Legal Hypothetical - Opening a Gym (Not Really Going to Happen)

Started by alfred russel, December 16, 2019, 02:02:18 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Valmy

This seems like taking the "penny wise and pound foolish" error to a ridiculous extreme :hmm:
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

alfred russel

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2019, 03:28:43 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 16, 2019, 03:22:44 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2019, 03:17:23 PM

Not sure that is going to help you as an individual defendant.

Obviously I would be bankrupted.

And so your upside of not getting insurance is?

Well first, they would have to pierce the corporate veil or sue me directly in my capacity as a manager/owner. But the benefits would be to: 1) free the gym from one of the most significant operating expenses in the industry, and 2) free the gym from having to operate within the constraints of an insurance policy.

While no one wants to go bankrupt, that doesn't mean my assets would be wiped out: my retirement accounts would be safe, as would certain real estate. And of course assets already spent would be gone.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

alfred russel

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 16, 2019, 03:23:26 PM
Under English law there's an emerging doubt over whether group companies can limit tortious liability. And I also think for health and safety specifically parent company's can be liable for negligence by subsidiaries.

Also a consumer or quasi-consumer v a corporate is likely to get more generous and creative interpretation by the courts.

But this is nowhere near an area I know anything about.

These aren't group companies. They are separate companies owned by different individuals (in this hypothetical my brother).
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

mongers

You know what?

CdM would have something to say* about this thread.  :contract:



*by which I mean some well chosen and amusing abuse.
"We have it in our power to begin the world over again"

katmai

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son

crazy canuck

Quote from: alfred russel on December 16, 2019, 06:59:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2019, 03:28:43 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 16, 2019, 03:22:44 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2019, 03:17:23 PM

Not sure that is going to help you as an individual defendant.

Obviously I would be bankrupted.

And so your upside of not getting insurance is?

Well first, they would have to pierce the corporate veil or sue me directly in my capacity as a manager/owner. But the benefits would be to: 1) free the gym from one of the most significant operating expenses in the industry, and 2) free the gym from having to operate within the constraints of an insurance policy.

While no one wants to go bankrupt, that doesn't mean my assets would be wiped out: my retirement accounts would be safe, as would certain real estate. And of course assets already spent would be gone.

It may be obvious but I will say it anyway, you should definitely get legal advice from a good lawyer practicing in your jurisdiction.


Rasputin

You'd have risk  a,b, and c would be alter egos of each other and are in reality a single common enterprise.  I've been successful with this type of attack before. The test in Florida can be as simple as 'are you using the corporations for an improper purpose?" 

Further the scheme breaks down when you shut down company C and bring in company D to run the gym. Under the de facto merger doctrine, company D will be deemed to have assumed Company C's liabilities. Thus, at best you could run the gym right up until you have to shut down Company C for the first time.

Finally, for the scheme to have any shot, both leases will have to be at fair market value.  Its hard to imagine how the 7% sales tax on both fair market value leases (not to mentioning the added accounting and professional expenses for the scheme) will be substantially less expensive than the insurance would have been.

in short, this will not achieve your objective.
Who is John Galt?

grumbler

The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

Tamas

Quote from: Rasputin on December 17, 2019, 05:09:46 AM
You'd have risk  a,b, and c would be alter egos of each other and are in reality a single common enterprise.

That's alright he is pretty good at managing alteregos.

Rasputin

Quote from: grumbler on December 17, 2019, 06:19:31 AM
Great job teasing Rasputin out of lurkerdom, AR!  :D

I haven't been not lurking; I've just had a crazy busy two years that kept me away.
Who is John Galt?

alfred russel

Quote from: Rasputin on December 17, 2019, 05:09:46 AM
You'd have risk  a,b, and c would be alter egos of each other and are in reality a single common enterprise.  I've been successful with this type of attack before. The test in Florida can be as simple as 'are you using the corporations for an improper purpose?" 

Further the scheme breaks down when you shut down company C and bring in company D to run the gym. Under the de facto merger doctrine, company D will be deemed to have assumed Company C's liabilities. Thus, at best you could run the gym right up until you have to shut down Company C for the first time.

Finally, for the scheme to have any shot, both leases will have to be at fair market value.  Its hard to imagine how the 7% sales tax on both fair market value leases (not to mentioning the added accounting and professional expenses for the scheme) will be substantially less expensive than the insurance would have been.

in short, this will not achieve your objective.

Sales taxes in Georgia are only on tangible personal property--that won't be a problem.

The distinct nature of the corporations should be easy to demonstrate with different ownership groups and their different purposes (A and B being in the business of leasing property, C in the business of using leased property to run and manage a gym).

Agree that this works until company C has to shut down. That is the disaster scenario, but also is unlikely. Expected costs from liability insurance are obviously going to be more than the costs of not having insurance (otherwise insurance companies wouldn't be profitable - and they also have to take into account overhead and adjusting costs, plus unlikely but highly significant events). The main benefits to the legal structure, should company C be shut down through an uninsured liability lawsuit, are that the tangible property investments are protected from creditors.

To what extent a gym operates from the location and under what structure depends a bit on facts and circumstances. But:
-creditors taking over the gym operations will be problematic because they will lack both management and long term control over the property. New management will be reluctant to come in with parties related to the old gym controlling the property and the lease expiring.
-the old gym (company C) will be thoroughly bankrupted, but the property will still be set up for a climbing gym....
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

alfred russel

Opening a climbing gym is my dream in life, but it won't happen because dreams are things that only children believe can come true. Finding out that dreams don't happen is a milestone in growing up, sort of like learning that santa claus isn't real.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

crazy canuck

Quote from: alfred russel on December 17, 2019, 10:48:18 AM
Agree that this works until company C has to shut down. That is the disaster scenario, but also is unlikely.

Well I told you to get advice from a good lawyer from the jurisdiction.

As it turns out you got some advice from an exceptional lawyer - and you disagreed with it.

Barrister

Quote from: alfred russel on December 17, 2019, 11:04:39 AM
Opening a climbing gym is my dream in life, but it won't happen because dreams are things that only children believe can come true. Finding out that dreams don't happen is a milestone in growing up, sort of like learning that santa claus isn't real.

"Opening a climbing gym" isn't exactly a crazy dream.  It's not like my six year old saying he wants to be an astronaut and make movies when he grows up.

Rather than looking at it as a scam, why not look at it as a straight business proposition?  After all you said in your opening post:

Quote from: D4HClimbing has exploded in popularity, and gyms are getting absurdly crowded. At the same time, their insurance costs are supposedly obnoxiously high and going up (gyms are increasing prices, and attributing it to this, though I suspect it is more supply and demand).

Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.