This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

You're entitled to your tastes. If the existing prose style doesn't meet your taste, rewrite it. Don't cut essential material.

There's a better, more productive way. I'm sure you have sufficient command of the language to improve the prose style of anything that's off your prose taste; try that. We'll all help you if you end up with explanations that are a little off target.

The stuff you cut is the most essential legal consequences about Series LLC's. It's crucial to know whether the cells can individually contract, and crucial to know whether they're bankruptcy remote from each other. It's crucial to know whether the separate cells will be honored in other states, and whether tax authorities will honor the corporate veil between them. These features vary state-to-state, and it's crucial to understand that no one exposition would be accurate for all states. Your choices of what to cut included a lot of crucial material. That tips off that you have very little understanding of the subject matter, and thus have poor judgment to guide cutting. I trust that your command of the language and whatever your taste for "encyclopedic style" is sufficiently developed that your literary editing would be less damaging than your cutting.

It seems you object to "“commentators have advanced opinions on how to minimize the chances of one series being held liable for liabilities of the entity as a whole or of another series. But they are just opinions and have not been held up in court” ??????" Sometimes laws -- especially new laws -- have ambiguities. Until they're tested in court, nobody knows how the ambiguity will be resolved. It would be wrong to state any result with certainty, and any competent lawyer would advise the client of the uncertain legal position and risk. The best guidance is typically journal articles that express the author's opinion -- but journal authors aren't judges. Articles are just the best guesses of authors, not court opinions. If you're an attorney, you know that that uncertainty is just the way it is. It's quite common to have to advise the client "Until a court decides, the law is ambiguous. But here are a few prophylactic steps you can take so that no matter how the courts rule, your structure will do what you want it to do." That kind of "best guess" factor list is fairly common.

The article is written to explain exactly the state of affairs as it exists. It's not a "personal essay," it's an accurate statement of the legal structure, its state-to-state variations, and its ambiguities.

DCLawwyer (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]