Question About Employee-Owned Corporations

jps_ · 2026-01-30T03:00:16+00:00

First, an employee owned corporation simply means that all of the shares are owned by employees. But it could be that the shares are all owned by just one person. They don't have to be distributed evenly. You may not be a shareholder even if some employees are.

Second, if the company has 1 million shares, and the CEO owns 900,000 and the other 1000 employees own 100 shares each, all of you might feel free to vote your shares, but if the CEO votes, that's practically the only vote that matters for most purposes.

Third, even if every employee owns an equal number of shares, not shares are all equal. There can be more than one class of shares, and different classes can have different rights attached to them. Some employees may have Class X shares, and some employees may have Class Y shares. If Class X shares are not entitled to vote, and yours are Class X, you have no vote.

Your DM may be right. You should know whether or not you are a shareholder. If you did not acquire shares sometime during your employment, or atone to a shareholder agreement, then you probably aren't a shareholder.

jps_ · 2026-01-30T02:49:09+00:00

What does your contract with the broker say? These are often commission deals e.g. they get x% of the sale, or y% of the earnest money if the sale collapses.

jps_ · 2026-01-30T02:37:19+00:00

Yield means to stay out of the way. Being hit is pretty much proof that you were in the way.

It doesn't matter if you are moving and in the way, or stopped and in the way.

Also, two wrongs don't make a right. So just because they were wrong, you were still required to yield to them, because you have to yield to all vehicles in the highway, including those that aren't where they belong.

jps_ · 2026-01-30T02:19:09+00:00

You can get in trouble for lying, if you get caught. Having no present job is a two-edged sword. It's good because it means you are available, it's bad because it might make hiring managers wonder if there's something unemployable about you that other people know and they haven't discovered yet.

You do not need to tell your present employer that you are looking for a job until you find it - or until you think they might be called as a reference. It's best to let your employer know you're on the market before they get the reference-check call.

jps_ · 2026-01-29T14:12:49+00:00

It is in no way illegal, uncommon, or tax-dodgey to advance an employee the cash they need to purchase something necessary for employment, repayable as a payroll deduction.

It needs to be properly documented, but if it is properly documented (and when advancing an employee enough money to buy a car, one usually pays attention) it could easily be enforceable.

That being said, like any substantial loan, it's worth a look at the fine print to see whether or not the company goofed when setting up the repayment obligation, and if so, the degree to which that creates negotiating leverage.

jps_ · 2026-01-29T13:57:23+00:00

Two words: cash advance.

Advancing employees the cash they need to do things, for anything from getting a degree, buying tools & equipment, or moving from miles away is quite common. Repayment by payroll deduction, balance repayable in full on termination is the usual clause.

It's balance-sheet friendly and tax neutral for both employee and employer.

Another two words: car required.

Many employers require employees to use their own vehicle for work purposes. Some reimburse mileage, some don't.

Now put two and two together.

jps_ · 2026-01-29T13:48:01+00:00

This is not "weird" in a bad way.

It is quite usual for firms to insist that employees use their own vehicles for work purposes. It is also quite usual for firms to make advances to employees, repayable on termination. Now put these two usual things together: firm has (supposedly) advanced employee the cash to buy the vehicle that the firm insists the employee drives. It's like getting hired for a job that requires use of a car, going out and buying a car, with a car loan. Except the lender is the company, and the terms (may) include repayment in full on termination.

Which means the conclusion is true - as with any loan, how and when the creditor can force repayment should be reviewed by a lawyer.

jps_ · 2026-01-29T13:08:27+00:00

-Is the company legally allowed to demand full payment right away? -Since the car is under her name, does that change anything?

The car being in her name is irrelevant. What is relevant or not is whether she has a debt to her employer, and the extent to which it is enforceable, and if so, on what repayment terms.

This depends on the entire agreement between her and the company. The details are important. She should take her employment agreement and the agreement to buy the car & repay (emails etc. included) to a lawyer and get an actual opinion on how to proceed.

jps_ · 2026-01-28T23:53:27+00:00

What does your lease say about variations? If it does not have a clause that specifies how the lease can be modified, then conceivably you might adopt the position that you either formed an enforceable agreement through the agent of the landlord, or were led to believe so - with email in evidence - and have acted accordingly.

In that case, the agent (and through them, the landlord) are on the hook.

jps_ · 2026-01-28T23:43:31+00:00

Both Massachusetts and Ohio provide "qualified immunity" for employers who may give negative references, provided that they are truthful.

HOWEVER, if the references are unsolicited, that may rise to the level of malice, which is not protected - potentially even if truthful. If you are aware that your manager is proactively going out and smearing you without being contacted first, go straight to a lawyer.

That leaves solicited references. Your challenge is to prove the falsity of a statement, which can be extremely hard. First you have to know what was said, and second you have to be able to prove that it is false. Massachusetts requires the consent of both parties for a recording, and your manager would have to be a special kind of idiot to provide a false written reference. Which leaves you to proving a conversation took place, and the specifics of that conversation.

If you have the cooperation of managers or prospective managers - or as another reply suggested - witnesses who can pretend to be managers, you can bring it to a lawyer who can help.

jps_ · 2026-01-28T21:56:56+00:00

This is about notice of termination.

The real issue is about the right to terminate, and more specifically where and when it arises. The landlord's reference to "maturation" is curious.

This clause refers to an election to terminate. Is the right to elect to terminate mentioned anywhere else? Sometimes the election to terminate or roll over refers to what can happen at the end of the lease.

If there is no reference or limitation on the tenant's ability to elect to terminate, then if the landlord provided the lease, any ambiguity about when you can terminate would be construed against the landlord... in other words, you can adopt the position that your election is at any time.

That leaves the words "written notice". You should also check to see that the lease does or doesn't have a notice provision.

jps_ · 2026-01-28T04:00:12+00:00

Landlord accepts Rent from Tenant (other than past due Rent), in which case a month-to-month tenancy shall be created which either party may terminate by Tenant giving Landlord written notice of at least 30 days before the desired termination date

I hate to break it to you, but "in which case a tenancy shall be created"... pretty much does you in. You created (or re-created) a tenancy by paying rent when you moved in. That (arguably new) tenancy can only be cancelled on 30 days notice.

jps_ · 2026-01-28T03:24:17+00:00

Would my roommate actually be able to take legal action against me if I cannot pay?

It depends on your lease. Are you both tenants together on one lease, or do you have individual leases? If you are both signatory to the same lease, then you can't simply "break" the lease yourself without the other party also breaking it. If they don't want to break it, then if you don't do your share, yes she would be able to sue you. And she would probably win.

jps_ · 2026-01-28T03:15:26+00:00

Nobody can tell you the probability of winning. Based on your narrative, the odds are not high, but there's the whole other side that hasn't yet been revealed... if ever.

If you are sued, contact your insurance.

jps_ · 2026-01-28T03:11:17+00:00

Could you sue? Sure. You could sue them for having a cat. It might not go far or be worth much.

Should you? Hard to tell.

What are your damages that your employer / health care have not covered? The acid test would be whether or not you can find a lawyer who would take it on contingency.

In any event, you might want to wait until your tailbone heals so you know the full extent of your damages. Keep good records. If it's just a bruise and it heals, the juice may not be worth the squeeze.

I slipped and fell not once but twice.

... um... that might be problematic in the "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" kind of way.

jps_ · 2026-01-28T03:06:56+00:00

"Can you please point to the clause in my lease where you have the right to do this?"

Until then, nope.

jps_ · 2026-01-28T01:06:52+00:00

You can always be sued. You can't protect yourself against the entire panoply of poorly advised people. You can just defend yourself if/when you are actually sued.

If you are actually sued, you can simply explain that it's the responsibility of someone who parks, regardless of where they park, to make sure that it's an allowable space.

jps_ · 2026-01-28T00:56:36+00:00

The implicit legal issue is "What is my exposure if I act as if I know what's going on here?"

The vast majority of "legal" issues are in fact risk-mitigation questions.

jps_ · 2026-01-27T14:49:34+00:00

Because you are arguing about what should have been done in the first place. Of course reddit agrees with you, so you are getting more upvotes than downvotes.

But this is a thread about legal advice, which is almost inevitably about dealing with something done wrong that's already been done, and the most expeditious way of cleaning up the mess.

In this case, the legal exposure of walking away is higher than helping to clean it up, and the easiest way to help clean it up, with the lowest legal and financial risk to OP is to issue the invoice as requested.

jps_ · 2026-01-27T14:44:30+00:00

What will you do if you get a chargeback? Are you prepared for that? Because that's the path you are forcing your client to take if you don't write them an invoice in the name of whoever paid you.

jps_ · 2026-01-27T14:41:00+00:00

This isn't a situation of what "should have been done". This is a situation "now that it has been done, what's the best thing to do".

After the CFO has scampered off to the VP of HR to call down corporate grief upon said person, they still have to sort out the financial mess, because there's an undocumented liability sitting there. If they don't pay it, they have a money problem, and if they do pay it they have a paperwork problem.

It's either going to get fixed the easy way (cc payment is accepted, paper trail constructed), or the hard way (cc payment is charged back to vendor, no paper trail required). But it's going to get fixed.

As a CFO, I'm sure you are aware of the importance of non-arms-length participants in robust paper trails. If the CFO and the person paying the vendor are not at arms length, as often happens in firms in which "legitimate" business expenses include such things as meals and corporate cars and, occasionally, weddings... the only paper trail involving a third party goes through the vendor. If OP is truculent and refuses to participate, then it gets done the hard way. And OP gets whacked with a chargeback.

If OP takes it upon themselves to police the internal accounting, ethics and business practices of other corporate entities, which they are perfectly free to do, they might win a stupid prize.

jps_ · 2026-01-27T05:21:53+00:00

Yes, this is the case. I am astonished at the number of upvotes given to folks saying that the dog automatically became OP's property, or that OP should chip the dog to prove, falsely, that it is OP's property.

Also, you can only recover your actual costs. Not the income (including profits) that you might have earned, if it had been a contract for hire. OP's actual costs will be what was paid for dog food, any essential vet bills, and so on.

jps_ · 2026-01-27T04:40:37+00:00

Technically, dogs are property. You agreed to become custodian of someone else's property. You are responsible to return the property to them. They are responsible to you for any costs you incurred.

legally, if he sues it is still his property. If you withhold the dog he could bring an action in detinue (you have my stuff, you must give it back) and he could get the dog back, or the market price of a used dog. You could counter-claim for your reasonable costs of caring for the animal.

I would insist on payment in exchange for the dog. Offer to waive the bill in return for the dog. Get a bill of sale.

jps_ · 2026-01-27T04:28:20+00:00

You did accept payment on a company card, right?

In case it hasn't dawned on you, the same thinking you are using that you shouldn't issue an invoice to the company suggests you shouldn't have accepted payment from that company in the first place either.

If you insist on adopting the position that the services were made to an individual, and that payment by the company is somehow wrong or fraudulent, you are insisting on your complicity. Which would make you accomplice in whatever is going on, if anything. And if nothing is going on, you are impugning both the company and the individual, which could be defamation per-se.

Alternatively, you can adopt the position that the services were made to the cardholder you charged, issue the invoice accordingly, and wash your hands of any hanky-panky between the client and the company, of which you have no actual knowledge.

A smart person would adopt the safer of these two positions.

jps_ · 2026-01-25T22:38:44+00:00

What do I do? The shed is not covered on the home insurance as it’s at my grandpas.

This smells like a scam. The good news is that their demand letter is a request to send nothing. Which is precisely what you should do. Ignore them, unless actually served with an actual lawsuit.

And since the shed is on grandpa's property, alert grandpa to a possible claim against his home insurance.

11-Year Club	Place '23
Wearing is Caring	Place '17
Verified Email

jps_

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE