Koffsky Schwalb LLC
  • Home
  • Attorneys
    • Mark I. Koffsky
    • Efrem Schwalb
    • Gary Serbin
    • Steven A. Weg
    • Daniel E. Baron
    • Tal S. Benschar
  • Practice Areas
    • Business Law
    • Civil Litigation
    • Intellectual Property
    • Employment Law
    • Real Estate
  • Blog
  • Contact
Phone: (646) 553-1590 | Fax: (646) 553-1591

Beyond The Legalese

Court Decision Highlights Difficulty in Collecting Debt From a Closely-Held Business Without a Personal Guaranty

11/25/2014

0 Comments

 
Image credit: http://taxcredits.net/
When a business fails, creditors that have contracted with that business that are owed money often try to recover their debt from any source they can. Recently the Commercial Division of the New York County Supreme Court issued an important decision thwarting a creditor’s attempt to collect a debt from entities or individuals with whom it was not in direct contractual privity.  In American Media Inc. v. Bainbridge & Knight Laboratories LLC, the plaintiff creditor sought to recover a debt against an individual who was the owner, chief executive officer, president, chairman, secretary, treasurer and director of the company that contracted for $1.3 million in advertising services.

After the company defaulted, the plaintiff sued the individual under alter ego, fraud and debtor/creditor law theories.  On September 19, 2014, the court granted the individual defendant’s motion to dismiss, reasoning that an officer is not individually liable for the debt of his company even though he made decisions for the company that caused the company to be unable to pay its debt. The Court held that conclusory allegations that the corporate form is a “sham” could not overcome a motion to dismiss and do not warrant any discovery.

Creditors can avoid this issue by making sure they obtain a personal guaranty from the owner of closely-held businesses with whom they provide advanced payments for services.  If the owner is unwilling to provide such a guaranty, that is a red flag that should be carefully evaluated before making any advanced payments.

The decision of the Commercial Division in this case is on appeal.

0 Comments



Leave a Reply.



    Categories

    All
    Civil Procedure
    Constitutional Law
    Copyright
    Corporate
    Employment Law
    International
    Internet
    Litigation
    Media
    Patent
    Privacy
    Real Estate
    Software
    Tax Law
    Trademark


    Archives

    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    November 2015
    October 2015
    July 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    September 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013

    RSS Feed

     349 Fifth Avenue | Suite 733 | New York, NY 10016 | T: 646.553.1590
  Attorney Advertising | Legal Notices | Privacy Policy
Proudly powered by Weebly