(06-16-2017 07:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-16-2017 07:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Like most words, it can have multiple meanings, some more broad and some more specific.

Some correct and some not. Those definitions are not.

Quote:And how is the LLC definition wrong?

It's not a corporate structure. It can have a corporate structure, or a partnership structure, or even no structure at all. It's usually treated as a partnership for state law purposes.

I've already pointed out what's wrong with the corporation definition. That could be describing a partnership (under modern law, although not common law) or any of several forms of organization. The one thing about it that I find correct is that by recognizing the inherent personhood of a corporation at law, it blows apart the idea that Citizens United is where we got the idea that a corporation is a person. It is this personhood that gives rise to the limitation of liability. ETA: The person part would actually eliminate partnerships, at least in part, because they are treated as entities for some purposes but as aggregates for others. In particular, they are treated as aggregates for lawsuit purposes, making every partner liable (except for limited partnerships and some other special forms recognized in various state laws). The person language would not eliminate LLCs, which are treated as corporations for tax and litigation, but as aggregates for other purposes (such as domicile for litigation purposes, which can be one problem with LLCs). See, I can misspeak too, but I can correct mine in less than six months.

Dubbed-down definitions may be fine for ordinary conversation (I happen to think they are not, but I'm not the final word on that). But if you're going to spend six months researching what is supposed to be an authoritative article, I expect you at least to get the basic definitions right.

You give me those definitions in my b-law class, and you're getting a zero.

As an aside, if you are going to write a pointed and edgy piece on conflicts of interest regarding specific nuanced and specifically named entity types, at least try not to make a fundamental error in describing those entities.

This is akin to a writing a piece on the Bakken formation and describing that formation as oil-bearing granite. To any person having any background in the specialty area, that would mark the author as simply not knowing much about the subject matter.