LLC Law Blog

Speaking on Forming LLCs to Military Personnel Exiting the Service

Today I will speak to a group of young military personnel who will soon leave the service and seek employment outside the military.  The U.S.Small Business Association’s Phoenix chapter of Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE) sponsors the two day workshop called “Operations Boots to Business from Service to Startup.”  I enjoy speaking to the young people and trading “war” stories from my five years flying the F-4 Phantom in the United States Air Force in another life.

2016-11-16T08:23:44-07:00August 15th, 2013|Miscellaneous|0 Comments

Keyts to Teach LLC Class at Phoenix School of Law

Beginning in September I will teach another class on LLCs and entity formations to third year law students at the Phoenix School of Law.  My son Richard C. Keyt, JD, will co-teach the class with me.  I’m very proud of my son and his accomplishments at such a young age and lucky to be able to work together with him every day in our business law and estate planning law firm.

2015-07-02T07:20:06-07:00August 14th, 2013|Miscellaneous|0 Comments

Is Publication in a Newspaper Optional for a New Arizona LLC?

Question:  How important is it to publish a Notice of Publication for your Arizona LLC after it is formed?

Answer:  If newspaper publication is required the failure to publish timely could cause a court to deny the existence of the LLC, which could cause the members to become liable for its debts and liabilities.

Arizona LLC law requires that a notice of publication for the new Arizona LLC to be published in an Arizona Corporation Commission approved newspaper within 60 days after the ACC approves the filing if the company’s statutory agent is not located in Maricopa or Pima County.  Arizona Revised Statutes Section 29-3201.G states:

“Within sixty days after the Commission files the Articles of  Organization, either of the following must occur:

1. a notice of the filing of the Articles shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county of the statutory agent’s street address for three consecutive publications containing the information required in subsection B of this Section. an affidavit evidencing the publication may be filed with the Commission.

2. the Commission shall input the information regarding the approval into the database as prescribed by Section 10-130 if the statutory agent’s street address is in a county with a population of more than eight hundred thousand persons.”

Because Section 29-3201.G.1 uses the word “shall” I interpret Arizona LLC law to say that publication within the required period is a requirement to the valid formation of the Arizona LLC whose statutory agent is not located in Maricopa or Pima county.  An LLC that fails to publish within the required period opens itself up to a challenge by a creditor in court that the LLC was not formed as required by Arizona LLC law and therefor does not exist.  If the court agreed with that argument then all of the members of the LLC would potentially be liable for the LLC’s debts and obligations.

Bottom Line:  Publication is not an option when the company’s statutory agent is not located in Maricopa or Pima county.  Every new Arizona LLC that does not have a statutory agent located in Maricopa or Pima county should always publish in an approved newspaper in the appropriate county within 60 days of the Arizona Corporation Commission approving the submitted Articles of Organization AND it should deliver an affidavit of publication to the ACC so it can put proof of publication online for the world to see.

 

Don’t File a False Document with the Arizona Corporation Commission

A client called and said his banker refused to open a bank account because the Articles of Organization filed with the Arizona Corporation Commission does not list the name of a person who owns 10% of the LLC.  The banker insisted that my client file an amendment to the Articles of Organization that names the 10% owner as a member.  Here is the text of an email message I sent to my client about the bank’s unreasonable and ignorant request:

I understand that your bank wants you to commit a felony and file a false document with the Arizona Corporation Commission that misrepresents the ownership of your LLC. Specifically your bank wants the Articles of Organization of <name omitted>, LLC, to show that Homer and Marge Simpson are members of the LLC despite the fact they together own only 10% of the company.

Arizona Revised Statutes Section 29-3502.D states: ‘A person that signs a record, or causes another to sign it on the person’s behalf, knowing that the record contains inaccurate information at the time it is signed, is liable to the limited liability company and to each member of the company for damages resulting from the inaccurate information.

ARS Section 13-2702 states: “A person commits perjury by making either: 1. A false sworn statement in regard to a material issue, believing it to be false. 2. A false unsworn declaration, certificate, verification or statement in regard to a material issue that the person subscribes as true under penalty of perjury, believing it to be false.  Perjury is a class 4 felony.

Your LLC is manager managed therefore Arizona LLC law prohibits naming anybody as a member of the LLC unless the member owns 20% or more of the LLC. I understand that your banker wants you to file a false document with the Arizona Corporation Commission that names Homer and Marge Simpson as members of the LLC. You should not do that because it is a felony to file a document with the Arizona Corporation Commission that you know contains a misrepresentation of the facts.

Because of this law knowledgeable bankers and others always ask to see the Operating Agreement of a manager managed Arizona LLC because an Operating Agreement signed by all of the members is the only way to verify all of the owners of a manager managed Arizona LLC and their percentage ownership of the LLC.

Bottom Line:  Do not file documents with the Arizona Corporation Commission that contain false statements.

No Written Contracts + Death of Single Member LLC Owner = Nightmare

Recently I met with two very troubled men who are at the beginning stages of a nightmare caused by the death of a member of an Arizona limited liability company and the LLC members’ failure to document their LLC and enter into a Buy Sell Agreement.  As I listened to their tale of woe, I was reminded of the time I heard Mike Gallagher, the founder of Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A. my former law firm, say to a young G & K lawyer in jest, “Jim, you aren’t completely worthless.  You can always be used as a bad example.”  What we have here is the perfect bad example caused by the failure to plan.

The two men (who I will call Bob and Jim) were involved with a single member LLC I will call World Wide Widgets, LLC (WWW) owned by Jack, a single man with no children.  Over a period of years Bob loaned several hundred thousand dollars to the LLC without any documentation.  Bob and Jim agreed orally that as part of the loan the WWW would pay Bob interest plus a share of the substantial profits of WWW.  Jim was the primary person who ran the company on a day to day basis.

The company was very successful and making big bucks because it had a very valuable contract with a nationally known company that had a fabulous online business.  Everybody was very happy with the company and the money and profits they received from the highly successful WWW.  Jack told Bob and Jim that he was going to give them part ownership of WWW.

Unfortunately Jack died without warning and all hell broke loose because the parties made the following fundamental mistakes:

  • No Loan Documents.  Bob did not document his loan to WWW with a promissory note.  Nor did he secure payment of the note with a lien on WWW’s assets.  Bob cannot enforce his loan without going to court or making a deal with Jack’s heir, both of which are expensive courses of action best to be avoided.
  • No Option to Acquire Membership Interests.  Bob and Jim did not get Jack to sign a contract that provided they had a right to become members of WWW.  Nor did they push Jack to actually transfer partial ownership of WWW to them.  If Bob and Jim had entered into an option to acquire membership interests in WWW they would have been able to become members without the need to sue (a difficult case to prove) or making a deal with Jack’s heir.  If Bob and Jim had been members of WWW they would have been wise to have entered into a Buy Sell Agreement with Jack that would have given WWW and themselves an option to buy Jack’s membership interest in WWW from Jack’s heir after death.  The purpose of a Buy Sell Agreement is to allow ownership of an LLC to be retained in the hands of the LLC members in the event a member dies.  To learn more about Buy Sell Agreements see my website on this important topic.
  • No Employment Agreement.  Jim did not have an employment agreement signed by WWW.  Without an employment agreement Jim’s job and compensation was at the mercy of Jack’s heir.
  • No Estate Plan.  Jack did not have a Will or a Trust that provided who inherited WWW after his death.  Jack’s only living relative was an estranged sister with whom he had not had any contact for years.  Bob and Jim believe that Jack would have wanted them to inherit WWW, not his estranged sister.  Because Jack died without an estate plan, the State of Arizona’s estate plan determined who inherited Jack’s assets.  Because Jack was single, had no children and his parents were deceased, his entire estate was inherited by the estranged sister who didn’t give a hoot about Bob and Jim and their failure to get signed documents.  To learn more about Arizona Wills, Trusts, estate planning and how to give your family asset protection see my website called Arizona Wills & Trusts.

The end result was not pretty, but it was a very expensive lesson from which I hope others can learn.

Lessons to Be Learned

1.  People die.

2.  People die.  I repeated this lesson because the reality of life is that few people believe this is a true statement.  This is the conclusion I have reached after 32 years as a business lawyer who has formed 9,300+ companies, the vast majority of which none of the members took action to make life easier on their loved ones and co-members while alive.

3.  Document with signed agreements all transactions involving your LLC.  These transactions include promissory notes (with a resolution of members authorizing the loan), employment agreements, independent contractor agreements, options to purchase membership interests in the LLC and a Buy Sell Agreement signed by all of the members.

4.  If you have an ownership interest in an LLC or a corporation, sign a Will or a Trust that provides who will inherit your interest in the companies when you die.

Hire Us

If you need to document a transaction or provide for the orderly transfer of your companies and other assets on your death, call me, Richard Keyt (480-664-7478) or my son Arizona LLC and estate planning attorney Richard C. Keyt (480-664-7472).  Do it now.  Don’t procrastinate until it’s too late and you become a bad example like Bob, Jim and Jack.  To learn more go to Arizona Wills & Trusts.

[/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

2019-06-15T07:29:32-07:00August 11th, 2013|Buy Sell Agreements, FAQs, Members|1 Comment

Did IRS Try to Kill IRA LLCs?

Yesterday two people sent me email messages asking if I had heard about the IRS trying to prevent people from using IRA money to make nontraditional investments through a limited liability company that is owned by the IRA custodian.  I learned that the source of their questions was an article called “If You Have An IRA, You Need To Know This.”  What follows is my response to the questioners:

You are the second person today and the second person ever to ask the question posed in your email.  I have not heard of the IRS prohibiting EINs for SMLLCs.  Here’s what the IRS says on its website:

“Q. Are any entity types excluded from applying for an EIN over the Internet?

A.  No. All customers whose principal business, office or agency, or legal residence (in the case of an individual) is located in the United States or in one of the U.S. Territories can apply for an EIN online. The principal officer, general partner, grantor, owner, trustor etc. must have a valid Taxpayer Identification Number (Social Security Number, Employer Identification Number, or Individual Taxpayer Identification Number) in order to use the online application.”

See Online EIN Frequently Asked Questions.

Sounds like the IRS doesn’t know it can’t issue and EIN to a SMLLC.  I called the EIN phone number at (800) 829-4933 to ask about this issue, but the wait was over 30 minutes.  I suggest you call that number and see what the IRS person says about it.  If you find any evidence that there is a new rule, please let me know.

If anybody has information about an actual denial of an EIN to an IRA LLC or an IRS official statement on this topic, please let me know.

Update:  The following is the contents of an email message I got from a nice CPA who took the time to call the IRS, wait on hold and speak to an actual person about the issue raised above:

After 1 hr and 55 minutes I got through to the IRS. They know of no announcement prohibiting the TIN division from issuing TIN numbers to single member IRA owned LLC”s.  In fact they were ready to start the process on the phone. I believe we can search through our tax service to try to locate any recent announcements regarding this issue.  I believe they are numbered.

Larry Wayne, CPA
Wayne, Gaynor, Umanoff, LLP
6100 Center Drive – Suite 950
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Tel  (310) 846-5770 Ext. 228
Fax (310) 846-5771

2017-10-06T21:42:14-07:00August 8th, 2013|Tax Issues|0 Comments

Can I See Your LLC Documents before You Form My LLC?

This week a man inquired about my LLC formation services.  He asked if he would see the Articles of Organization and Operating Agreement before I formed the LLC.  I said normally I prepared and filed the Articles of Organization and prepared the Operating Agreement without first sending the documents to my client.

The man said “I am appalled.” He added that he was offended that I would have the gall to prepare LLC documents without his prior input.

I said that in forming 9,300+ Arizona LLCs not once had I ever sent both of these documents to the owner of the LLC before forming the company.  Nor had anybody ever asked me to see either document before I filed the Articles of Organization with the Arizona Corporation Commission.  When I send the Operating Agreement to an LLC member I ask the member to review the document and to let me know if he or she wants to modify the Operating Agreement.

I also said that I would be happy to send the man both documents before I formed the company to get his input and make changes if necessary.  Despite my offer, the man was too offended by my long-time practice and he declined to hire me to form his LLC.

The whole discussion was surreal.  I could not imagine why a person who had never seen Articles of Organization or an Operating Agreement and had never owned an LLC would think that he or she needed to review the documents before I filed the Articles of Organization.  I cannot remember anybody ever asking me to modify my three page custom drafted Articles of Organization (before or after I filed the document).

From time to time people do want to make minor modifications to my Operating Agreement. Sometimes people even want to make major changes to my Operating Agreement.  In fact, the day after the angry would-be LLC expert declined to hire me to form his LLC another person hired me to form an LLC and gave me six pages of text that the members of her new LLC wanted included in my Operating Agreement.  I was happy to include the client supplied provisions, subject to charging for attorney time to revise the document.

Bottom line:  As you can imagine, after forming 9,300+ Arizona LLCs my documents are excellent, but if you want to modify my Articles of Organization or Operating Agreement, I am happy to do so unless I believe a change would be inappropriate.

How to Remove a Member from an Arizona LLC

Question:  My husband and I own an LLC together.  We each own 50% as our community property. What forms do I need to fill out to remove myself as a member and what costs are involved to have you do this?  I looked on your website but I was unsure which form to fill out. I know I also need to fill out the form that says I will not make any claims on the business once he ows it himself.

Answer: To learn about this topic read my article entitled “What to Do When Your LLC Adds or Deletes a Member or if a Member’s Interest in the Company Changes.”  To hire us to document the removal of one or more members of an Arizona LLC, complete our short online Transfer of LLC Interest Agreement.

When we prepare an Assignment of Membership Interest Agreement (this is the document that actually transfer the membership interest from the terminating member to the transferee) to be signed by a member who is transferring his or her entire interest in the LLC we include release language by which the transferring person releases the LLC and its members and managers from all claims the transferor may have against the released parties.

Watch our demonstration video that shows how to add or remove a member from an Arizona LLC.

2023-10-24T10:03:58-07:00July 23rd, 2013|FAQs|0 Comments

Arizona Corporation Commission Takes Action Against Sellers of Unregistered Securities

Commission Fines Fountain Hills Company for Unregistered Investment Sales, Sanctions Others for Securities Fraud and Revokes Registration of Fountain Hills Broker

The Arizona Corporation Commission today fined a Fountain Hills limited liability company for its unregistered investment sales in connection with a residential real estate development. Also, the Commissioners sanctioned multiple individuals and their affiliate d companies for committing securities fraud and revoked a Fountain Hills stockbroker’s registration for making unsuitable investments with a couple’s retirement funds.

Promise Land Properties, LLC. The Commission issued a default order against Promise Land Properties, LLC, requiring the payment of $958,000 in restitution and a $25,000 administrative penalty for offering and selling unregistered securities in connection with a residential real estate development. The Commission found that Promise Land Properties—a manager-controlled, Arizona limited liability company based in Fountain Hills—w as not registered to offer or sell securities in Arizona when it offered and sold LLC membership interests to six investors in order to fund the acquisition and development of 1,280 acres near Tombstone, Arizona. The Commission found that the Promise Land Properties’ manager met potential investors through a network of acquaintances, including individuals from Arizona, Nebraska and Minnesota. Additionally, the Commission found that an institutional lender eventually foreclosed on the Tombstone real estate development project.

Patrick B. Hammons, et al. In a separate case, the Commission ordered Patrick B. Hammons of Mesa and his affiliated companies to pay $174,000 in restitution and a $20,000 administrative penalty for committing securities fraud and transacting business as an investment adviser without a license. The Commission found that Hammons and the company he managed, Pacific Ventures & Trading, LLC, fraudulently offered and sold unregistered LLC membership interests to investors. The Commission found that Hammons failed to use investor funds as promised and to disclose aspects of the payments made by Pacific Ventures & Trading to another company Hammons managed, TF6 Advisors, LLC. The Commission found that Hammons and TF6 Advisors violated the Arizona Investment Management Act by providing investment advice for a fee without being licensed. Additionally, the Commission found that Hammons and TF6 Advisors committed fraud in connection with their investment advisory services by failing to do the following: use investor money as promised, follow required auditing procedures while having control over client funds, act in the best interests of their client, accurately disclose the compensation structure of TF6 Advisors, and by misrepresenting the market value of the assets of TF6 Advisors. In settling this matter, Hammons and his companies neither confirmed nor denied the Commission’s findings, but agreed to the entry of the consent order.

Morrie S. Friedman, et al. In another matter, the Commission ordered Morrie S. Friedman of Scottsdale to pay $79,625 in restitution and a $5,000 administrative penalty for fraudulently offering and selling unregistered stock shares to investors. The Commission found that, while not registered to offer or sell securities in Arizona, Friedman offered and sold unregistered stock in connection with two companies, Beyond Juice, Inc. and VIP* ComLink, Inc. The Commission found that Friedman told the Beyond Juice investors that the company stock would soon be going public, resulting in an increase in stock value, but had no factual basis for the prediction. To date, Beyond Juice has yet to become a publicly traded company. Also, the Commission found that Friedman failed to provide stock certificates to a VIP* ComLink investor and to disclose the prior legal actions taken against him in regards to Beyond Juice. In settling this matter, Friedman neither confirmed nor denied the Commission’s findings, but agreed to the entry of the consent order.

Donna Kay Beers Finally, the Commission revoked the securities registration of Fountain Hills resident Donna Kay Beers for her dishonest and unethical conduct, requiring the payment of $86,815 in restitution and a $15,000 administrative penalty. The Commission found that Beers, who was also a former investment adviser representative, recommended unsuitable investments for a senior couple who was searching for a safe and prudent way to invest their retirement funds. The Commission found that Beers recommended the couple sell their well-known stock holdings such as Wal-Mart and Costco and invest the proceeds plus additional cash into multiple private placement investments and direct participation programs, which were risky and illiquid. The Commission found that one of the investments, Fountain Hills Town Square, LLC, involve d a 12.67 acre real estate development in which Beers had an undisclosed financial interest. The Commission found that, despite knowing the real estate project had difficulty obtaining financing, Beers touted the investment as good and safe and pressured her clients to invest. In settling this matter, Beers neither confirmed nor denied the Commission’s findings, but agreed to the entry of the consent order.

More caution for investors: Even when selling a legitimate product, some promoters do not recognize the investment program they have created is a security. Determining whether an alternative investment program is a security is not always easy to determine and depends upon the unique facts and circumstances of the transaction and not on what a promoter calls the investment product. Even when investing with someone they know, investors should verify the registration of sellers and investment opportunities and investigate disciplinary histories by contacting the Arizona Corporation Commission’s Securities Division at 602-542-4242 or toll free in Arizona at 1-866-VERIFY-9. The Division’s investor education website also has helpful information at www.azinvestor.gov .

Arizona Corporation Commission Enforcement Actions

The Arizona Corporation Commissioners voted to require three individuals and their affiliated companies to stop offering and selling unregistered securities and to pay penalties. The Commission entered into two consent orders, one involving a Mesa man who sold unregistered stock and promissory notes issued by his start-up, air ambulance service company, the other involving a Peoria man who fraudulently sold membership interests in an oil and gas venture. The third order involved a Gilbert man who defrauded investors with an options and foreign currency trading investment scam.

Thomas F. Kelley and International Air Medical Services, Inc. The Commission ordered Thomas F. Kelley of Mesa and his Scottsdale start-up company to pay $1,406,300 in restitution and a $50,000 administrative penalty for offering and selling an unregistered investment program involving a long-range, jet-air ambulance business. The Commission found that, while not registered to offer or sell securities, respondents Kelley and International Air Medical Services, Inc. (International Air) offered and sold stock and promissory notes to at least 14 investors. The Commission found that the majority of investors who were issued promissory notes have not been paid as required under the terms of their notes, and some investors who purchased stock were not issued stock certificates or the issuance of the stock certificates was significantly delayed. Additionally, the Commission found that the respondents failed to provide stockholders the voting rights to which they were entitled under International Air’s bylaws. Further, the Commission found that Kelley, as well as one other International Air officer, used investor funds for their own personal expenses, despite the fact that the board of directors had not approved compensation or salaries for International Air’s officers. In settling this matter, Kelley and International Air neither admitted nor denied the Commission’s findings, but agreed to the entry of the consent order.

Christopher D. Dedmon and SDC Montana Consulting, LLC. The Commission sanctioned Peoria resident Christopher D. Dedmon and his affiliated company, SDC Montana Consulting, LLC, with a $25,000 administrative penalty for fraudulently offering and selling membership interests in an oil and gas venture. The Commission found that, while not registered to offer or sell securities, Dedmon and SDC raised $547,500 from 13 investors, most of whom lived in Arizona. The Commission found that Dedmon and his company failed to disclose to investors a 2005 Commission consent order that prohibited Dedmon and SDC from selling securities or exercising control over an entity that sells securities. To date, each membership interest investor has received distributions from SDC that exceed the investor’s original investment. In settling this matter, Dedmon neither admitted nor denied the Commission’ s findings, but agreed to the entry of the consent order and has paid the administrative penalty in full to the state of Arizona.

Tyrone L. Brooks and 3T Options, LLC.  The Commission issued a default order against a Gilbert man and his affiliated company who defrauded investors with an options and foreign currency trading investment scam. The Commission ordered Tyrone L. Brooks and 3T Options, LLC to pay $95,013 in restitution and a $25,000 administrative penalty. The Commission found that, while not licensed to provide investment advice, Brooks and his company pooled together the funds of at least eight investors from Arizona, California and Nevada, promising certain clients a guaranteed monthly return of at least six percent. The Commission found that Brooks used only a small percentage of his client’s funds to conduct options and foreign currency trading, depositing most of the money into his personal bank account. Moreover, the Commission found that Brooks issued account statements to investors that reflected fictitious value

 

Richard C. Keyt, JD, Passed California Bar Exam

Congratulations to my son Richard C. Keyt who got the news last Friday that he was one of the 40% who passed the February 2013 California Bar exam.  As soon as Ricky is licensed in California Ricky and I intend to open a branch office in California to form California limited liability companies, prepare estate plans and do elder law.

2015-07-01T21:06:00-07:00May 20th, 2013|Operating LLCs|0 Comments

Arizona Corporation Commision Enforcement Actions

The Arizona Corporation Commission sanctioned multiple individuals and their affiliated companies whose unregistered investment programs caused investors to lose over $7.8 million. The Commission also revoked the securities registration of a Lake Havasu securities salesman who borrowed money from his brokerage clients, ordering him to pay restitution and penalties for his dishonest and unethical conduct. In total, the Commission ordered over $7.8 in restitution and $291,500 in administrative penalties.

John M. McNeil, Peter Pocklington, and Crystal Pistol Resources, LLC, et al. The Commission ordered former Scottsdale resident John M. McNeil, California resident Peter Pocklington and their affiliated companies to pay $5,149,316 in restitution and a $100,000 administrative penalty for committing securities fraud in connection with a gold mining venture. The Commission found that, while not registered as securities salesmen or dealers in Arizona, respondents McNeil, Pocklington and their affiliated companies—Crystal Pistol Resources, LLC, Crystal Pistol Management, LLC, and Liberty Bell Resources I, LLC—told at least 120 investors that they had obtained mineral rights to a placer mine outside of Quartzite, Arizona, and would begin mining and processing gold on the site within a short period of time. The Commission found that the respondents obtained at least some investors by making unsolicited telephone calls to them and that some investors were taken to the mine site, which was located on U.S. Bureau of Land Management land. Additionally, the Commission found that Crystal Pistol prepared newsletters in which it claimed to be offering one of the most lucrative dividend plans in the mining business and that hedge funds and banks were interested in the project. The Commission found, however, that the estimates of gold resources on the respondents’ website were not supportable with the methods currently available in the industry. In settling this matter, the respondents neither admitted nor denied the Commission’s findings, but agreed to the entry of the consent order.

Casimer Polanchek.In a separate case, the Commission issued a default order against Casimer Polanchek of Chandler, ordering him to pay $2,558,832 in restitution and a $175,000 administrative penalty for defrauding investors with a promissory note scheme. The Commission found that Polanchek was the manager of Pangaea Investment Group, LLC, which was doing business as Arizona Investment Center. The Commission found that Polanchek was not registered as a securities salesman in Arizona when he fraudulently offered and sold promissory notes issued by Tri-Core Companies, LLC and C&D Construction Services, Inc. The Commission also found that Polanchek was jointly and severally liable as the control person of Pangaea for the promissory notes Pangaea fraudulently offered and sold issued by ERC Compactors, LLC and Tri-Core Companies, LLC. The Commission found that on multiple occasions Polanchek participated as a host or presenter on an Arizona radio program called “The Investment Roadshow,” offering alternative investment opportunities and urging prospective investors to attend seminars and webinars about the alternative investments. The Commission found that, among the multiple, material omissions and misrepresentations made to investors, Polanchek or his company represented the alternative investments as being secured by property or equipment, but failed to provide any collateral or other mechanism to securitize the promissory notes.

Lynn R. Goldney. In another matter, the Commission revoked the securities registration of Lake Havasu resident Lynn R. Goldney for borrowing money from his brokerage clients, ordering him to pay $98,8 35 in restitution and a $10,000 administrative penalty. The Commission found that Goldney obtained 45 distinct loans from 26 of his customers, none of whom were family members or persons in the business of lending money to the public. Further, the Commission found that Goldney’s activity constitutes dis honest conduct or unethical practices in the securities industry. In settling this matter, Goldney agreed to the entry of the consent order and admitted to the Commission’s findings only for purposes of the administrative proceeding.

Robert R. Cottrell and RSC Adventures, LLC. A separate matter involved former Peoria resident Robert R. Cottrell and his affiliated company who agreed to pay a $6,500 administrative penalty for offering and selling unregistered limited liability memberships in an oil and gas exploration and development company. The Commission found that Cottrell and his Arizona-based company, RSC Adventures, LLC, were not registered to offer or sell securities in Arizona when they sold to five investors—most of whom lived in Arizona—unregistered membership interests in SDC Montana Consulting, LLC, an Arizona-based oil and gas exploration and development company, which also procured the sale of oil, gas and mineral rights. In settling this matter, Cottrell neither ad mitted nor denied the Commission’s findings, but agreed to the entry of the consent order.

ACC Goes After Radical Bunny Managers

The Arizona Corporation Commission entered an order that requires the prior managers of Radical Bunny, LLC and Horizon Partners, LLC to pay more than $189.8 million in restitution for committing securities fraud in connection with two unregistered deed of trust investment programs. In other cases, the Commission fined a Tucson man and his affiliated company for securities fraud and halted an unregistered real estate program totaling over $1.9 million.

Radical Bunny, LLC and Horizon Partners, LLC. The Commission ordered respondents Tom Hirsch, Harish Shah, Howard Walder and Berta “Bunny” Walder, the former managers of Radical Bunny LLC, and Horizon Partners, LLC, an affiliated entity, to pay $189.8 million in restitution and a total of $4.65 million in administrative penalties for defrauding investors. The Commission found that, while not registered as securities salesmen or dealers, Horizon Partners LLC, Hirsch, Shah, and the Walders raised funds from approximately 900 investors across the U.S. and in four foreign countries. Investors were told that their money would be used by Radical Bunny LLC to purchase fractionalized interests in promissory notes secured by real estate deeds of trust. The Commission found, however, that respondents Bunny pooled investor funds to make unsecured loans to Mortgages Ltd., a Phoenix-based originator of high-interest, short-term loans to real estate developers. Additionally, the Commission found that the respondents continued to raise investor funds despite being advised by lawyers that they had or were engaged in unregistered securities offerings in violation of Arizona securities laws. “The securities statutes were flagrantly, and repeatedly, violated in this case, and the Commission’s actions today demonstrated zero tolerance for this sort of behavior in Arizona,” said Chairman Bob Stump. “The message should be heard loudly and clearly: If you commit securities fraud, this Commission will hold you to account.” Radical Bunny, LLC previously agreed, without admitting or denying the Commission findings, to the entry of a consent order, which order was signed by the Commission on April 28, 2010 as Decision No. 71682.

David Shorey and Westcap Energy, Inc. The Commission ordered David Shorey of Tucson and Westcap Energy, Inc, to pay a $10,000 administrative penalty and to make rescission payments available to investors who want their money returned. The Commission found that Shorey, chairman and chief executive officer of Westcap, and Westcap were not registered to offer or sell securities in Arizona when they fraudulently raised at least $388,495 from 24 investors. The Commission found that Shorey and Westcap failed to disclose in to investors commissions of up to 70%, paid to those salespeople who sold Westcap stock. Parker Skylar and Associates, LLC The Commission issued a default order against Parker Skylar & Associates, LLC, requiring the payment of $1,942,000 in restitution and a $50,000 administrative penalty for its securities violations. The Commission found that, while not registered as a securities dealer, Parker Skylar fraudulently offered and sold membership interests to at least 17 investors. The Commission found that, among the multiple, material omissions and misrepresentations made to investors, Parker Skylar failed to tell investors that a lender claimed to have encumbered all of Parker Skylar ‘s property, failed to transfer all investor funds to the real estate development entity for which Parker Skylar was raising funds, and touted the acumen of Parker Skylar’s manager when, in fact, several of the manager’s creditors had sued him

Arizona Corporation Commission Shuts Down LLCs for Violating Securities Laws

The Arizona Corporation Commission shut down two unregistered investment programs—one involving gold mining and the other concerning bonds.  In total, the Commission ordered the respondents to pay $641,016 in restitution and $60,000 in administrative penalties.

Brian Langebach and Earth Explorations, LLC

The Commission issued a default order against Brian Langebach of Mesa and his affiliated company, Earth Explorations, LLC, requiring them to pay $322,000 in restitution and $50,000 in administrative penalties for fraudulently offering and selling an unregistered gold mining investment program.  The Commission found that Langebach and his affiliated company—while not registered as a securities salesman or dealer—offered and sold the unregistered gold mining investment program to 23 investors in Arizona, Ohio and Utah.  The Commission found that Langebach and his company misrepresented multiple facts, including claiming that he owned and operated a mine with one of the largest gold reserves in the U.S. and that he could extract gold from the rock material or aggregate material on a cost-effective or economically viable basis by placer mining.

Marvin Wilson and True North Business Ventures, LLC

The Commission ordered Marvin Wilson of Phoenix and his Scottsdale-based company, True North Business Ventures, LLC, to pay $319,016 in restitution and $10,000 in administrative penalties for fraudulently offering and selling an unregistered bond investment program.  The Commission found that, while not registered as a securities salesman or dealer, Wilson and True North issued unregistered bonds to six investors.  The Commission found that Wilson, who was the president and chief executive officer of True North, failed to disclose to investors that his company’s sales were rapidly declining and the business was on the verge of closing.  In settling this matter, Wilson neither admitted nor denied the Commission’s findings, but agreed to the entry of the consent order.

Corporation Commission Warns Business Owners of False Solicitation

The Arizona Corporation Commission is warning Arizona business owners that an individual or group calling themselves “Corporate Records Service” is sending out official-looking documents advertising a service of preparing filings for corporations. This solicitation, requesting payment of a $125 fee, is not a Corporation Commission document and this organization is not in any way affiliated with the Arizona Corporation Commission.  The Corporation Commission does not require business owners and their representatives to file with “Corporate Records Service,” nor does it require the $125 fee referred to in the document.

The documents look very similar to Corporation Commission filing documents and the private firm making the solicitation intentionally creates confusion by using language that is similar to that in Corporation Commission documents.  The forms carry an official-looking time deadline for filing and include the Arizona Corporation Commission file number assigned to the business.  Further, a search of the “Corporate Records Service” return address places it as a mailbox at a UPS Store in the Ahwatukee Foothills Towne Center.

If you have received this document, please contact the Arizona Attorney General’s Office in Phoenix at (602) 542-5763, in Tucson at (520) 628-6504, or outside the Phoenix and Tucson metro areas at 1 (800) 352-8431.  To file a complaint online, please visit the Attorney General’s web site at www.azag.gov.  To file a complaint in person, the Attorney General’s Office has 37 satellite offices throughout Arizona with volunteers available to help.  Locations and hours are posted on the Attorney General’s web site.

2016-11-16T08:23:45-07:00February 10th, 2013|AZ Corporation Commission|0 Comments

Five Expensive Mistakes When Forming a New Jersey LLC

New Jersey business litigator Jay McDaniel posted an article on his excellent blog called “New Jersey Business Dissolution Journal” that is a must read for every person who owns an interest in an Arizona limited liability company.  Jay’s article explains the five biggest mistakes people make when they form an LLC.  The mistakes are the same mistakes I caution people against constantly when I form LLCs and advise the owners of existing LLCs.

Jay McDaniel is a business litigator whose opinions are based on years of experience representing business owners in disputes that arise from the ownership of businesses.  Jay wrote:

“Having litigated many of these matters over the years, I see the same mistakes made early in the life of the business surfacing again and again as the source of litigation.”

McDaniel’s point is that the failure to plan when companies are created can be a very expensive blunder when a dispute among owners arises.  Even though I am not a litigator (I never personally represent anybody in litigation), my experience is the same as McDaniel’s.

The list omits the mistake of not having an Operating Agreement.  The following is what McDaniel says about the lack of an Operating Agreement:

“If a business does not have one, sooner or later, it will have problems and without any point of reference whatsoever, the probability of litigation is high.  When that happens and the business is successful, the chances are that you will spend the price of a college education – at a nice private school – on the lawsuit.

Here’s Jay McDaniel’s list of the five biggest LLC formation mistakes (read the article to get the reasoning behind each mistake:

  1. No operational planning
  2. No contingency planning
  3. No valuation planning
  4. No succession planning
  5. No planning for amendments to the Operating Agreement.

Arizona Corporation Commission Halts Unregistered Securities Sales

The Arizona Corporation Commission sanctioned multiple individuals and their affiliated companies for offering and selling unregistered investment programs concerning wind energy development and gold mining. The Commission ordered more than $16. 3 million in restitution and $130,000 in administrative penalties.

The Commission ordered Arizona residents Edward L. Mazur and Ronnie Williams to pay a total of $16,347,279 in restitution and $125,000 in administrative penalties for fraudulently promoting an unregistered investment program involving the development of wind energy. The Commission found that, while not registered to offer or sell securities, Mazur and Williams offered and sold to over 300 investors throughout the U.S. interests in a proposed wind energy development project. The Commission found, however, that Mazur and Williams failed to disclose that almost half of the investor funds raised would pay for sales commissions and not for the development of the wind turbine technology or energy development projects described in the private placement memoranda. In settling this matter, Mazur and Williams neither admitted nor denied the Commission’s findings, but agreed to the entry of the consent order.

In a separate case, the Commission ordered Larry Goldman of Tucson and his affiliated company, MT Explorations, LLC to pay a $5,000 administrative penalty for promoting an unregistered gold mining investment program. The Commission found that, while not registered as a securities salesman or securities dealer, Goldman and his affiliated company raised $322,0 00 from at least 25 investors who were located in Arizona, Ohio and Utah. The Commission found that Goldman subsequently forwarded investor monies to an individual who represented that he owned and operated various gold mines throughout the United States, including Congress, Arizona and Helena, Montana. In settling this matter, Goldman neither admitted nor denied the Commission’s findings, but agreed to the entry of the consent order.

We Say Good Bye to Katie Leavitt, the KEYTLaw Girl

On September 30, 2012, my wonderful daughter, Katie Leavitt, aka the KEYTLaw Girl, started her new job as a fashion styling specialist for Origami Owl.  She was my LLC legal assistant for six years beginning when she started her senior year at ASU.  She is leaving the law pursue her passions, fashion and photography.  She will be involved in helping a great young company increase its sales.  Origami Owl discovered Katie because of her fabulous website called Running On Happiness, a site that showcases Katie’s fashion sense, writing ability and photography skills.  My wife and I will miss working with our little girl every day, but it is time for her to move on and do what she really wants to do.  Katie will continue to be the KEYTLaw Girl in videos we make in the future.

2017-10-22T15:11:53-07:00September 10th, 2012|Ask the KEYTLaw Girl|0 Comments

New Hampshire Adopts New LLC Act

On June 18, 2012, the Governor of  New Hampshire signed into law New Hampshire’s entirely new limited liability company act.  The law is effective January 1, 2013, for LLCs formed in New Hampshire after December 31, 2012, and January 1, 2014, for New Hampshire LLCs formed before January 1, 2013.  The law is called the “New Hampshire Revised Limited Liability Company Act.”

The primary author of the new act is attorney John Cunningham who has written two treatises on limited liability companies.  He and Vernon Proctor wrote Drafting Delaware LLC Agreements.  John is the author of the $674 Drafting Limited Liability Company Operating Agreements (3d ed. 2012).  I own, refer to and recommend both of these expensive legal how to books.

Read Johns’ newspaper article on the new law called “What will new LLC Act mean for businesses” in which he crows “The new act is arguably the best LLC act in the United States.”

I gave the new Act a quick over view and generally liked what I saw.  The Act imposes fiduciary duties on members and managers.  It also provides for default statutory provisions that apply to all NH LLCs unless they adopt an Operating Agreement that provides otherwise.  The one provision I do not like is the charging order provision because it allows a creditor of a member to sell the member’s interest in the LLC.

2018-11-11T10:39:01-07:00July 30th, 2012|LLCs & Corporations|0 Comments

Arizona LLCs No Longer Can Use a PO Box as a Place of Business

The Arizona Corporation Commission will no longer allow a new Arizona limited liability company to use a Post Office box for the LLC’s known place of business in Arizona.  Arizona Revised Statute Section 29-604.A states:

“A limited liability company shall appoint and continuously maintain in this state . . . A known place of business that may be the address of its statutory agent.”

Arizona Revised Statutes Section 29-632.A states:

“The articles of organization shall state . . . . The address of the company’s known place of business in this state, if different from the street address of the company’s statutory agent.”

Despite the fact neither statute contains any reference to, much less a prohibition against the LLC from using a P.O box as the LLC’s known place of business, the ACC will no longer accept Articles of Organization that shown that the company’s only place of business address is a PO box.

Go to Top