DebraH3
Posts: 1
Posts: 1
Posted:
I have recently became President of my HOA and the Assistant Treasure has indicated that she recently filed Bankrupt, can she still serve on the Board?
💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.
Create Free Account →
⚡ Takes 30 seconds
Already a member? Log in
RichardP13
Posts: 3,836
Posts: 3,836
Posted:
If they are still qualified under you governing documents and/or state statues, then yes. Last I checked, while not good, it wasn't considered a felony. Would I have them as a assistant treasure, maybe not, but that is a Board decision.
TimB4 (Virginia)
Posts: 21,004
Posts: 21,004
Posted:
Debra,
I see no problem with the individual still serving on the Board.
However, if it were me, I would remove any temptation by removing them from the assistant treasurer position unless they have zero access to any funds.
I see no problem with the individual still serving on the Board.
However, if it were me, I would remove any temptation by removing them from the assistant treasurer position unless they have zero access to any funds.
JonD1
Posts: 2,310
Posts: 2,310
Posted:
One of the biggest problems I have encountered while serving as a board member are those board members unable to manage their own finances now believing they have the ability to handle those of the entire community.
How could that ever be possible. Bad decision making, wasteful spending, lack of knowledge regarding finances and costs, ignorance as to costs, inability to make any effort to reduce and control costs.
I would rather not have someone handling finances who cannot successfully manage their own. Their ability to make fundamentally sound financial choices is clearly in doubt. And although it may be permissible someone is such a position would not be my first choice as a serving board member.
How could that ever be possible. Bad decision making, wasteful spending, lack of knowledge regarding finances and costs, ignorance as to costs, inability to make any effort to reduce and control costs.
I would rather not have someone handling finances who cannot successfully manage their own. Their ability to make fundamentally sound financial choices is clearly in doubt. And although it may be permissible someone is such a position would not be my first choice as a serving board member.
DonA2
Posts: 170
Posts: 170
Posted:
There seems to be a lot of assumptions being made here. Sometimes filing for bankruptcy is caused by some major life events and not bad choices (been through it). So unless the person filing for bankruptcy is showing bad judgment on the board, why not have them remain in their current position?
RichardP13
Posts: 3,836
Posts: 3,836
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By DonA2 on 08/06/2015 3:30 PM
There seems to be a lot of assumptions being made here. Sometimes filing for bankruptcy is caused by some major life events and not bad choices (been through it). So unless the person filing for bankruptcy is showing bad judgment on the board, why not have them remain in their current position?
There seems to be a lot of assumptions being made here. Sometimes filing for bankruptcy is caused by some major life events and not bad choices (been through it). So unless the person filing for bankruptcy is showing bad judgment on the board, why not have them remain in their current position?
I agree.
A medical issue with little to no insurance, loss of job(s) doesn't make a bad person, especially when you don't know the circumstances and JUST assume.
TimB4 (Virginia)
Posts: 21,004
Posts: 21,004
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By DonA2 on 08/06/2015 3:30 PM
So unless the person filing for bankruptcy is showing bad judgment on the board, why not have them remain in their current position?
So unless the person filing for bankruptcy is showing bad judgment on the board, why not have them remain in their current position?
When people get into dire circumstances(from their perspective) they may give into temptation more easily (this is why financials are checked during security clearances).
Therefore it's prudent to remove any possible temptation.
It's like placing locks on doors/windows. Locks do not prevent criminal activity. They simply help keep the honest people honest by minimizing temptation.
BobD4 (New York)
Posts: 997
Posts: 997
Posted:
All good comments above.
If a jurisdiction flat out wants some sort of Director deterrence/accountability available - & to best minimize the opposite - it makes sense to try to flat out disqualify for being younger than age of majority, for lacking /losing decision-making capacity, or for being subject to an undischarged bankruptcy process.
Should it do so for bankruptcy avoidance like insolvency or some form of receivership ? Should it go beyond the personal finances of a Director ?
However unpoliced, decisions by a Director under the above impairments risk upfront looking shaky. Undischarged bankrupts are theoretically vulnerable to that ongoing legal process. besides the optics jurisdictions may fear co-mingling of assets, dummy men of straw fronting evasions of creditor reach .
Dare ask about Directors' moral compass ?
Several years ago near here a Director seat was merrily filled by an individual with disturbingly current convictions for pedophilic sex offences /other sex. Not long thereafter he merrily walked away . .
(condo lawyer) DENISE LASH : “Prohibiting Dangerous Offenders in Condos” - http://www.condoreporter.com/rules/condo-dangerous-offenders/ “ ... one dangerous offender ended up being elected to a condo board and now the condominium corporation is dealing with the events that followed.
xxx , 65, a convicted pedophile, managed to get himself elected to the board of a condominium in Ottawa. It appears that no one had any idea as to ( xxx)'s criminal history. Most condominium corporations will have qualifications set out for board members in the Corporation's by-laws. At the very least, the by-laws should disqualify persons who have a criminal background. It is time for condominium corporations to look at taking more extreme measures to ensure that the safety and security of residents is not compromised and put into place restrictions in condominium documentation. Of course, the documentation will have to be carefully drafted to avoid any potential argument as to its enforceability.”)
MARCH 5 2010 “Criminally insane pedophile ( XXX ) escapes in Ottawa” http://www.topix.com/forum/ca/moncton-area-nb/TR7C0FOURJCV5SQ4U
If a jurisdiction flat out wants some sort of Director deterrence/accountability available - & to best minimize the opposite - it makes sense to try to flat out disqualify for being younger than age of majority, for lacking /losing decision-making capacity, or for being subject to an undischarged bankruptcy process.
Should it do so for bankruptcy avoidance like insolvency or some form of receivership ? Should it go beyond the personal finances of a Director ?
However unpoliced, decisions by a Director under the above impairments risk upfront looking shaky. Undischarged bankrupts are theoretically vulnerable to that ongoing legal process. besides the optics jurisdictions may fear co-mingling of assets, dummy men of straw fronting evasions of creditor reach .
Dare ask about Directors' moral compass ?
Several years ago near here a Director seat was merrily filled by an individual with disturbingly current convictions for pedophilic sex offences /other sex. Not long thereafter he merrily walked away . .
(condo lawyer) DENISE LASH : “Prohibiting Dangerous Offenders in Condos” - http://www.condoreporter.com/rules/condo-dangerous-offenders/ “ ... one dangerous offender ended up being elected to a condo board and now the condominium corporation is dealing with the events that followed.
xxx , 65, a convicted pedophile, managed to get himself elected to the board of a condominium in Ottawa. It appears that no one had any idea as to ( xxx)'s criminal history. Most condominium corporations will have qualifications set out for board members in the Corporation's by-laws. At the very least, the by-laws should disqualify persons who have a criminal background. It is time for condominium corporations to look at taking more extreme measures to ensure that the safety and security of residents is not compromised and put into place restrictions in condominium documentation. Of course, the documentation will have to be carefully drafted to avoid any potential argument as to its enforceability.”)
MARCH 5 2010 “Criminally insane pedophile ( XXX ) escapes in Ottawa” http://www.topix.com/forum/ca/moncton-area-nb/TR7C0FOURJCV5SQ4U
BobD4 (New York)
Posts: 997
Posts: 997
Posted:
The internet link to the legal article (just above) has been broken after professional changes and presumably is proprietarly ensnared. Maybe instead http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/earl_mcrae/2010/03/19/13293116.html
RichardP13
Posts: 3,836
Posts: 3,836
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By BobD4 on 08/07/2015 8:04 AM
All good comments above.
If a jurisdiction flat out wants some sort of Director deterrence/accountability available - & to best minimize the opposite - it makes sense to try to flat out disqualify for being younger than age of majority, for lacking /losing decision-making capacity, or for being subject to an undischarged bankruptcy process.
Should it do so for bankruptcy avoidance like insolvency or some form of receivership ? Should it go beyond the personal finances of a Director ?
However unpoliced, decisions by a Director under the above impairments risk upfront looking shaky. Undischarged bankrupts are theoretically vulnerable to that ongoing legal process. besides the optics jurisdictions may fear co-mingling of assets, dummy men of straw fronting evasions of creditor reach .
Dare ask about Directors' moral compass ?
Several years ago near here a Director seat was merrily filled by an individual with disturbingly current convictions for pedophilic sex offences /other sex. Not long thereafter he merrily walked away . .
(condo lawyer) DENISE LASH : “Prohibiting Dangerous Offenders in Condos” - http://www.condoreporter.com/rules/condo-dangerous-offenders/ “ ... one dangerous offender ended up being elected to a condo board and now the condominium corporation is dealing with the events that followed.
xxx , 65, a convicted pedophile, managed to get himself elected to the board of a condominium in Ottawa. It appears that no one had any idea as to ( xxx)'s criminal history. Most condominium corporations will have qualifications set out for board members in the Corporation's by-laws. At the very least, the by-laws should disqualify persons who have a criminal background. It is time for condominium corporations to look at taking more extreme measures to ensure that the safety and security of residents is not compromised and put into place restrictions in condominium documentation. Of course, the documentation will have to be carefully drafted to avoid any potential argument as to its enforceability.”)
MARCH 5 2010 “Criminally insane pedophile ( XXX ) escapes in Ottawa” http://www.topix.com/forum/ca/moncton-area-nb/TR7C0FOURJCV5SQ4U
All good comments above.
If a jurisdiction flat out wants some sort of Director deterrence/accountability available - & to best minimize the opposite - it makes sense to try to flat out disqualify for being younger than age of majority, for lacking /losing decision-making capacity, or for being subject to an undischarged bankruptcy process.
Should it do so for bankruptcy avoidance like insolvency or some form of receivership ? Should it go beyond the personal finances of a Director ?
However unpoliced, decisions by a Director under the above impairments risk upfront looking shaky. Undischarged bankrupts are theoretically vulnerable to that ongoing legal process. besides the optics jurisdictions may fear co-mingling of assets, dummy men of straw fronting evasions of creditor reach .
Dare ask about Directors' moral compass ?
Several years ago near here a Director seat was merrily filled by an individual with disturbingly current convictions for pedophilic sex offences /other sex. Not long thereafter he merrily walked away . .
(condo lawyer) DENISE LASH : “Prohibiting Dangerous Offenders in Condos” - http://www.condoreporter.com/rules/condo-dangerous-offenders/ “ ... one dangerous offender ended up being elected to a condo board and now the condominium corporation is dealing with the events that followed.
xxx , 65, a convicted pedophile, managed to get himself elected to the board of a condominium in Ottawa. It appears that no one had any idea as to ( xxx)'s criminal history. Most condominium corporations will have qualifications set out for board members in the Corporation's by-laws. At the very least, the by-laws should disqualify persons who have a criminal background. It is time for condominium corporations to look at taking more extreme measures to ensure that the safety and security of residents is not compromised and put into place restrictions in condominium documentation. Of course, the documentation will have to be carefully drafted to avoid any potential argument as to its enforceability.”)
MARCH 5 2010 “Criminally insane pedophile ( XXX ) escapes in Ottawa” http://www.topix.com/forum/ca/moncton-area-nb/TR7C0FOURJCV5SQ4U
Filing BK in the United States is NOT a crime, at least it wasn't last I checked. What you are posting are CRIMES punishable by imprisonment, which do not apply to this post and you are posting Canadian law. This is the United States.
GenoS
Posts: 4,262
Posts: 4,262
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By RichardP13 on 08/07/2015 8:51 AM
Filing BK in the United States is NOT a crime, at least it wasn't last I checked. What you are posting are CRIMES punishable by imprisonment, which do not apply to this post and you are posting Canadian law. This is the United States.
Filing BK in the United States is NOT a crime, at least it wasn't last I checked. What you are posting are CRIMES punishable by imprisonment, which do not apply to this post and you are posting Canadian law. This is the United States.
A man on TV last night did it four times and seemed almost proud of it. He referred to it as "using the laws of our country" to help oneself. Nothing wrong with that.
On the one hand if someone is forced into BK due to medical bills or something else that's outside of their control then I would be very sympathetic toward them.
On the other hand, if someone ran up all their credit cards and couldn't pay them off then I might consider that to be irresponsible behavior.
It all depends on the individual circumstances. In any case it's certainly not a crime.
RichardP13
Posts: 3,836
Posts: 3,836
Posted:
And that is why I wouldn't vote for Trump! Someone used it to "game" the system and line his pockets.
GenoS
Posts: 4,262
Posts: 4,262
Posted:
Oh, is that who that was? 
BobD4 (New York)
Posts: 997
Posts: 997
Posted:
Richard P13 : "Filing BK in the United States is NOT a crime, at least it wasn't last I checked. What you are posting are CRIMES punishable by imprisonment, which do not apply to this post and you are posting Canadian law. This is the United States."
Thanks for clarifying that you believe I posted criminal offence scenarios rather than real property law / Director (dis-)qualifications.
What I believe I had posted are some of the possible rationales behind widespread disqualification of undischarged bankrupts from serving as condo/POA Directors.
Surprisingly these are not as easy to find as one might expect, nor hopefully is anyone concluding I am mixing up Canadian criminal law with what jurisdictions anywhere may do with Directoral qualifications.
Going bankrupt ain't criminal anywhere, but violating B&I acts /the bankruptcy process might become so.
The bigger picture, respectfully, is the vulnerability of condos/POAs everywhere etc to eligibility issues and even targetting.
Thanks for clarifying that you believe I posted criminal offence scenarios rather than real property law / Director (dis-)qualifications.
What I believe I had posted are some of the possible rationales behind widespread disqualification of undischarged bankrupts from serving as condo/POA Directors.
Surprisingly these are not as easy to find as one might expect, nor hopefully is anyone concluding I am mixing up Canadian criminal law with what jurisdictions anywhere may do with Directoral qualifications.
Going bankrupt ain't criminal anywhere, but violating B&I acts /the bankruptcy process might become so.
The bigger picture, respectfully, is the vulnerability of condos/POAs everywhere etc to eligibility issues and even targetting.
TimB4 (Virginia)
Posts: 21,004
Posts: 21,004
Posted:
RichardP13,
If you want to discuss the national elections, please visit a forum about national elections.
If you want to discuss the national elections, please visit a forum about national elections.
BobD4 (New York)
Posts: 997
Posts: 997
Posted:
Richard P13 :
Whether from your valuable California experience & skillsets or otherwise, why do you yourself think legislatures frequently legislate the disqualification of undischarged bankrupts ?
As to director disqualification, there is zero I could find directly about it in the Great Igloo up here, criminal nor administrative nor whatever. The Brits seem to have substantial about about where persons were discovered using 'straw persons' etc / backroom control contrary to injunctions under B&I processes.
So what do you yourself think would induce many U.S. legislatures to disqualify undischarged bankrupts from Directoral eligibility ?
Whether from your valuable California experience & skillsets or otherwise, why do you yourself think legislatures frequently legislate the disqualification of undischarged bankrupts ?
As to director disqualification, there is zero I could find directly about it in the Great Igloo up here, criminal nor administrative nor whatever. The Brits seem to have substantial about about where persons were discovered using 'straw persons' etc / backroom control contrary to injunctions under B&I processes.
So what do you yourself think would induce many U.S. legislatures to disqualify undischarged bankrupts from Directoral eligibility ?
JonD1
Posts: 2,310
Posts: 2,310
Posted:
Bankruptcy is an option that has been around for quite some time. And completely legal despite the views of some. Many business owners use that process to protect personal assets held separately from their business. Quite an interesting list of some who have used bankruptcy .
Donald Trump, financier
Michael Jackson, singer
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, composer
Kim Bassinger, actress
Mike Tyson, boxer
Mark Twain, humorist
Burt Reynolds, actor
Thomas Jefferson, patriot and president
Gary Coleman, child actor
MC Hammer, rap singer
Willie Nelson, country singer
Lorraine Bracco, “The Soprano’s” actress
Charles Goodyear, inventor of vulcanized rubber
PT Barnum, circus promoter
L. Frank Baum, author of “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz”
Mathew Brady, Civil War photographer
Oscar Wilde, playwright
Jerry Lee Lewis, rock singer
Rembrandt, painter
Henry Heinz, ketchup magnate
Milton Hershey, chocolate magnate
Henry Ford, auto magnate
Johnny Unitas, football player
Wayne Newton, entertainer
Mickey Rooney, actor
Debbie Reynolds, actress
John Connally, former Texas governor
Walt Disney, creator of Mickey Mouse
Mick Fleetwood, rock singer
Merle Haggard, country singer
Ulysses S. Grant, president and Civil War general
Dorothy Hamill, figure skater
Larry King, talk show host
Bowie Kuhn, former baseball commissioner
Stan Lee, comic book creator of “Spider Man”
Donald Trump, financier
Michael Jackson, singer
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, composer
Kim Bassinger, actress
Mike Tyson, boxer
Mark Twain, humorist
Burt Reynolds, actor
Thomas Jefferson, patriot and president
Gary Coleman, child actor
MC Hammer, rap singer
Willie Nelson, country singer
Lorraine Bracco, “The Soprano’s” actress
Charles Goodyear, inventor of vulcanized rubber
PT Barnum, circus promoter
L. Frank Baum, author of “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz”
Mathew Brady, Civil War photographer
Oscar Wilde, playwright
Jerry Lee Lewis, rock singer
Rembrandt, painter
Henry Heinz, ketchup magnate
Milton Hershey, chocolate magnate
Henry Ford, auto magnate
Johnny Unitas, football player
Wayne Newton, entertainer
Mickey Rooney, actor
Debbie Reynolds, actress
John Connally, former Texas governor
Walt Disney, creator of Mickey Mouse
Mick Fleetwood, rock singer
Merle Haggard, country singer
Ulysses S. Grant, president and Civil War general
Dorothy Hamill, figure skater
Larry King, talk show host
Bowie Kuhn, former baseball commissioner
Stan Lee, comic book creator of “Spider Man”
RichardP13
Posts: 3,836
Posts: 3,836
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By TimB4 on 08/07/2015 2:45 PM
RichardP13,
If you want to discuss the national elections, please visit a forum about national elections.
RichardP13,
If you want to discuss the national elections, please visit a forum about national elections.
EXCUSE ME??..I was responding to someone else post.
RichardP13
Posts: 3,836
Posts: 3,836
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By BobD4 on 08/07/2015 2:30 PM
Richard P13 : "Filing BK in the United States is NOT a crime, at least it wasn't last I checked. What you are posting are CRIMES punishable by imprisonment, which do not apply to this post and you are posting Canadian law. This is the United States."
Thanks for clarifying that you believe I posted criminal offence scenarios rather than real property law / Director (dis-)qualifications.
What I believe I had posted are some of the possible rationales behind widespread disqualification of undischarged bankrupts from serving as condo/POA Directors.
Surprisingly these are not as easy to find as one might expect, nor hopefully is anyone concluding I am mixing up Canadian criminal law with what jurisdictions anywhere may do with Directoral qualifications.
Going bankrupt ain't criminal anywhere, but violating B&I acts /the bankruptcy process might become so.
The bigger picture, respectfully, is the vulnerability of condos/POAs everywhere etc to eligibility issues and even targetting.
Richard P13 : "Filing BK in the United States is NOT a crime, at least it wasn't last I checked. What you are posting are CRIMES punishable by imprisonment, which do not apply to this post and you are posting Canadian law. This is the United States."
Thanks for clarifying that you believe I posted criminal offence scenarios rather than real property law / Director (dis-)qualifications.
What I believe I had posted are some of the possible rationales behind widespread disqualification of undischarged bankrupts from serving as condo/POA Directors.
Surprisingly these are not as easy to find as one might expect, nor hopefully is anyone concluding I am mixing up Canadian criminal law with what jurisdictions anywhere may do with Directoral qualifications.
Going bankrupt ain't criminal anywhere, but violating B&I acts /the bankruptcy process might become so.
The bigger picture, respectfully, is the vulnerability of condos/POAs everywhere etc to eligibility issues and even targetting.
Can you name one set of Bylaws that has that disqualification in them.
As someone posted, I guess you can run for the highest elected office in the world and we are questioning their qualifications in a lousy HOA?
GenoS
Posts: 4,262
Posts: 4,262
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By TimB4 on 08/07/2015 2:45 PM
RichardP13,
If you want to discuss the national elections, please visit a forum about national elections.
RichardP13,
If you want to discuss the national elections, please visit a forum about national elections.
In all fairness, that was probably me that started that. But it was relevant in the sense that successful people use the bankruptcy code to their advantage all the time. Nothing to do with the election or politics per se. Nevertheless I concede the point.
GenoS
Posts: 4,262
Posts: 4,262
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By RichardP13 on 08/07/2015 8:59 PM
Can you name one set of Bylaws that has that disqualification in them.
Can you name one set of Bylaws that has that disqualification in them.
There probably aren't many Bylaws that spell out specific disqualifications e.g. bankruptcy. I think it ends up being more a question of trust rather than what the documents say (assuming they are silent on the matter). In my small city here there was a guy running for city council last year (again, politics is not the operative issue per se) and his company - not him personally - filed for a BK some years ago. Small time stuff, I think he runs a one-man architectural firm. The BK question was hammered on relentlessly by his opponents.
So I think BK is appropriate to consider when evaluating candidates for the board of directors. Do you want someone who has had extreme financial difficulties in their own personal life to be responsible for $500k, $1 million, $5 million (or more) of other peoples' money, including some of your own? I think it's a valid question. Not an automatic disqualification in my book, but I would definitely want to know more about the details before voting for any such person.
RichardP13
Posts: 3,836
Posts: 3,836
Posted:
Geno
So going back to the OP original question, can the assistant treasurer still serve. Go back to my response.
And I have no idea what Bob from wherever is talking about.
So going back to the OP original question, can the assistant treasurer still serve. Go back to my response.
And I have no idea what Bob from wherever is talking about.
GenoS
Posts: 4,262
Posts: 4,262
Posted:
I agree that they can still serve. Whether it's a good idea or not is debatable. I wonder if the OP's prez and asst. treasurer are the same person, or 2 different people who filed.
BobD4 (New York)
Posts: 997
Posts: 997
Posted:
DebraH3 (Mich):
"I have recently became President of my HOA and the Assistant Treasure has indicated that she recently filed Bankrupt, can she still serve on the Board ?"
That question immediately got a very good answer : is the Asst Treasurer Director disqualified by her "governing documents and/or state statues(sic)?"
The discussion eventually reached what could be the concerns behind widespread legislative disqualification of currently undischarged bankrupts ?
JonD1's list showed a range of famed folks who have gone through the process which can be very different at different historical times to get people back on their feet with a clean slate after fairly treating creditors. In 1998 a New York Times article even lumped Abraham Lincoln among those, but Lincoln may have just been a creditor who spent years making good the debts of a former partner. Would Lincoln be a poor choice of Director ?
Richard P13's also challenged : “Can you name one set of Bylaws that has that disqualification in them.”
Why bother ? Many by-laws would not directly bother if undischarged bankruptcy is already prohibited by state law.
Richard P13 also comments :
"So going back to the OP original question, can the assistant treasurer still serve. Go back to my response. And I have no idea what Bob from wherever is talking about."
Well Richard P13 : Part of the rest of that answer could be what is there within undischarged bankruptcy, that could raise such widespread legislated disqualification of Directoral eligibility ?
So what do you yourself think would induce many U.S. legislatures to disqualify undischarged bankrupts from Directoral eligibility ?
"I have recently became President of my HOA and the Assistant Treasure has indicated that she recently filed Bankrupt, can she still serve on the Board ?"
That question immediately got a very good answer : is the Asst Treasurer Director disqualified by her "governing documents and/or state statues(sic)?"
The discussion eventually reached what could be the concerns behind widespread legislative disqualification of currently undischarged bankrupts ?
JonD1's list showed a range of famed folks who have gone through the process which can be very different at different historical times to get people back on their feet with a clean slate after fairly treating creditors. In 1998 a New York Times article even lumped Abraham Lincoln among those, but Lincoln may have just been a creditor who spent years making good the debts of a former partner. Would Lincoln be a poor choice of Director ?
Richard P13's also challenged : “Can you name one set of Bylaws that has that disqualification in them.”
Why bother ? Many by-laws would not directly bother if undischarged bankruptcy is already prohibited by state law.
Richard P13 also comments :
"So going back to the OP original question, can the assistant treasurer still serve. Go back to my response. And I have no idea what Bob from wherever is talking about."
Well Richard P13 : Part of the rest of that answer could be what is there within undischarged bankruptcy, that could raise such widespread legislated disqualification of Directoral eligibility ?
So what do you yourself think would induce many U.S. legislatures to disqualify undischarged bankrupts from Directoral eligibility ?
BobD4 (New York)
Posts: 997
Posts: 997
Posted:
Richard P13 has not so far responded to :
"Part of the rest of that answer could be what is there within undischarged bankruptcy, that could raise such widespread legislated disqualification of Directoral eligibility ? So what do you yourself think would induce many U.S. legislatures to disqualify undischarged bankrupts from Directoral eligibility ?"
Wherever the answer lies, it ain't anywhere I have seen. But it may be within B&I bankruptcy & insolvency/corporate law. Lemmee try part of it & the poster can ask their Board's lawyer :
While still an undischarged bankrupt, can a Director’s freedom of choice be reconciled with B&I’s restrictions on governing (others’ and or their own ) corporate/personal assets ?
1- public protection : analogy to vessel operator :
Like an undischarged bankrupt, can a master be allowed behind the vessel’s wheel if has privately run his/her own boat aground ( even without incompetence, just degrees of random fate ) and is now under restraints - even physical ?
Here the “new vessel” is composed of owners & lender’s major investments and has delegate governance powers affecting homes, investments and collateral.
Is that a risk a public guardian should be caught running, particularly where the undischarged – no matter how skillful or popular - has sworn degrees of NOT to resume governance without a discharge ?
2- One classic rogue Declarant scenario :
Three Stooges Developments is under undischarged corporate B&I / corporate suspension for its shenanigans at site A.
But Larry, Mo & Curly retain Directorships at a new HOA site B 10 miles away. Their Directorships there may have seated as Declarant’s nominees/ were seated under Declarant’s proxies/ whatever.
Now they say : “We are not yet bankrupts even though most of what we touch turns to * * * *. We are creditors ourselves !”
Teflon coating allows mayhem to spread elsewhere ? ( . . . Unless lenders at site A had obtained initial personal guarantorships / now puncture the corporate veil at site A & throw Larry/Mo/Curly etc them into personal bankruptcy too ).
Richard P13's own comments would be very helpful.
"Part of the rest of that answer could be what is there within undischarged bankruptcy, that could raise such widespread legislated disqualification of Directoral eligibility ? So what do you yourself think would induce many U.S. legislatures to disqualify undischarged bankrupts from Directoral eligibility ?"
Wherever the answer lies, it ain't anywhere I have seen. But it may be within B&I bankruptcy & insolvency/corporate law. Lemmee try part of it & the poster can ask their Board's lawyer :
While still an undischarged bankrupt, can a Director’s freedom of choice be reconciled with B&I’s restrictions on governing (others’ and or their own ) corporate/personal assets ?
1- public protection : analogy to vessel operator :
Like an undischarged bankrupt, can a master be allowed behind the vessel’s wheel if has privately run his/her own boat aground ( even without incompetence, just degrees of random fate ) and is now under restraints - even physical ?
Here the “new vessel” is composed of owners & lender’s major investments and has delegate governance powers affecting homes, investments and collateral.
Is that a risk a public guardian should be caught running, particularly where the undischarged – no matter how skillful or popular - has sworn degrees of NOT to resume governance without a discharge ?
2- One classic rogue Declarant scenario :
Three Stooges Developments is under undischarged corporate B&I / corporate suspension for its shenanigans at site A.
But Larry, Mo & Curly retain Directorships at a new HOA site B 10 miles away. Their Directorships there may have seated as Declarant’s nominees/ were seated under Declarant’s proxies/ whatever.
Now they say : “We are not yet bankrupts even though most of what we touch turns to * * * *. We are creditors ourselves !”
Teflon coating allows mayhem to spread elsewhere ? ( . . . Unless lenders at site A had obtained initial personal guarantorships / now puncture the corporate veil at site A & throw Larry/Mo/Curly etc them into personal bankruptcy too ).
Richard P13's own comments would be very helpful.
RichardP13
Posts: 3,836
Posts: 3,836
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By BobD4 on 08/09/2015 7:23 AM
Richard P13 has not so far responded to :
"Part of the rest of that answer could be what is there within undischarged bankruptcy, that could raise such widespread legislated disqualification of Directoral eligibility ? So what do you yourself think would induce many U.S. legislatures to disqualify undischarged bankrupts from Directoral eligibility ?"
Wherever the answer lies, it ain't anywhere I have seen. But it may be within B&I bankruptcy & insolvency/corporate law. Lemmee try part of it & the poster can ask their Board's lawyer :
While still an undischarged bankrupt, can a Director’s freedom of choice be reconciled with B&I’s restrictions on governing (others’ and or their own ) corporate/personal assets ?
1- public protection : analogy to vessel operator :
Like an undischarged bankrupt, can a master be allowed behind the vessel’s wheel if has privately run his/her own boat aground ( even without incompetence, just degrees of random fate ) and is now under restraints - even physical ?
Here the “new vessel” is composed of owners & lender’s major investments and has delegate governance powers affecting homes, investments and collateral.
Is that a risk a public guardian should be caught running, particularly where the undischarged – no matter how skillful or popular - has sworn degrees of NOT to resume governance without a discharge ?
2- One classic rogue Declarant scenario :
Three Stooges Developments is under undischarged corporate B&I / corporate suspension for its shenanigans at site A.
But Larry, Mo & Curly retain Directorships at a new HOA site B 10 miles away. Their Directorships there may have seated as Declarant’s nominees/ were seated under Declarant’s proxies/ whatever.
Now they say : “We are not yet bankrupts even though most of what we touch turns to * * * *. We are creditors ourselves !”
Teflon coating allows mayhem to spread elsewhere ? ( . . . Unless lenders at site A had obtained initial personal guarantorships / now puncture the corporate veil at site A & throw Larry/Mo/Curly etc them into personal bankruptcy too ).
Richard P13's own comments would be very helpful.
Richard P13 has not so far responded to :
"Part of the rest of that answer could be what is there within undischarged bankruptcy, that could raise such widespread legislated disqualification of Directoral eligibility ? So what do you yourself think would induce many U.S. legislatures to disqualify undischarged bankrupts from Directoral eligibility ?"
Wherever the answer lies, it ain't anywhere I have seen. But it may be within B&I bankruptcy & insolvency/corporate law. Lemmee try part of it & the poster can ask their Board's lawyer :
While still an undischarged bankrupt, can a Director’s freedom of choice be reconciled with B&I’s restrictions on governing (others’ and or their own ) corporate/personal assets ?
1- public protection : analogy to vessel operator :
Like an undischarged bankrupt, can a master be allowed behind the vessel’s wheel if has privately run his/her own boat aground ( even without incompetence, just degrees of random fate ) and is now under restraints - even physical ?
Here the “new vessel” is composed of owners & lender’s major investments and has delegate governance powers affecting homes, investments and collateral.
Is that a risk a public guardian should be caught running, particularly where the undischarged – no matter how skillful or popular - has sworn degrees of NOT to resume governance without a discharge ?
2- One classic rogue Declarant scenario :
Three Stooges Developments is under undischarged corporate B&I / corporate suspension for its shenanigans at site A.
But Larry, Mo & Curly retain Directorships at a new HOA site B 10 miles away. Their Directorships there may have seated as Declarant’s nominees/ were seated under Declarant’s proxies/ whatever.
Now they say : “We are not yet bankrupts even though most of what we touch turns to * * * *. We are creditors ourselves !”
Teflon coating allows mayhem to spread elsewhere ? ( . . . Unless lenders at site A had obtained initial personal guarantorships / now puncture the corporate veil at site A & throw Larry/Mo/Curly etc them into personal bankruptcy too ).
Richard P13's own comments would be very helpful.
I have no idea what you're talking about. If anyone else does, please chime in.
CathyC8
Posts: 8
Posts: 8
Posted:
Agree with Don ---having a PhD in Business filing bankruptcy is not always a reflection of poor financial managing. Circumstances out of ones control could be the cause ---and bankruptcy is not always a BAD Business decision. Get all the facts before judging.
🎯 You've read this entire discussion
Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:
- ✓ Ask follow-up questions
- ✓ Share your experience
- ✓ Get expert advice
- ✓ Access 350,000 discussions
Create Free Account →
⚡ Takes 30 seconds
Already a member? Log in here