EMPLOYMENT LAW AND JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT
Serving New York City and Nassau County
Home > Judgment Enforcement > Collecting Against LLCs, Dissolved Companies, and Shell Entities

Collecting Against LLCs, Dissolved Companies, and Shell Entities

Reaching Assets when Businesses Close, Reorganize, or Operate Behind Corporate Layers

Some judgment debtors believe they can avoid paying a judgment simply by dissolving an LLC, abandoning a corporation, or shifting operations into a new entity with a different name. In practice, dissolution or restructuring does not eliminate liability. New York law provides multiple avenues to pursue assets from defunct, reorganized, or shell companies that continue operating in substance even after their formal structure has changed.

I approach these matters with a focus on substance over form: understanding how the business functioned, where its assets went, and whether the restructuring reflects legitimate commercial activity or a strategy to evade payment.

Understanding Dissolved and Inactive Entities

A dissolved company is not shielded from judgment enforcement. Its assets do not disappear; they remain reachable to satisfy existing liabilities. Members or owners cannot simply wind down a business, distribute the assets, and walk away from lawful debts. Post-dissolution transfers, distributions, and asset movements may all be subject to recovery if they impair a creditor’s rights. Common issues include:

  • transferring remaining assets to members without paying creditors,
  • distributing business income after dissolution,
  • continuing to operate informally despite filing dissolution documents,
  • failing to preserve records or account for assets.
Dissolution may complicate enforcement, but it rarely forecloses it.

LLCs and the Limits of Liability Protection

LLCs provide limited liability in legitimate circumstances, but they do not protect members from liability when the company:

  • is used to perpetrate fraud or evade obligations,
  • is inadequately funded from the beginning,
  • commingles personal and business assets,
  • operates without meaningful corporate separation,
  • transfers assets to insiders after litigation begins.
In enforcement work, these situations trigger doctrines such as veil-piercing, alter-ego liability, and fraudulent-transfer recovery. The fact that an entity is an “LLC” is the starting point of analysis, not the end of it.

Shell Entities and Asset Holding Companies

Some debtors use multiple LLCs or holding companies to own assets, generate income, or move funds. These structures may appear separate on paper while functioning as components of a single business enterprise. When a shell entity exists solely to receive payments, hold property, or obscure ownership, its separateness may be challenged.

Indicators that a company functions as a shell often include:

  • no meaningful operations,
  • no employees or independent revenue streams,
  • funding sourced entirely from related parties,
  • assets transferred into the entity immediately before or after litigation,
  • shared management or commingled financial accounts.
These factors support broader enforcement actions aimed at reaching the true economic beneficiaries.

Successor Companies and The “Same Business Under a New Name” Problem

Debtors sometimes close one company and reopen under another name, with the same location, customers, employees, ownership, or equipment. This restructuring is often designed to distance the new entity from the prior company’s debts. Under New York law, successor liability may apply when the new entity is, in substance, a continuation of the prior business.

Courts look at continuity of operations, not corporate paperwork. If the new company is effectively the same business with a different label, enforcement may proceed against it.

Identifying Assets When the Entity Has “Disappeared”

Even when a company has no visible operations, assets may remain reachable. Through a combination of restraining notices, subpoenas, bank record tracing, and turnover proceedings, it is often possible to identify:

  • undistributed revenue or receivables,
  • assets transferred to owners or related companies,
  • business equipment or property,
  • funds deposited into related entities,
  • concealed or redirected income streams.
The goal is to reconstruct the company’s financial activity and determine where its value went.

How These Claims Interact with Other Enforcement Tools

Claims involving LLCs, dissolved companies, and shell entities frequently involve:

  • fraudulent-transfer litigation under the Debtor and Creditor Law,
  • turnover proceedings to recover assets held by transferees,
  • veil-piercing and alter-ego theories,
  • successor-liability claims,
  • subpoenas directed at members, officers, or related businesses,
  • depositions to identify who controls business decisions and finances.
These tools form a multi-layered approach that allows creditors to follow assets through multiple entities.

A Focused, Evidence-Driven Enforcement Strategy

Because these cases often involve incomplete records, informal business practices, or rapid entity changes, careful analysis is essential. I examine documents, bank records, public filings, corporate histories, and transfers to determine where the debtor’s assets are and how best to reach them. The objective is to follow the economic reality, not the paperwork.

If a Debtor Has Dissolved a Business or Shifted Operations into New Entities

Dissolution, abandonment, and shell structures do not prevent enforcement. If a business continues operating in substance or if assets were transferred improperly, New York law provides mechanisms to reach them. If you believe a debtor has dissolved an LLC, created new entities, or moved assets into shell companies, contact my office for a structured evaluation of your enforcement options.

Contact the Office