0
Incorporation
Incorporation is the act of selling out shares of a company to generate revenue. Questions about incorporating, companies that are or will incorporate, or companies that are already incorporated can be asked here.
1,040 Questions
there are two circumstances under which the zimbabwean courts can lift the corporate veil. the first form is judicial evasion and he other one is statutory evasion.
JUDICIAL EVASION
this takes tree forms which is:
- when there is an abuse of the the seperate corporate personality
- when the principle of separate legal personality runs contrary to the state intrests
- application of the agency of construction
What is the natural outgrowth of sole proprietorship?
There are many reasons why sole proprietors choose to incorporate a LLC or corporation. Just to mention two of them:
1. Sole proprietors are personally liable for the debts accumulated by their business. Limited Liability is limited personal liability protection. The members of a Limited Liability Company are not personally liable for the debts accumulated by the Limited Liability Company.
2. In some cases businessmen find it more beneficial to be taxed at corporate tax rates.
Type your answer here... YES YOU CAN, THE LEVY IS HIT BASED ON THE SSN AND NAME SO IF THE DEBTORS NAME IS ON THE JUDGMENT AND HAS A BUSINESS ACCOUNT YOUR LEVY WILL BE GOOD.
Wife owns corporation solely if she dies does husband get business?
Presumably you meant to say that the wife, prior to her death, owned all the shares of the corporation. The shares would form part of the wife's estate and would be distributed according to her will or, if she did not have a will, according to the laws of intestacy (which might differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction).
Signing on behalf of someone else?
Many people choose to sign something on behalf of someone else. Typically wives and husbands will sign on behalf of their partner.
Who won the case of salomon v salomon?
In the first case, Broderip v Salomon [1893] B 4793, Vaughan Williams J said Mr Broderip's claim was valid. It was undisputed that the 20,000 were fully paid up. He said the company had a right of indemnity against Mr Salomon. He said the signatories of the memorandum were mere dummies, the company was just Mr Salomon in another form, an alias, his agent. Therefore it was entitled to indemnity from the principal. The liquidator amended the counter claim, and an award was made for indemnity.
The Court of Appeal [1895] 2 Ch 323 confirmed Vaughan Williams J's decision against Mr Salomon, though on the grounds that Mr. Salomon had abused the privileges of incorporation and limited liability, which Parliament had intended only to confer on "independent bona fide shareholders, who had a mind and will of their own and were not mere puppets". Lindley LJ (an expert on partnership law) held that the company was a trustee for Mr Salomon, and as such was bound to indemnify the company's debts. Lopes LJ and Kay LJ variously described the company as a myth and a fiction and said that the incorporation of the business by Mr Salomon had been a mere scheme to enable him to carry on as before but with limited liability.
House of Lords
The House of Lords unanimously overturned this decision, rejecting the arguments from agency and fraud. They held that there was nothing in the Act about whether the subscribers (i.e. the shareholders) should be independent of the majority shareholder. The company was duly constituted in law and it was not the function of judges to read into the statute limitations they themselves considered expedient. Lord Halsbury LC stated that the statute "enacts nothing as to the extent or degree of interest which may be held by each of the seven [shareholders] or as to the proportion of interest or influence possessed by one or the majority over the others."
Lord Halsbury remarked that - even if he were to accept the proposition that judges were at liberty to insert words to manifest the intention they wished to impute to the Legislature - he was unable to discover what affirmative proposition the Court of Appeal's logic suggested. He considered that identifying such an affirmative proposition represented an "insuperable difficulty" for anyone putting forward the argument propounded by the Lords Justices of Appeal.
Lord Herschell noted the potentially "far reaching" implications of the Court of Appeal's logic and that in recent years many companies had been set up in which one or more of the seven shareholders were "disinterested persons" who did not wield any influence over the management of the company. Anyone dealing with such a company was aware of its nature as such, and could by consulting the register of shareholders become aware of the breakdown of share ownership among the shareholders.
Lord Macnaghten asked what was wrong with Mr. Salomon taking advantage of the provisions set out in the statute, as he was perfectly legitimately entitled to do. It was not the function of judges to read limitations into a statute on the basis of their own personal view that, if the laws of the land allowed such a thing, they were "in a most lamentable state", as Malins V-C had stated in an earlier case in point, In Re Baglan Hall Colliery Co., which had likewise been overturned by the House of Lords.
The House held:
"Either the limited company was a legal entity or it was not. If it were, the business belonged to it and not to Mr Salomon. If it was not, there was no person and no thing to be an agent [of] at all; and it is impossible to say at the same time that there is a company and there is not."
The House further noted:
"The company is at law a different person altogether from the subscribers to the Memorandum, and though it may be that after incorporation of the business is precisely the same as it was before and the same persons and managers, and the same hands receive the profits, the company is not in law the agent of the subscribers or trustees for them. Nor are the subscribers or members liable in any shape or form except to the extent and in the manner provided by the act."
On the issue of floating charges, Lord Macnaghten also said this.
"For such a catastrophe as has occurred in this case some would blame the law that allows the creation of a floating charge. But a floating charge is too convenient a form of security to be lightly abolished. I have long thought, and I believe some of your Lordships also think, that the ordinary trade creditors of a trading company ought to have a preferential claim on the assets in liquidation in respect of debts incurred within a certain limited time before the winding-up. But that is not the law at present. Everybody knows that when there is a winding-up debenture holders generally step in and sweep off everything; and a great scandal it is."
Global One was a joint venture of what companies?
Global One, a joint venture of Deutsche Telekom, France Telecom, and Sprint.
What is companies act 1965 of Malaysia?
The Company Act of 1965 was made to govern and administer formation of companies and their functioning. This act gives any person(s) the right to form any type of company or corporate organization and start operating a registered company.
The Philippine accountant considers peso as the common unit of measure for all business transactions. There are rare times that the US dollar is also used.
Do limited partnerships require annual meetings?
The requirements for Partnerships vary from state to state. In general, the answer is yes, the partnership and the actions agreed to have to be documented.
Can pay pal report negative account balances to the credit bureaus?
No. PayPal has no agreement with the end-user (you) for reporting to credit bureaus. After 1 1/2 years, PayPal writes off the amount owed for credit on federal taxes. This amount brings them a 70% return on their taxes hence saving them on collections. It all pretty much boils down to after 1 1/2 years - 2 years max, the collections process will discontinue and the amount will be written off. PayPal uses no third- party collection resources or reporting resources to credit bureaus. This is all from the PayPal Terms of Service.
Who is the owner of rusty Lopez?
In 1977, Lolito Lopez opened a shoe store by the name of Centropell, in the Cubao Shoe Expo. Almost three decades later, the tandem of Lolito and wife Lily has blossomed and now sit at the helm of a shoe business empire that is renowned for its commitment to the development, manufacturing and marketing of quality, authentic and affordable footwear under the following brands: CENTROPELLE, RUSS and RUSTY LOPEZ.
Building on the success of Centropell, the Lopezes positioned Rusty Lopez as the brand name that rivaled the best of what the local shoe industry has to offer. The popularity of the Rusty Lopez brand eventually exceeded the expectations of the holding companies and as a result, holds one of the biggest market shares within the entire local shoe industry.
Maritalia Manufacturing Incorporated, which was established on December 17, 1996 and became the official manufacturing arm of the company. It is through the joint efforts of Filipino and Italian shoemakers that Maritelia was born. To give pride and honor to this collaboration, the name "Maritalia" was created by combining Marikina and Italy, "MARI" (Marikina) and "ITALIA" (Italy) thus, forming the word "Maritalia". Today, MARITALIA sits on a one-hectare property on E. Rodriguez Avenue in Sto. Niño, Marikina City. It houses state-of-the-art imported equipment from Italy specifically designed for mass shoe production. Operating at full capacity with 300 workers, Maritalia can produce as many as 24,000 pairs of shoes in a month.
In late December 2003, the Rusty Lopez logo underwent a subtle makeover to achieve a more youthful look. It was just one of the many touches intended to enhance the popular brand. Indeed, Rusty Lopez enjoys an unblemished reputation for quality and affordability with a wide range of footwear and accessories products for its broad market. Its image is untarnished by shoddy workmanship, and is further bolstered by the influence of its Italian and other foreign consultants and the company's corresponding investments in Italian technology, machine and state-of-the-art equipment.
In what respects are not-for-profit organizations similar to business organizations?
(1) They compete for scarce capital resources (whether in the form of loans, donations, or government contracts) and (2) they lack the coercive taxing power of government.
If you have an LLC and file chapter 7 can they take your part of the LLC?
== == The answer to your question depends upon the law in your state. If an individual files for bankruptcy most assets of the individual may be sold or otherwise disposed of in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy in to partially satisfy the debts of the individual. While an interest in an LLC is an asset of the individual, many states have statutes within their LLC Act which provide that an LLC interest may not be taken outright by a creditor, but rather a charging order will be issued. Typically this means that the individual who is the holder of the LLC interest will continue to be a member of the LLC and will continue to vote the LLC interest; however, any distributions which are made by the LLC to the individual would be paid to the creditor or creditors rather than to the individual due to the charging order.
Do all corporations have officers by law?
In one way or another all corporations have officers. Most standard corporations have the usual officers such as president, vice president, secretary and treasurer. Many states have statutes that provide for an alternative corporate structure for small corporations for family businesses that do not require such officers, but instead allow one person to function as two or more of those officers. Since a corporation is a legal entity separate and apart from the people who operate it, it must have officers with legal authority to act on behalf of the corporation.
How many limited liability partnerships compare with general partnerships?
The main difference between limited liability partnership and general partnerships is limited liability.
Partners of an general partnerships are liable for all debts accumulated.
Partners of an limited liability partnership are enjoying limited personal liability protection.
However many people may prefer to incorporate Limited Liability Company instead of an limited liability partnership.
How do you keep people informed about progress within your workplace?
By having a daily preshift and weekly meeting with my employees and explaining the outcomes of previous days work
No.
