"McGyver" <Greyprof@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:7eghi.114$Of2.60@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [NFB] <neil_delver@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:138aipcr4m6vg9f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "McGyver" <Greyprof@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:5Ebhi.33$fw2.25@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> "Freddie B." <paradoxer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:138a6ohrm0qnqce@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> I bought a few thousand shares from a company here in VA in 2004. The
>>>> company was administratively terminated in April '04, and hence "It
>>>> does
>>>> not exist." (I am a bit naive, and didn't check the SSC web site
until
>>>> recently.) Well, their CEO already borrowed money from me under
their
>>>> name on a contract after that termination, and went around
representing
>>>> it as a cor****ation, etc. - and still does! I just got an investor
>>>> update type letter, offering if I want to convert what they owe me
into
>>>> shares! Well, they say they are trying to get reinstated in a few
weeks
>>>> (do they have to pay all the back years of fees?) but, the nerve! I
>>>> already know it is a Class I Misdemeanor in VA to act as if a
>>>> cor****ation
>>>> if not one, but: what additional laws are involved here? Most
>>>> im****tant,
>>>> they still owe me lots of overdue money (from loans, additional to
>>>> their
>>>> "shares" I still hold), so what extra legal punch can I get from this
>>>> status issue if I sue the officer/s? (Note I didn't say "sue the
>>>> company", since it doesn't exist! I have to sue some kind of legal
>>>> person, right?)
>>>
>>> First, sue the company for payment of all debts. It is backwards to
say
>>> you can't sue the company because it doesn't exist. The right way to
>>> look
>>> at the situation is that the company cannot defend itself from your
>>> lawsuit. Nobody is authorized to act on behalf of the company, so
nobody
>>> is authorized to hire an attorney to represent the company, and nobody
>>> is
>>> authorized to enter any answer to your complaint. So if you raise all
>>> of
>>> the proper objections at the right time you will win a default
judgment.
>>>
>>> Second, and after: (a) you have the default judgment on the company,
(b)
>>> the company's period for appeal has passed, (c) in a separate lawsuit,
>>> go
>>> after the officers, directors and shareholders of the company. They
can
>>> be held responsible for all debts of the cor****ation because they
don't
>>> have a valid cor****ate veil to protect them.
>>>
>>> Third, sue the person who obtained money from you after the
cor****ation
>>> had been administratively terminated. The lawsuit is for fraud among
>>> other things. The fraud is in representing to you that there was a
>>> cor****ation in existence that had the right to sell shares and/or
incur
>>> debt.
>>>
>>> Use an attorney for all of the above, because there are subtleties in
>>> the
>>> procedures and the timing of the three lawsuits. The fraud cause of
>>> action has the potential for punitive damages, so there is a potential
>>> for
>>> recovery of enough money to cover your legal fees.
....
>>> McGyver
>>>
>> McGyver, thanks!
>> You are as cool as the TV character of almost the same name ...
>
> You are right, of course. I am exceedingly cool.
>
>> BTW they are trying to re-form, but if I file the first suit right
away,
>> aren't they still liable for what they already did before, even if they
>> "get
>> back inside" the renewed cor****ation?
>
> If the company gets reinstated then they are free to answer your
> complaint. But then you win in the regular way, at trial, and not by
> default. The officer who defrauded you is still liabile for fraud even
if
> the company gets reinstated. But the problem will be that the officer
> will claim he told you that the company was tem****arilly out of status
but
> that plans were in place to obtain reinstatment and that you agreed to
go
> ahead with the deal anyway.
>
> This answer must not be relied on as legal advice for the reasons posted
>>> here: http://mcgyverdisclaimer.blogspot.com
. And I am not your
>>> attorney.
>>>
>>> McGyver
>
Ok, but I still don't get "who" to file against per the non-existent
company
itself. Can you say, Me v. Companyname in a lawsuit, even if "it doesn't
exist" as the guy answering the SCC info line told me? Precedent? Links?
Thanks again.
|
