I concur. First, much confusion has been occasioned by courts' repeated reference to the "corporate" veil when, of course, the LLC is not a corporation. In addition, LLCs were intended from the outset to be far less formal organizations than corporations, so it is critical that they be required to observe only such formalities as may be specifically required by statute. ("Law" is sadly ambiguous on that score.)The additions are a response of a court decision from last year, Green Hunter Energy, Inc. v. Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc., No. S-14-0036, 2014 WL 5794332 (Wyoming Nov. 7, 2014), which is summarized nicely here. The first added section provides:(c) for purposes of imposing liability on any member or manager of a limited liability company for the debts, obligations or other liabilities of the company, a court shall consider only the following factors no one (1) of which, except fraud, is sufficient to impose liability:
(i) Fraud;(ii) Inadequate capitalization;(iii) Failure to observe company formalities as required by law; and(iv) Intermingling of assets, business operations and finances of the company and the members to such an extent that there is no distinction between them. ...I do have a concern that some courts might miss that the need for "company formalities" as a potential factor for veil piercing is limited only to the formalities that are "required by law," which also means very few such formalities. "Company formalities" are not "corporate formalities," and I hope courts remember this.
Of course, what we ought to do is to abolish LLC veil piercing altogether, as I have argued:
Courts are now routinely applying the corporate law doctrine of veil piercing to limited liability companies. This extension of a seriously flawed doctrine into a new arena is not required by statute and is unsupportable as a matter of policy. The standards by which veil piercing is effected are vague, leaving judges great discretion. The result has been uncertainty and lack of predictability, increasing transaction costs for small businesses. At the same time, however, there is no evidence that veil piercing has been rigorously applied to affect socially beneficial policy outcomes. Judges typically seem to be concerned more with the facts and equities of the specific case at bar than with the implications of personal shareholder liability for society at large.Abolishing LLC Veil Piercing (May 2004). UCLA School of Law, Law-Econ Research Paper No. 04-11. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=551724
A standard academic move treats veil piercing as a safety valve allowing courts to address cases in which the externalities associated with limited liability seem excessive. In doing so, veil piercing is called upon to achieve such lofty goals as leading LLC members to optimally internalize risk, while not deterring capital formation and economic growth, while promoting populist notions of economic democracy. The task is untenable. Veil piercing is rare, unprincipled, and arbitrary. Abolishing veil piercing would refocus judicial analysis on the appropriate question - did the defendant - LLC member do anything for which he or she should be held directly liable?
These New Co-op Apps Show How to Build Worker Power In the Age of Uber In These Times
Blue collar voters: Trade is killing us McClatchy
An Inconvenient Truth About Free Trade Bloomberg
How the $15 Minimum Wage Went From Laughable to Viable NYT
Almost two-thirds of people in the labor force do not have a college degree Economic Policy Institute
Thames Water for sale: Australian investor Macquarie to sell stake
As states’ work mandates kick in, tens of thousands of people lose food stamps Chicago Tribune
Poor residents were promised Wi-Fi service. The Times found they didn’t get it LA Times
Capitalist Deserter Pfizer Just Got a Spanking Bill Greider, Nation