The 2012 Amendments to Kentucky's Business Entity Statutes

This Online Original is available for download (PDF) here.

Article | 101 KY. L. J. ONLINE 1 | July 30, 2012

Thomas E. Rutledge

While the most significant alterations to Kentucky’s business entity laws enacted by the 2012 General Assembly were the adoption of the Kentucky Uniform Statutory Trust Act and the Kentucky Uniform Limited Cooperative Association Act, other changes were made to pre– existing statutes. Largely technical in nature, the amendments continue the effort in recent years to eliminate ambiguities and to provide consistent procedures. This article provides a thorough but concise overview of these latest changes to Kentucky's business entity laws. Topics  covered include:

  • Changes to the limited liability provisions of KyRUPA and KyULPA

  • Partial codification of the law of piercing the veil

  • Newly permitted conversion of an LLC to an LLP

  • Organic transactions with statutory trusts

  • The definition of "transacting business" for a foreign LLP

  • Consent to the jurisdiction of Kentucky Courts by directors, officers and managers

  • The effective date of judicial dissolution

  • Amendment filing requirements for limited partnerships

  • Preservation of limited liability after dissolution

  • Qualification to transact business for foreign entities seeking state contracts

  • Dissociation of LLC members

  • Elimination of the fairness defense for violations of the duty of loyalty in partnerships

  • The mythological limited liability corporation

Download the PDF

The 2012 Amendments to Kentucky's Business Entity Statutes

Citation

Thomas E. Rutledge, The 2012 Amendments to Kentucky's Business Entity Statutes, 101 Ky. L.J. Online 1 (2012), http://www.kentuckylawjournal.org/the-2012-amendments-to-kentuckys-business-entity-statutes.

Permanent Link

http://www.kentuckylawjournal.org/the-2012-amendments-to-kentuckys-business-entity-statutes

Constitutional v. Statutory Takings Protections: Is One Really Better Than the Other?

This Online Original is available for download (PDF) here.

Article | 100 KY. L. J. ONLINE 4 | June 16, 2012

Duane L. Ostler

A number of constitutional and statutory provisions constrain a “taking” at the state level in the United States. All states but one have specific takings protection language in their state bills or declarations of rights, modeled after the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, through the “incorporation doctrine” of the Fourteenth Amendment, federal takings protections of the Fifth Amendment are applied directly to state acts. Each state also has portions of its statute books devoted to eminent domain. Finally, the common law itself has been understood to provide basic takings protections, from the days of the Founding Fathers. The importance of these multiple levels of takings protections is rarely questioned. Federal and state constitutional and statutory takings protections are clearly assumed as the best way to deal with government appropriations of private property, with the emphasis on constitutional protections as construed by the courts.  These are considered the highest level of protections and trump any statutory or common law protections. And as regulatory takings have assumed prominence in modern times, constitutionally based takings law has become the tool to identify the existence and scope of such takings. But what if it were not so? What if there were no constitutional protections that applied to state takings at all? What if state legislation and the common law were all that protected private property owners faced with an expropriation? Would private property be any less secure? Would property owners fear for their rights? Would current approaches to regulatory takings be the same? In short, are the constitutional protections really necessary? Would the realm of regulatory takings be less difficult if the constitution were not the tool to identify them? This article addresses these questions. Rather than speculate about the consequences of having no constitutional takings protections, however, the article contrasts the constitutional takings protections in the United States with those in Australia, a similar country in which there are indeed no constitutional takings protections at the state level at all. Part One briefly traces the formation of constitutions in the United States and Australia, and examines why specific constitutional takings language was adopted in 49 of the 50 American states, but not in any of the Australian states. Part Two contrasts eminent domain legislation in both countries to see the extent of protections that private citizens enjoy, with particular emphasis on regulatory takings. As this part demonstrates, in a country without constitutional takings protections, physical and regulatory takings tend to be seen as legislative functions and more statutes tend to be enacted to cover such cases. Accordingly, protections still exist for such takings. Indeed, legislatures often prove surprisingly adept at addressing regulatory taking questions. This suggests that constitutional takings protections may be less essential than is often thought. However, constitutional takings protections still present an obvious benefit where statutes fail to provide an adequate remedy in a regulatory case. The question becomes one of balance between court-applied regulatory takings law and legislatively enacted regulatory takings laws. The increasing number of American state regulatory takings statutes suggests a shift in oversight of regulatory takings from the judiciary to the legislature. If this trend continues, constitutional takings protections may soon be seen primarily as a “backup,” to be used only where the legislature fails to adequately address a regulatory taking situation.

Download the PDF

Constitutional v. Statutory Takings Protections: Is One Really Better Than the Other?

Citation

Duane L. Ostler, Constitutional v. Statutory Takings Protections: Is One Really Better Than the Other?, 100 Ky. L.J. Online 45 (2012), http://kentuckylawjournal.org/online-originals-2/constitutional-v-statutory-takings.

Permanent Link

http://kentuckylawjournal.org/online-originals-2/constitutional-v-statutory-takings

Open for Business in a Bad Economy: Improving Federal Assistance to Small Business

This Online Original is available for download (PDF) here.

Article | 100 KY. L. J. ONLINE 4 | Mar. 1, 2012

By Jim R. Moye

Recent news shows that small businesses may be rebounding after an increase in consumer demand:

A poll last month conducted by the University of Michigan revealed that 58 percent of small business CEOs expect the economy to improve this year, while just 5 percent expect further declines. That was the most favorable outlook for economic growth since 2004, based on prior results of the quarterly survey of more than 1,700 small business chief executives. The poll, sponsored by Visage International Inc., also showed for the first time in three years that a majority of small businesses — 54 percent — planned to add employees to handle increased sales.

Ted is an experienced, high-performing satellite salesman. Over the last ten years, he has sold satellite dishes to commercial and personal customers. After talking to a number of customers, distributors and others, he concluded he could distribute satellite dishes cheaper than the company he works for and expand into other areas of satellite development. Ted does not have a business plan, financial support, employees or even the least bit of knowledge on how to develop those requirements. All Ted knows is that he has an idea, backed by his ten years of experience in the business and a fundamental understanding of the satellite industry.Ted is like so many Americans attempting to live out the American dream by becoming a business owner. Since the economic collapse in 2008, however, the dream has become even harder to achieve. Most experts agree any economic recovery must start with small businesses, as they are the most likely to spur job growth. While the federal government expends billions of dollars each year on small business development and still billions more on federal contracting, small business growth is essentially stagnant. Need proof of this disconnect? Consider three different situations, which spurred massive government spending, and the impact they had on small businesses.First, to stave off a complete collapse of the American economy, the U.S. government passed various legislation, including the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). ARRA allowed the Federal Government to spend over $787 billion to stabilize the American economy. Of that total sum, $274 billion of which was set aside for federal contracts, grants and loans. As of June 2011, $42,410,094,497 has been made specifically available for contracts. As part of this effort, the United States Small Business Administration was allocated $730 million to stabilize and attempt to stimulate small businesses. There is no evidence this $730 million allocation had a significant impact on small business growth and development during the crisis.Second, the United States has been involved in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Federal government total spending has exceeded $1 trillion dollars. From 2004 through 2006, the Federal Government spent $11 billion, $17 billion and $25 billion, respectively, on contracting in Afghanistan and Iraq. While large defense contractors grew exponentially behind these efforts, there is no evidence small business growth or development was impacted. In fact, the only discernible impact for small business was the training made available to war veterans who wanted to start their own businesses.Third, on August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina, considered one of the worst natural disasters in American history, made landfall in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico region. Hurricane Katrina, a Category 4 Storm, displaced thousands of people in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama and caused over $2 billion in damages. To assist in the reconstruction of the region, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), part of the Department of Homeland Security, distributed over $33 billion by late 2007. FEMA awarded $8.8 billion in contracts related to hurricane damage, mostly for Katrina victims. Subsequent to Hurricane Katrina, to meet the emergent need, FEMA awarded four no-bid contracts, which eventually totaled $3 billion. In all the contracts awarded, again, small businesses were left out. In fact, a probe conducted by the Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General noted that contracts were awarded to companies that were allegedly small and local, but there was no evidence these companies actually even met the criteria.While there have been billions of dollars spent by the federal government in the situations described above, small business growth and development has continued to lag. Many experts agree the only way the economy can rebound from the constant barrage of events over the last five years is to bolster the small business community, which in turn will create more jobs. With that in mind, and with so many federal government contracting opportunities available, the United States Small Business Administration’s (“SBA”) outreach and assistance to the small business community takes on new importance. There is a range of programs offered through the SBA to support small businesses, including certification, funding, mentoring and educational opportunities. The SBA opines there are 27.5 million small businesses in the United States. However, with the current state of the economy, and with so many contracting opportunities available, how much progress is being made with small businesses? How can the government stabilize this important sector of the business world, even as it looks to tighter budgets over the next few years?This Article explores what options are available to the Federal Government in its quest to improve the economy and create new jobs through the small businesses community. Part I examines the Small Business Act of 1953 , which laid the framework for the current, federal support meachanisms for small business. Part II analyzes the federal government’s most current major initiative to create jobs, which is the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. Part III reviews the Federal Acquisition Regulation and the applicable regulations governing small business. Part IV makes legislative and policy recommendations to improve, and actually enhance, small business participation in federal contracting. This analysis concludes that the time is right, for the economy and the Federal Government, to provide greater support for small businesses. Further, this discussion concludes that with adjustments to law and policy, the SBA’s programs can actually reach those businesses that need help the most.

Download the PDF

Open for Business in a Bad Economy: Improving Federal Assistance to Small Business

Citation

Jim R. Moye, Open for Business in a Bad Economy: Improving Federal Assistance to Small Business, 100 Ky. L.J. Online 29 (2011), http://kentuckylawjournal.org/online-originals-2/open-for-business.

Permanent Link

http://kentuckylawjournal.org/online-originals-2/open-for-business

Chapman v. Regional Radiology Associates, PLLC: A Case Study in the Consequences of Resignation

This Online Original is available for download (PDF) here.

Article | 100 KY. L. J. ONLINE 2 | Jan. 17, 2012

Thomas E. Rutledge

The decision of the Kentucky Court of Appeals in Chapman v. Regional Radiology Associates, PLLC is a helpful, but still not complete, review of the implications of resigning from an LLC absent a binding agreement as to the consequences that will follow therefrom. Cyrus Chapman, a physician, was an employee of Regional Radiology Associates, PLLC, a Kentucky limited liability company (hereinafter “RRA”). At that time, Rosemary Shiben was the sole member and manager of RRA. After a year’s employment, there were discussions as to Chapman becoming a member of the LLC, but those discussions were never memorialized in a written operating agreement. While Chapman tendered $10,000 as his initial capital contribution, those funds were returned because the terms of the buy-in were still under discussion. Still, beginning on January 1, 2003, Chapman was treated as a member. His prior salary was reduced and recharacterized as a guaranteed payment and the tax reports stated him to be a 40% member. For the full years that Chapman was a member, he received his guaranteed payment as well as a distribution of 40% of company earnings. In January 2006, Chapman gave notice that he was leaving the practice, working only intermittently from that date through April 14, 2006, and thereafter entirely leaving RRA. Through April 14, Chapman continued to receive his guaranteed payment. He requested, coincident with his departure, an additional distribution from RRA based upon his status as a former member. No agreement was reached on that point. Eventually RRA filed a declaratory judgment action, in which Chapman counterclaimed seeking a determination as to the amount of net income and accounts receivable due to Chapman.

Download the PDF

Chapman v. Regional Radiology Associates, PLLC: A Case Study in the Consequences of Resignation

Citation

Thomas E. Rutledge, Chapman v. Regional Radiology Associates, PLLC: A Case Study in the Consequences of Resignation, 100 Ky. L.J. Online 15 (2011), http://kentuckylawjournal.org/online-originals-2/chapman-v-regional/.

Permanent Link

http://kentuckylawjournal.org/online-originals-2/chapman-v-regional/

The Legality of Assessing Court Costs Against Kentucky's Indigent Criminals

This Online Original is available for download (PDF) here.

Article | 100 KY. L. J. ONLINE 1 | Jan. 10, 2012

Hon. Craig Z. Clymer and Kristen Worak

The Department of Public Advocacy is responsible for providing legal representation to indigent persons charged with crimes in Kentucky. For years, statutes designed to provide adequate funding for the DPA through recoupment of attorney’s fees from indigent defendants have been in place. The Kentucky Supreme Court has, however, misinterpreted statutes designed to recoup DPA costs from its defendant clients. As explained in this article, the current statutes are designed for courts to require indigent defendants to repay all or a portion of their attorney fees, services, and court costs, but the Kentucky Supreme Court has negated the legislative intent by holding that these statutes instead prohibit courts from collecting funds. The legal result is that Kentucky courts are enforcing statutes in a manner directly opposite to legislative intent. The practical result is that indigent defendants are not receiving the legal representation to which they are entitled.

Download the PDF

The Legality of Assessing Court Costs Against Kentucky's Indigent Criminals

Citation

Hon. Craig Z. Clymer and Kristen Worak, The Legality of Assessing Court Costs Against Kentucky's Indigent Criminals, 100 Ky. L.J. Online 1 (2011), http://kentuckylawjournal.org/online-originals-2/indigent-court-costs/.

Permanent Link

http://kentuckylawjournal.org/online-originals-2/indigent-court-costs/

An Examination of the Charging Order Under Kentucky’s LLC and Partnership Acts

This Online Original is available for download (PDF) here (part 1) and here (part 2).

Article | 99 KY. L. J. ONLINE 5 | Nov. 3, 2011

Thomas E. Rutledge & Sarah Sloan Wilson

The rise of the LLC and the recent modernizations of partnership law have contributed to the greater use of charging orders. In addition, the recent economic downturn and the need to collect on judgments have prompted a flurry of interest in charging orders. Consequently, attorneys advising creditors or debtors, as well as the courts issuing and implementing charging orders, need to understand this chimerical remedy. Part I of this Article focuses on state-law issues incident to the charging order, while Part II is devoted to the charging order in other areas of law such as taxation, bankruptcy, and conflicts. In the first section of Part I, the authors state the law of charging orders generally. The second section discusses the reach of the charging order, including the rule of exclusivity and the existence of exemption laws. Finally, section three reviews the implications of the charging order procedure for the parties involved, as well as the company itself.

Download the PDF

An Examination of the Charging Order Under Kentucky’s LLC and Partnership Acts (pt. I) An Examination of the Charging Order Under Kentucky's LLC and Partnership Acts (pt. II)

Citation

Thomas E. Rutledge & Sarah Sloan Wilson, An Examination of the Charging Order Under Kentucky’s LLC and Partnership Acts (pt. I), 99 Ky.L.J. Online 85, http://kentuckylawjournal.org/online-originals-2/charging-orders/. Thomas E. Rutledge & Sarah Sloan Wilson, An Examination of the Charging Order Under Kentucky's LLC and Partnership Acts (pt. II), 99 Ky.L.J. Online 107, http://kentuckylawjournal.org/online-originals-2/charging-orders/.

Permanent Link

http://kentuckylawjournal.org/online-originals-2/charging-orders/

The Impending End of Jural Rights in Kentucky

This Online Original is available for download (PDF) here.

Article | 99 KY. L. J. ONLINE 4 | Nov. 3, 2011

Greg N. Stivers & Scott D. Laufenberg

The jural rights doctrine is a part of the lexicon of Kentucky jurisprudence that many lawyers have heard of but do not fully understand. More significantly, many may not appreciate the genesis of the doctrine, its impact on Kentucky law, and the effect its abolition would have on Kentucky law. Based upon the Supreme Court of Kentucky’s recent decision in Caneyville Volunteer Fire Department v. Green’s Motorcycle Salvage, Inc., in which a plurality of the court supported abandonment of the jural rights doctrine, the doctrine’s days appear to be numbered.

Download the PDF

The Impending End of Jural Rights in Kentucky

Citation

Greg N. Stivers & Scott D. Laufenberg, The Impending End of the Jural Rights Doctrine in Kentucky Jurisprudence, 99 Ky. L.J. Online 50 (2011), http://kentuckylawjournal.org/online-originals-2/end-of-jural-rights/.

Permanent Link

http://kentuckylawjournal.org/online-originals-2/end-of-jural-rights/

Adverse Domination: Tolling the Statute of Limitations in Kentucky Business Organizations

This Online Original is available for download (PDF) here (part 1) and here (part 2).

Article | 99 KY. L. J. ONLINE 3 | Oct. 27, 2011

Mary C. Garris

The doctrine of adverse domination provides that the statute of limitations within which a corporation may bring an action against wrongdoing directors is tolled while those wrongdoers are in control of the corporation. In Wilson v. Paine, a case of first impression, the Supreme Court of Kentucky held that the doctrine of adverse domination would apply to toll the two-year statute of limitations applicable to claims by a corporate plaintiff against directors to recover an impermissible dividend. After an examination of Wilson and a brief review of the rules governing corporate dividends, including the liability imposed upon directors for dividends improperly declared, this Article turns to other issues of corporate and business entity law to which the doctrine may be applied. Specifically, this Article analyzes the possibility of applying adverse domination to the statute of limitations applicable to distribution statutes for other entity forms, as well as applying the doctrine to toll general statutes of limitations. Finally, this Article addresses the use of the doctrine to hold third parties liable where their actions aided the concealment of the directors’ wrongdoing.

Download the PDF

Adverse Domination--Tolling the Statute of Limitations in Kentucky Business Organizations (pt. I)

Citation

Mary C. Garris, Adverse Domination—Tolling the Statute of Limitations in Kentucky Business Organizations (pt. I), 99 Ky.L.J. Online 36 (2011), http://kentuckylawjournal.org/online-originals-2/adverse-domination-pt1/

Permanent Link

http://kentuckylawjournal.org/online-originals-2/adverse-domination-pt1/

Carbon Capture and Storage: Seven Unanswered Questions

This Online Original is available for download (PDF) here.

Article | 99 KY. L. J. ONLINE 2 | Oct. 14, 2011

by David S. Samford

The current level of uncertainty relating to the generation of electricity calls to mind the early struggles between Westinghouse’s alternating current and Thomas Edison’s direct current for industry dominance and the tumultuous conflict between Samuel Insull and the Roosevelt Administration over the 1935 passage of the Public Utility Holding Company Act. Not since the Three Mile Island incident has such a pall hung over as large a segment of the utility industry. Without question, the dominant energy policy question in Washington today is whether a price will be attached to the emission of carbon dioxide (“CO2”). While the policy considerations inherent in that question apply with equal force to both automobile tailpipes and industrial smokestacks, the power industry has been singled out for the greatest regulatory scrutiny. If a price is affixed to carbon emissions, the electric utility industry will be forced to adapt. A leading assumption is that electric utilities operating in a carbon constrained environment will either abandon the use of coal as a primary fuel in electricity generation or engage in a process known as carbon capture and storage (“CCS”), in which carbon emissions are captured as part of the electricity generation process, transported through a pipeline, and subsequently injected and stored within the voids (“pore space”) of large underground geologic formations. The prospect of CCS as a means to continue the widespread combustion of coal in an electric generation process raises a host of technical, financial, and legal issues. These issues have been the subject of frequent discussion both in Washington and in Frankfort for several years. As of yet, however, no prevailing consensus has emerged in either capital as to how CCS should be implemented in the event that CO2 emissions are regulated.

Download the PDF

Carbon Capture and Storage: Seven Unanswered Questions

Citation

David S. Samford, Carbon Capture and Storage—Seven Unanswered Questions, 99 Ky. L.J. Online 23 (2011), http://kentuckylawjournal.org/online-originals-2/carbon-capture/.

Permanent Link

http://kentuckylawjournal.org/online-originals-2/carbon-capture/

The Kentucky Condominium Act

This Online Original is available for download (PDF) here (part 1) and here (part 2).

Article | 99 KY. L. J. ONLINE 1 | Oct. 11, 2011

Scott W. Brinkman

This two-part article summarizes the Kentucky Condominium Act and highlights important aspects of the Act. The Kentucky Condominium Act, which was signed into law by Governor Beshear on April 8, 2010 and has an effective date of January 1, 2011, broadly re-writes Kentucky law governing the condominium form of ownership to create more certainty and clarity with respect to the rights, duties, and obligations of developers of condominiums, unit owners within condominiums, associations that own the common elements of a condominium, and the members and officers of the executive board of the association charged with the responsibility to enforce the rights and discharge the duties of the association. The Act strikes a balance between creating more clarity, transparency, and accountability among the various stakeholders in a condominium project without creating an overly burdensome legislative structure that results in the discouragement of this type of real property ownership.

Download the PDF

The Kentucky Condominium Act, Pt. 1

Citation

Scott W. Brinkman, The Kentucky Condominum Act (Pt. 1), 99 Ky.L.J. Online 1 (2011), http://kentuckylawjournal.org/online-originals-2/kentucky-condo-act-pt1/

Permalink

http://kentuckylawjournal.com/online-originals-2/kentucky-condo-act-pt1/