BLOG purpose

This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Opinions not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email

Friday, March 20, 2015

Will the LLC protect UC against environmental fines?

"In addition, the board discussed the status of a $36.6 million fine levied against the Department of Energy and Los Alamos National Security, LLC, or LANS, by the New Mexico Environment Department after a canister of waste related to Los Alamos National Laboratory released detectable radiation in February 2014.

LANS, which was formed in part by the university, has operated the Los Alamos lab since 2006. The existence, however, of LANS — a limited liability company — is “designed to protect (the university) against these kinds of things,” according to Regent Norman Pattiz."


Anonymous said...

Limited Liability Coprporation (LLC) does not mean zero liability. Under future LANSLLNS contracts, decreased liability might come with a substantially lower operating fee.

Anonymous said...

The liability terms defined in the current LANSLLNS contracts have not changed since this quote below was reported:

"...The contractors that run Los Alamos and Livermore currently earn about 3 percent of the lab’s budget in fee, while most Office of Science labs—and Sandia National Laboratories contractor Lockheed Martin—make around 1 percent. Held said he expected Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz to ask the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board to take up the lab management issue. “I think people are in good faith thinking, if we’re going to ask for fee reductions they’re probably going to ask for something related to unallowable costs or risks or liability,” Held said..."

Anonymous said...

From the look of this, the current case will be headed to the courts to determine how much the WIPP debacle will cost UC.

"Piercing the veil is a long-standing equitable remedy that can allow a claimant against a corporation to also assert the claim against a shareholder, under limited circumstances that usually involve some degree of wrongdoing or abuse of the corporate form.

The court should examine 12 factors in light of all the circumstances to determine if veil piercing is justified:

(1) common ownership,

(2) pervasive control,

(3) confused intermingling of business assets,

(4) thin capitalization,

(5) nonobservance of corporate formalities,

(6) absence of corporate or LLC records,

(7) no payment of dividends or distributions,

(8) insolvency at the time of the litigated transaction,

(9) siphoning away of corporation’s funds by dominant shareholder or member,

(10) nonfunctioning of managers, or officers and directors,

(11) use of the corporation or LLC for transactions of the dominant shareholders or members, and

(12) use of the corporation or LLC in promoting fraud."

LLC Law Monitor

Anonymous said...

I like number 10 !

Anonymous said...

What a loser joke. You are obviously not a corporate lawyer.

Anonymous said...

LLNS LLC and LANS LLC are little better than shell companies used to scam the federal government while hiding behind complex legalities.

Someone in the government needs to do a thorough background investigation of NNSA lab management contracts and especially of both Tom D'Agostino (former head of NNSA) and Tyler Pryzbylek (former top legal exec with NNSA).

These two guys helped set up this scam and were the only people given power to vote on who would win these lucrative NNSA contracts.

Anonymous said...

You are obviously not a corporate lawyer.

March 21, 2015 at 9:21 PM

And you are one?

Anonymous said...

And you are one?

March 22, 2015 at 7:44 AM

No, but I don't make pronouncements as if I were, which only serve to make you look ignorant.

Anonymous said...

I may not be a corporate lawyer, but number 10 says it all.

BTW, Scooby seems to have dropped the ball, allowing such obvious double entendres as "veil piercing."

Anonymous said...

"Will the LLC protect UC against environmental fines?"

UC will not be protected any more or less than the other LANS LLC corporate members, or the linked liability of the LANS near genetic twin brother LLNS, if gross negligence is demonstrated in court unless asymmetrical liability was written in the contract for UC.

Anonymous said...

March 23, 2015 at 1:53 PM

I don't recall seeing any reference to "gross negligence" in the NNSA/LLC contract language.

Anonymous said...

I don't recall seeing any reference to "gross negligence" in the NNSA/LLC contract language.

March 23, 2015 at 2:34 PM

Looks like Charlie's got his law team on the case!

Anonymous said...

You don't have to be on "Charlie's law team" to read the prime contract. So many uninformed and just plain wrong posts on this blog reveal that almost no one has, even though it affects your lives directly and personally.

Anonymous said...

"...You don't have to be on "Charlie's law team" to read the prime contract. So many uninformed and just plain wrong posts on this blog reveal that almost no one has, even though it affects your lives directly and personally..."

More importantly, will lab employees attempt to review and contribute to the terms of the new LLC's contract early while still fluid, long before it is finalized, or just wait for the HR contract highlights presentation? If lab employees become disinterested in the LLC contract process, expect the formation of a LANSLLNS 2.0 or worse.

Anonymous said...

Maybe 8:27 PM could provide a link to the prime contract.

Anonymous said...

Prime contract (pdf) link on the upper right of the page.

Blog Archive