“우리 (주)스마트구루를 방문해 주셔서 감사합니다.”
요즘 모바일 생태계는 새로운 국면을 맞고 있으며, 생활에 밀접하게 다가와 있고 이를 더욱 생활에 접목시킴으로써 가치있는 사업을 이끌어 나가려고 합니다.
(주)스마트구루는 고객중심의 새로운 IT 세상창조와 근로자를 위한 세상이라는 경영이념을 바탕으로 끊임없는 노력과 기술축적을 이루어가고 있습니다. 이를 바탕으로 통신, 금융, 공공 등의 다양한 기업들이 급변하는 시장에서 앞서 나갈 수 있도록 항상 최고의 제품과 최상의 서비스를 제공해 왔습니다.
도전과 창의적인 생각으로 희망을 현실화하고, 성공적인 기업파트너로서 노력을 다 할 것이며, 핵심 IT기술의 확보와 최고의 서비스로 가치를 제공하는 스마트구루가 될 수 있도록 현재에 안주하지 않고 끊임없이 노력하겠습니다.
Asset Protection Planning Part 2 of 4
A charging order is a court order available to a judgment creditor directed to the partnership or LLC of which the judgment debtor is a partner or member which grants the judgment creditor the right to whatever distributions would otherwise be due to the debtor partner or member Michael Kors handbags whose interest is being charged. The charging order has its origins as part of the English Partnership Act of 1890. The relevant provisions of that act are very close to similar provisions later adopted in the United States in the Uniform Partnership Act in 1914 and Uniform Limited Partnership Act in 1916. The purpose of the charging order was to prevent the judgment creditor of an individual partner from access to the partnership assets while at the same time, giving the creditor some relief relative to distributions from the entity to michael kors handbags the partner. The charging order then became the exclusive remedy of the judgment creditor of a partner denying him direct access to the partnership assets and limiting the creditor exclusively to collection of the income or distributions which the partnership assets might engender for the benefit of the judgment debtor.
B. Foreclosure of the Charging Order
Many states now allow a judgment creditor to foreclose on the charged interest. However, it appears that the purchaser at the foreclosure sale becomes at most cheap Michael Kors handbags an assignee of an economic right to the judgment debtor’s income distributions. As such, the judgment creditor is still not a substantive partner and not entitled to participate in partnership or LLC management. A judgment creditor Replica Michael Kors Handbags who forecloses may also face adverse tax consequences as he may be considered a partner for federal tax purposes. The income tax consequences to a judgment creditor who has foreclosed are to be differentiated from a judgment creditor who is a mere holder of a charging order. Most likely, the mere holder would not be considered a partner for tax purposes.
Section 15522 of the California Corporations Code deals with charging orders cheap Michael Kors handbags for California limited partnerships subject to the California Uniform Limited Partnership Act. Section 15673 applies for California limited partnerships governed by the California Revised Limited Partnerships Act (“CRLPA”). Limited partnerships formed after July 1, 1984 are governed by the CRLPA. Section 15673 makes it clear that a judgment creditor with a charging order only has the rights of an assignee. The relevant LLC charging order statute is found michael kors outlet in Section 17302 of the California Corporations Code. In addition to giving a judgment creditor the right to a charging order, the legislation provides that the charging order constitutes a lien on the judgment debtor’s assignable member interest and the court can order a foreclosure on the member interest subject to the charging order. However, it is pointed out that the purchaser of the foreclosure sale has only the rights of an assignee. This Section is the exclusive remedy by which a judgment creditor can satisfy a judgment against a judgment debtor’s membership interest in the LLC.
The charging order seems to be the exclusive remedy for a California creditor when it comes to both a limited partner’s interest or an LLC’s member interest. However, the LLC charging order can constitute a lien and can be foreclosed upon. It would appear that a foreclosure only transfers the economic rights of the judgment debtor, but does not give the judgment creditor any right to participate in the management or to control the partnership or LLC entity. The greater fear from an asset protection standpoint is the implications of the Albright case decided on April 4, 2003 by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado which allowed a bankruptcy trustee to take any and all necessary actions to liquidate property owned by a single member LLC. The holding in the Albright case was based on the fact that the charging order limitation serves no purpose in a single member LLC because there are no other party’s interests affected. In a footnote, the Court indicates that in a multi member LLC, the charging order provision of Colorado state law would govern, although bankruptcy avoidance provisions and fraudulent transfer laws would come into play with respect to the setup of a multi member LLC intended to delay or defraud creditors.
The asset protecting planning concept of conveying assets to a limited partnership or limited liability company is simply that assets that would otherwise be attractive to a creditor Replica Michael Kors Handbags are shielded from creditor attachments by transferring them to the entity in exchange for general limited partnership interest and LLC member interest. After the transfer, the assets are owned by the entity and not the transferor. Accordingly, the creditor’s claim must be satisfied as against the entity interest of the transferor. If the charging order is the exclusive remedy for the creditor, the creditor is precluded from actually having access directly to the assets. Instead the creditor in effect steps into the shoes of the partner or LLC member with respect to the right of distribution. As an assignee, the creditor is only entitled to receive the distribution to which the assignor would be entitled. What this means is that a creditor who has obtained charging order only has the right to receive distributions from the entity when and if such distributions are ever made even though the entity itself may have substantial income.
Over the last several years, several state courts including California had a lot of judicial foreclosure sale of limited partnership interests. The trend in California begin with Cocker National Bank v. Perroton, 255 Cal. Rptr. 794 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) wherein the California Court of Appeals allowed a judgment creditor to attach and sell and partnership interest where the debtor demonstrated that the charging order it had obtained was insufficient to satisfy its judgment. Subsequently, in Hellman v. Anderson 284 Cal. Rptr. 830 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) the California Appellate Court, adhering to the precedent set in the Perroton case, allowed a judgment creditor to foreclose on a partnership interest when foreclosure of the interest would not unduly interfere with the business of the partnership. In Prestly, 193 Br. 253 (Bankr. 1988), the Federal Bankruptcy Court in New Mexico determined that the bankrupt’s interest as a general partner and limited partner in several limited partnerships were assets of the bankruptcy estate and the bankruptcy trustee had the power to sell them.
It should be pointed out that there are several reasons why a court may refuse to order foreclosure with respect to a limited partnership or LLC set up. Moreover, even if foreclosure is ordered, it still does not mean cheap Michael Kors that the creditor actually will get control of the assets within the entity. See Section V. B., above.
F. Asset Protection Structuring
With respect to the asset protection strategy and planning, relative to limited partnerships, it is important to understand that both the limited partner interest, as well as the controlling general partner interest, needs to be protected. In a limited partnership the general partner is personally michael kors outlet liable and does not have the charging order protection. Therefore, the general partner should have the smallest possible interest. But this interest also needs to be protected because if the creditor obtains control of the general partner interest, it can possibly order distribution of the assets to the creditor by dissolving the partnership. Accordingly, to protect both the general partner and the limited partner interest, it may be appropriate to form a corporation to act as the general partner and have an offshore asset protection trust hold the limited partner interest. Since the general partner makes all partnership decisions including the right to make or not make distributions and the right to dissolve the partnership, Cheap Michael Kors outlet it is important that the creditor of a limited partner not have the ability to gain control of the general partner. Therefore, normally, the transferor client should not be the general partner. It would seem that the best method of protecting the general partner interest is to form a new corporation, LLC or even another Limited Partnership and have it act as the general partner. Preferably, the client should not own the stock of the corporation general partner or the member interest of the LLC general partner. The general partner corporation can be domiciled in an offshore debtor friendly jurisdiction. An election can be made with the IRS to have the offshore corporation treated as a domestic entity in order to avoid negative foreign corporation tax consequences. It may be even possible to have a partnership of offshore corporations be the general partner so that a creditor would have to penetrate more than one offshore jurisdiction at the same time.Articles Connexes：
is too hard to track who is looking at my articles Premier White Nick Foligno Jersey Premier White David Savard Jersey and I have suffered because of that. Maybe it is what Men Brandon Dubinsky Jersey they want, I had my Facebook account before my Triond account, this whole set up is a complete and utter sick joke, my views have dropped, my comments have dropped. I spend half the time looking at my articles for comments to reciprocate if there are any, plus waiting for Facebook to finish doing its loading. Their Timeline is a complete farce, I like liking people articles and they then appear on that Timeline, it does give someone more publicity if people look at their articles via my Facebook page, which is a good thing, but the fact is if you like someone Triond profile that appears on there as well. I would prefer my Timeline to be free of peoples profiles here on Triond. Then at least there are only articles on there, we make money from our articles, not our profiles. Facebook could set it up so that a person receives an email if someone clicks to like their Triond profile, at