You have to savour the lack of self-awareness in this one.

> Founder chooses the most complex legal structure that's readily-available... and is surprised that this complexity comes with laywer and notary fees.

> Founder decides to incorporate a company with the name of a popular brand of kitchen rolls... and is surprised that it's too generic.

> After "weeks of correspondence" (and, I suppose, extensive research), founder decides to incorporate a company that's named the same as a Swedish online marketing company instead. Very distinctive. No risk of confusion, ever.

▲

Aachen 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

For anyone else confused who didn't read the article at first: these aren't actually quotes from the article, afaict this is 4chan style bullet points (green text)

▲

fakedang 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Is the GmbH the most complex legal structure? What about the AG?

	▲	phlo 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The author went with an UG nested in a KG as the legal structure. That's two legal entities. It's a neat workaround to avoid corporate taxes (the KG acts as a pass-through vehicle, for taxes and for liability), and avoid personal liability (which passes through the KG but stops at the UG). In comparison, AG and GmbH also shield their owners from liability, but require capital deposits and are subject to corporate taxes. Going with a UG-in-a-KG is an exercise in eating your cake and having it too. It's a cool legal structure that works around some of the limitations of its building blocks. It shouldn't come as a surprise that the people who can build the neat hack for you are going to want to get paid in order to do that.
	▲	dgellow 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		No it’s not the most complicated form. They didn’t go for a standard GmbH. A simple GmbH using a template protocol is simpler and cheaper