4 ms·

Disregard, then fight it later if you grow big enough to matter. That said, it can seriously screw you over if you get unlucky: http://www.k9ventures.com/blog

Disregard, then fight it later if you grow big enough to matter. That said, it can seriously screw you over if you get unlucky: http://www.k9ventures.com/blog/2011/04/27/modista/ http://www.k9ventures.com/blog/2011/04/27/modista/

runn1ng 13y ago
It's important to note that this specific dispute has been resolved and modista is working again.
stretchydeath 13y ago
That said, Modista is back up!
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
probably_wrong 13y ago
Only tangentially related: from the story, > I told them then that “Whatever you do next, I’m ready to back you anytime.” Except, you know, when it actually requires backing them up? Specially this paragraph: > the lawsuit torpedoed Modista’s financing. And since they didn’t have the money to hire lawyers to defend themselves, they had to accept a default judgment against the company The guy gracefully pushes to the side that the reason they couldn't afford lawyers was because he personally pulled funding from them when his goose that laid the golden eggs turned to be just a very, very good goose.
kintamanimatt 13y ago
Or just be based in a non-US jurisdiction without any US offices or employees!
walden42 13y ago
> Apparently a corporation can only be represented by an attorney in a litigation and cannot be represented by the founders or officers Stuff like that is enraging. Free country, huh? You're not even allowed to represent yourself.
- stan_rogers 13y ago
  No, you're not allowed to represent the corporation, which is a separate and legally distinct entity from yourself. Since the corporation is a legal person, but cannot represent itself (not being an natural person, it cannot operate pro se), it must be represented by an attorney. That, then, brings in regulations on who may act as attorney (which is not always synonymous with lawyer or barrister) in litigation in a given jurisdiction. If you wish to represent yourself, then you need to be personally party to the litigation, which is what the legal personhood of the corporation protects you from (to a degree).

runn1ng 13y ago

It's important to note that this specific dispute has been resolved and modista is working again.

stretchydeath 13y ago

That said, Modista is back up!

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

probably_wrong 13y ago

Only tangentially related: from the story, > I told them then that “Whatever you do next, I’m ready to back you anytime.” Except, you know, when it actually requires backing them up? Specially this paragraph: > the lawsuit torpedoed Modista’s financing. And since they didn’t have the money to hire lawyers to defend themselves, they had to accept a default judgment against the company The guy gracefully pushes to the side that the reason they couldn't afford lawyers was because he personally pulled funding from them when his goose that laid the golden eggs turned to be just a very, very good goose.

kintamanimatt 13y ago

Or just be based in a non-US jurisdiction without any US offices or employees!

walden42 13y ago

> Apparently a corporation can only be represented by an attorney in a litigation and cannot be represented by the founders or officers Stuff like that is enraging. Free country, huh? You're not even allowed to represent yourself.

stan_rogers 13y ago
No, you're not allowed to represent the corporation, which is a separate and legally distinct entity from yourself. Since the corporation is a legal person, but cannot represent itself (not being an natural person, it cannot operate pro se), it must be represented by an attorney. That, then, brings in regulations on who may act as attorney (which is not always synonymous with lawyer or barrister) in litigation in a given jurisdiction. If you wish to represent yourself, then you need to be personally party to the litigation, which is what the legal personhood of the corporation protects you from (to a degree).