[CCWG-ACCT] member organization and single membership structure
nigel at channelisles.net
Fri Jul 10 08:58:52 UTC 2015
I think what I'm looking to see is there, sort of. That's what the
double negative means
It comes across to me as rather weaker than the European idea of limited
What it seems to be saying is, that if you are a member of an
association, you are not liable unless the Claimant ("Plaintiff" in
archaic) can show some additional reason why you should be.
English (for example) associations and corporations explicitly state
"the liability of the Members is Limited". No ifs/buts.
So we are somewhere towards where I'd expect to be, but I don't see why
you'd prefer to choose the tin version over the gold one.
On 09/07/15 18:24, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote:
> Thank you
> With regard to liability, members, officers and agents are
> not individually or personally liable for the association's
> debts or liabilities on the sole basis of their relationship
> with the association.
> At present, the individuals bear personal liability for
> their actions. If the association were to be disregarded,
> they would still have the same personal liability for their
> actions. Thus, organizing the participants into an
> unincorporated association under California law would not
> make the participants worse off.
> Never mind the double qualification in the first paragraph, this
> does not address liability (by UA members) for the UA's actions.
> Or am I missing something here?
> On 2015-07-09 17:23, James Gannon wrote:
>> I believe it was in the revised memo on unincorporated associations
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community