encourage entrepreneurship in West Michigan, including:

Start Garden

Entrepreneurs’ Organization of Grand Rapids

LocalFirst

GRIN

GRAPE

LinkedUPGR

Grand Rapids Chamber

Small Business Association of Michigan

 

Back to Detroit Startup, Week…

You can check out the events schedule, which includes a whole week packed full of valuable events.

I think it no coincidence that the very first day, May 20th, starts out with Detroit’s Small Business Legal Academy.

It seems fitting that a week long celebrating startups begins with education on all the legal ways things can go wrong.

According to the website:

SBLA Detroit will consist of a series of hands-on panels designed to provide practical legal and professional information necessary for new business owners and entrepreneurs to take their businesses to the next level. The panelists will cover legal issues involving real estate, intellectual property, employment, funding, formation, and organizational issues.

 

From the above excerpt, the legal panels look to discuss real issues that entrepreneurs will run into. I hope many take advantage of these panels.

 

The reality is that there are a host of legal areas that can turn into pitfalls for startup businesses – I write on quite a few of those areas:

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 are Non-Competes Enforceable?

March 20, 2017 2 comments

I took this photo from my office, the first day of Spring 2017. It is fitting that the ice rink in Rosa Parks’ circle is melting.

With spring comes new opportunities – including employees leaving their jobs.

What happens if the employee signed a non-competition agreement during the course of employment? Are non-competes enforceable?

 

IMG_1456

 – it depends.

Check out a November 2017 article from MIBiz-  PR firm sues former exec for breach of contract https://mibiz.com/item/25275-pr-firm-sues-former-exec-for-breach-of-contract.

A few years back I posted on an article written by Above the Law titled – Jimmy John’s Serves Up Sandwiches And Oppressive Non-Compete Agreements.

See the link from the “Above the Law Blog”

In Michigan, Non-Competes are enforceable to protect legitimate busines
s interests.

MCL 445.774a provides:

“1) An employer may obtain from an employee an agreement or covenant which protects an employer’s reasonable competitive business interests…”
Further the Agreement must be reasonable:
  • “as to its duration,
  • geographical area, and
  • the type of employment or line of business.”

In November I posted an article about a possible change to Michigan covenants not-to compete statute, you can see that article here – no new movement on th
at HB. It appears that it got stuck in committee and left to die…

Of note, a bill was proposed earlier this month that would require employers to offer Paid Sick Leave

At any rate, going back to the topic at hand…

The question posed by the Above the Law article is a good one – ok, Jim
my Johns, you have a non-compete agreement, that may be valid…so,

to what end?

What is the point? What type of legitimate business interest is Jimmy Johns trying to protect here?

Going back to the initial topic of this post – when can a business enforce a non-compete?

One Answer:

When a business has a legitimate interest to protect.

 

A recent Michigan Court of Appeals on the topic of Non-Competition Agreements provides some illustration on this point.

BHB Investment Holdings v Ogg

I won’t delve into the details, but the first paragraph of the Opinion is telling:

“Steven Ogg took a job with Aqua Tots Canton after being terminated by its competitor, Goldfish Swim School of Farmington Hills. Ogg’s actions breached a noncompetition agreement he signed with the Goldfish franchisee, BHB Investment Holdings. BHB sought to preliminarily enjoin Ogg from working with Aqua Tots, but presented no evidence of irreparable harm. BHB later failed to establish that the agreement protected a legitimate business interest to support the issuance of a permanent injuncti
on. Nor did BHB substantiate that it suffered any damages as a result of the breach.”

 

Is restricting a former employee from swim instruction a legitimate business interest?

The Court on page 3 recognized a number of factors in the analysis in denying enforcing the non-compete, including:

  1. the position was a low-level position;
  2. employee had no access to confidential information;
  3. employee didn’t take any information;
  4. employee didn’t solicit customers;
  5. interestingly, the employer didn’t previously enforce the non-compete when other employees left.

One other interesting piece of information – the Court rejected the employer’s allegation that its swimming lessons were proprietary information. The Court’s rationale?

the employer “placed its methods in the public domain because this was a public building and the students parents, as well as any member of the public, could watch the lessons and glean the methods.” pg 8.

Having no proprietary information, the employer “could not establish a legitimate business interest it needed to protect.” Id.

 

Lessons:

  1. Non-competes will not be enforced unless they protect a legitimate business interest.
  2. Non-competes are less likely to be enforceable against low-level positions with no access to proprietary information.
  3. If you are going to seek an injunction in court, it helps to have some evidence that your former employee is unfairly competing.

 

questions? comments?

email: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com

http://www.dwlawpc.com

Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka

Business Law Update: A discussion on Business Shareholder Oppression.

March 10, 2017 Leave a comment

There are relatively few court opinions covering the Michigan Limited Liability Company Act. There have been even less on the issue of minority oppression claims. So I was excited to see a recent Court of Appeals decision on that subject. Check out t2017-02-04-08-16-38-2he February 9, 2017 unpublished decision of Wisner v SB Indiana, LLC, et al

The Wisner case involves two separate parties who claimed an owner/manager, Hardy, violated their rights as members and froze them out of the company.

The first question to ask is, “freeze out from what*?”

                         Control – Decision-making

                         Disclosures of Company Business

                         Profits in the Company

                         Employment in the Company.

What should a business owner/operator do to protect himself/herself?

Well, you have two readily apparent choices – address the issue before the business is formed, or address it once the problem arises.

     1. Addressing the problems before the business starts.

The easiest way is this option: Get an Attorney involved at the onset of the business relationship.

Many of these business disputes in closely held companies could be resolved if, before going into business, the parties openly communicated their expectations, concerns, and clearly articulated in the formation documents (articles of incorporation/organization, Bylaws, shareholder agreement, Operating Agreement) a way out of the business relationship.

This could be the most cost-effective way to ensure to resolve business disputes – address them before they happen – with open communication, and clearly and concisely drafted (and executed!) documents.

       2. Addressing the problems once they occur: Shareholder/Member Oppression Lawsuit.

Michigan law provides a cause of action against the shareholders/member
s who are in control of a company and oppressing minority owners:

Minority Shareholder Oppression, MCL 450.1489 (Minority Member Oppression, MCL 450.4404)

“A shareholder may bring an action…to establish that the acts of the directors or those in control of the corporation are:
illegal;
fraudulent;
or willfully unfair and oppressive to the corporation or to the shareholder.” (*in my experience this has been the most often the scenario where these cases arise – from the “freezing out” the minority owners from the business)
“If the shareholder establishes grounds for relief, the circuit court may make an order or grant relief as it considers appropriate, including, without limitation,
an order providing for any of the following:
(a) The dissolution and liquidation of the assets and business of the corporation.
(b) The cancellation or alteration of a provision contained in the articles of incorporation, an amendment of the articles of incorporation, or the bylaws of the corporation.
(c) The cancellation, alteration, or injunction against a resolution or other act of the corporation.
(d) The direction or prohibition of an act of the corporation or of shareholders, directors, officers, or other persons party to the action.
(e) The purchase at fair value of the shares of a shareholder, either by the corporation or by the officers, directors, or other shareholders responsible for the wrongful acts.”

Although this Statute applies to closely held corporations, there is also a virtually similar Michigan statute that applies to LLCs.

Therefore, if a court finds that those in control of the business committed misconduct against a minority owner amounting to “oppression”, the Court has broad discretion to create the type of relief it deems is best.
Back to the Wisner Case:
Without getting into the details of the case, there are two points the Court made relating to oppression claims.
a. Is failing to communicate with the minority members oppression?
The Wisner Court looked at the claims made by the minority member – that the manager “cut him off from communication.” The court found that, although Defendant substantially interfered with the minority member’s ability to com
municate…this did not constitute unfair and oppressive conduct.  The court found that “it does not appear that his rights as a member of the LLC provided by MCL 450.4102(q), including any right to receive a distribution, or vote were substantially interfered with by Defendant’s conduct.”
b.  If the Operating Agreement allows activity – that activity cannot be “oppressive”
The court also noted that at the formation of the company the parties had executed an operating agreement to govern their relationship.
The court noted that the oppression statute “had no application if the conduct at issue was authorized by an operating agreement. So to the extent that any of Mr.
Hardy’s actions were authorized by the agreements, then he cannot be found to be willfully unfairly oppressing these members.” Id. Pg 4.
“Likewise the case law has indicated that even a breach of those operating agreements would not be enough to find that he was willfully unfair and oppressive in his conduct.”

Lesson:

Sometimes filing a law suit for Minority Oppression is warranted due to the egregious misconduct of those in control of the company.  However, to constitute “oppression” giving a minority owner relief, such conduct will need to be proven with sufficient facts.

The obvious take away points are two-fold:

1. Get an attorney involved before the business relationship begins and clearly document the
business relationship, especially an exit strategy
. Any conduct the parties agree to in their shareholder/operating agreement cannot be “oppressive”.

2. If you are being frozen out of control in a business – Michigan law gives you broad remedies, including the minority shareholder/member oppression statutes.

Questions?

Comments?

e-mail: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com

http://www.dwlawpc.com

Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka

Reminder for Michigan Limited Liability Companies on Upcoming Filing Deadline. Stay in Good Standing and Maintain your Corporate Formalities.

February 9, 2017 Leave a comment

Happy #ThrowbackThursday.

 

Some (maybe all of you) may be wondering about my choice of including this photo – 2016-09-22-07-53-56it is me, years ago, dressed as Sparty for the MSUvUofM game. I thought it pertinent, given the topic of this e-mail is maintaining your business “liability shield” and as everyone knows, Sparty is the greatest warrior/mascot of all time. (You have to admit, there’s at least a loose connection.)

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 February 15, 2017.

Per LARA’s announcement:

“Annual statements and annual reports can be filed online at www.michigan.gov/fileonline.

The statements and reports must be filed online by February 15, 2017, or if mailing instead, received by February 15, 2017. Late filing penalties will be assessed for 2017 annual statements and annual reports for professional limited liability companies received after February 15, 2017.”

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.”

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.

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

Pitfalls for Business Owners: Recent Court Case on Piercing the Corporate Veil.

December 8, 2016 Leave a comment
img_1311

Rosa Parks Circle in Downtown Grand Rapids, getting ready for Christmas.

We are heading towards the end of the year – I love the Christmas season!

One thing that comes to mind for local business owners going into the New Year – make sure that your legal documents and procedures are in proper order.

As every business owner should know, one of the main purposes in creating a business entity is, generally, to limit an owner’s personal liability from the obligations of the company.

Unfortunately, liability is not limited in all cases.

 

Generally though, proper creation of a business entity results in the following:

 

Owners are not personally liable for the debts of the company.

 

A November 22nd  Court of Appeals decision highlights some of the pitfalls that could result in a business owner suffering from personal liability.

Check out Joelle 98 LLC v Stone Central, LLC

Law: Piercing the Corporate Veil
 In general, a corporation is treated as an entity that is completely separate from its stockholders. Foodland Distrib v. Al–Naimi, 220 Mich.App 453, 456; 559 NW2d 379 (1996).
That separation may be ignored, however, “where there is a unity of interest of the stockholders and the corporation and where the stockholders have used the corporate structure in an attempt to avoid legal obligations.” Id.
“Piercing the corporate veil requires the following elements:
(1) the corporate entity is a mere instrumentality of another individual or entity,
(2) the corporate entity was used to commit a wrong or fraud, and
(3) there was an unjust injury or loss to the plaintiff.”Lakeview Commons, 290 Mich.App at 510.
Facts: 
Joelle 98 LLC v Stone Central, LLC and its owner Najib Atisha involved a dispute over payments made under a land contract for commercial property.
Joelle 98 LLC claimed that Stone Central, and its sole member owner, Atisha, were both liable for monies owed to Joelle 98 LLC.
After trial, the Trial Court made the following ruling:
“I find that Mr. Atisha is using his corporations interchangeably and not keeping them as separate entities depending on what he’s trying to do. There really is no reasonable explanation as to why if [Atisha Land] purchased [the property] why Stone Central, LLC would have it as its only asset. Nor is there any reasonable explanation that Stone Central, LLC’s only asset [the property] why would the payments be made to [Atisha Land]. He’s obviously treating these separate entity corporations as if they were one. Moreover, there’s a problem with doing that and this case is a good example of it. Because when you do something like that, when Stone Central, LLC should have received the excess funds that were paid by [Joel Cars], the money should be there to repay Joel [Cars]. However, the money’s not there because Mr. Atisha made this decision to comingle funds among his LLC’s. Accordingly, I find from both of those reasons that the corporate veil should be pierced, that Mr. Atisha should be responsible also on the breach of contract action.” (emphasis added.) Joelle 98, LLC Id. at page 5.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court’s decision.  It found, among other things, the defendant “had multiple corporate entities…and he used these entities as his instrumentalities…he co-mingled the assets of the entities…” Id. Pg 7. Further, the Court found that Defendant used his corporate structure simply to to commit a wrong – avoiding to refund the payments to Plaintiff. Id.
Lesson: 
Business owners need to take care in forming as well as maintaining their business in order to keep their personal liability protection.
Don’t take actions, like commingling your personal and business funds, that could jeopardize your protection.
e-mail: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com
Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka