[asterisk-users] World Cheapest Predictive Dialer!

[Alex Balashov]

Is there a contradiction between them?

Steve Totaro wrote:
> Your original quote that was conveniently snipped....
> 
> "I'm quite certain this is already obvious and will simply be interpreted
> as a tautological affirmation of the obvious, but such co-mingling of
> personal and business assets -- whether with an evidently fraudalent
> purpose or not as such -- will generally not survive the "test of
> reasonableness" that must be satisfied for corporate liability to not be
> pierced.
> 
> In other words, if you simply pay for your house in this manner, and
> then you declare bankruptcy or are sued by creditors or whatever, the
> courts will scavenge this sort of thing up as evidence that your
> corporate entity is a financial alter-ego to whatever degree, and
> declare that your house is actually, de facto, a personal asset and can
> be included in the asset classes potentially awarded by judgments to the
> plaintiffs."
> 
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Alex Balashov
> <abalashov at evaristesys.com> wrote:
>> Steve Totaro wrote:
>>
>>> It is a legitimate real estate company renting you a place to live.
>>> This asset protection tactic has been around for a very long time and
>>> is legit.  Totally separate entities.
>> Well, certainly, and some of the time this asset protection tactic works
>> -- somewhat, but not exclusively covariantly with the degree to which
>> the real estate company is truly legitimate (i.e. operates in that
>> business), and not just an obvious asset shell.
>>
>> However, as with all shell games and formal gimmicks, they sometimes
>> don't work.  If it can be shown that the other company's basis of
>> existence lies materially in securing your assets and little more, the
>> assets it is meant to protect can lose their shielding.
>>
>> If I own a big house and a nice yacht and various other accoutrements of
>> high executive life and move them into an asset shell company and then
>> bankrupt my primary company, or the company becomes liable for damages
>> (due, in substance, to my actions) that cannot be collected without
>> liquidating it, and the financial picture is bleak, people are getting
>> laid off, foreclosures and garnishments and liens are being opened, and
>> the court finds that I'm sitting on an enourmous pile of lavish personal
>> assets owned by another company for the explicitly identifiable purpose
>> of insulating them from the consequences of the aforementioned
>> situation, there is the very real risk that they court will expose those
>> assets to liquidation as well.  It can and does happen.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alex Balashov
>> Evariste Systems
>> Web    : http://www.evaristesys.com/
>> Tel    : (+1) (678) 954-0670
>> Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
>> Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599
>>
> 
> Quite a different tone from your original reply at the top of the
> thread, you must have done some homework before replying this time.
> You also changed the original scenario quite a bit to try to improve
> your side of the debate by adding yachts and "various other
> accouterments (edited for spelling) of high executive life"
> 
> Here is some more reading for your pleasure
> http://www.nevada123.com/learning-center/cat/18
> 
> Obviously, there are much more complex and virtually untouchable ways
> to protect assets but I will not go into them until you are ready,
> this is just a 100 class, the 400 class costs a bit and a Masters is
> considerably higher since only the really wealthy need to utilize the
> tactics (not a commercial plug).
> 
> Thanks,
> Steve Totaro
> 
> _______________________________________________
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
> 
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users


-- 
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web    : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel    : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599