October 21, 2014

Jim Thomas: Required Report Deception Aimed at Colorado Businesses

A scam filled my mailbox today. Not my email inbox, mind you, but my good, old-fashioned U.S. Mail box. If you are a registered agent for an entity doing business in Colorado, chances are you got the same letter from “Corporate Controllers Unit.”

Part of the stack that showed up.

The letter isn’t a bad recitation of the law concerning the “periodic reports” (formerly “annual reports”) required of corporations, limited liability companies, partnerships, and other entities doing business in Colorado, and the adverse consequences that follow when the report isn’t made. The problem is that the letter, if not carefully read, might have you (well not you, you are a careful reader, right?) believe that you have to send $225 to this outfit in order to prevent the list of bad things from happening. You do not; in fact, you can do it yourself, online, for as little as $10.

Here's one addressed to my law firm.

 

An alert about this letter published by Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler can be found here.

The great irony of the this snail mail deception is that it comes just as the Colorado Secretary of State is discontinuing it’s own system of providing post card reminders of the need to file periodic reports. In a recent post I reminded business owners to subscribe to the Secretary of State’s new email alert system. Not only will you get an email reminding you to go online and make your periodic report, the Secretary of State will also advise you to any changes being made to your online business records. Other scammers, the internet kind, have been taking advantage of businesses that way. Be smart, read carefully, and protect your business.

Jim Thomas blogs at No Funny Lawyers and this post originally appeared there on April 4, 2011. Click here to read all posts by this author. 

Click here for more Business Law Updates.

Office of Dispute Resolution Opens Statewide Application Period for Contract Mediators

The Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR) in the State Court Administrator’s Office has opened a statewide application period for new and renewing contract mediators. Applications are available on the ODR website and will be accepted through April 25, 2011.

Previously, applications for contract mediators were accepted on an as-needed basis. The change to an application period instead is part of an ongoing reorganization and is necessary to help the office measure the effectiveness of its dispute resolution programs. It also brings the ODR’s contract process in line with similar contracting processes implemented by other agencies within the Colorado Judicial Department.

As part of the change, ODR is developing a central online database where contract mediators will enter demographic and outcome information for every case handled by the office.

ODR was created by the Colorado Dispute Resolution Act in 1983. The office’s mission is to establish or make available dispute resolution programs and related services throughout the state, as designated by the chief justice of the Colorado Supreme Court.

For more information, visit the ODR website or contact Bill Delisio, ODR Acting Director, or Holly Panetta, ODR Project Manager, at (303) 861-1111.

Governor Hickenlooper Signs Two More Bills into Law

Last week, two more bills reached Governor John Hickenlooper’s desk and were signed into law. The bills were the tenth group to emerge from the 2011 General Assembly.

  • HB 11-1210
    • Sponsored by Rep. Hamner and Sen. Nicholson. Requirement that the Department of Transportation Present to the General Assembly Short Term Measures to Improve Mobility on I-70.
  • HB 11-1151
    • Sponsored by Rep. Hamner and Sen. Nicholson. Defining the Term “Service Animal” and there within the Regulations for Treatment.

For a complete list of Governor Hickenlooper’s 2011 legislation decisions click here.

Tenth Circuit: Opinions, 4/1/11

The Tenth Circuit on Friday issued one published opinion and four unpublished opinions.

Published

In Krause v. Krause, the Court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision. Petitioner was found to have avoided tax obligations to the IRS by moving money to a sham company and then destroying records that might have revealed the company’s true identity; additionally, Petitioner transferred assets to his “children’s trusts” only to use the funds to pay for his personal, expensive lifestyle. The Court found that in Kansas, as in most states, a debtor cannot evade his creditors by fraudulently conveying his property to someone else; Petitioner’s fraud is unmistakeable in the facts. However, Petitioner argues then that the decision must be reversed because recovery lies in reverse veil piercing, so far an unsupported doctrine in Kansas courts; “in a reverse veil piercing case, a court permits a creditor to recover a debt from the assets of a corporation determined to be the alter ego of an individual debtor, the two being so intermixed as to be essentially indistinguishable.” However, the decision of the bankruptcy court found Petitioner liable as either the alter ego or the nominee; therefore, as Petitioner has been shown to be a fraudulent nominee in the trusts, the veil piercing/alter ego argument does not prevent the enforceability of the judgment.

Unpublished

United States v. Markham

Valero-Avendano v. Holder, Jr.

Jim’s Maintenance & Sons, Inc. v. Target Corp.

Munoz v. Bravo