But you were under no obligation to do that, and you being the majority shareholder is also a key element here.
The OP is not a majority shareholder, as far as I can see has no obligation to go in to this now and it would be a very bad move indeed to get his name on any paperwork where he privately assumes the debt of the corporation just 'because his name is already on the paperwork'.
It would make it easier, not harder to tie this to him in the future.
If you personally guaranteed any of the company's debts --- and don't ever do that --- the story is obviously different. But if Rackspace invoices your company, you could own 99.9999% of its shares and most probably not owe a dime.
There are situations --- they vary from state to state --- that "pierce the corporate veil". Fraud is one of them, so is negligence, and so (in some crazy states) is payroll. What they tend to have in common is a tort: something an agent of the company explicitly did wrong to cause damages to another party. Signing a contract and not being able to live up to it is almost by definition not the same thing as a tort, which is why law students have separate classes in "torts" and "contract law".
A majority (but not sole) shareholder has a less hard time and a minority shareholder has nothing to worry about at all.
My experience has been that if you are a small, new corp, nobody will give the corp any credit without a personal co-sign.
I don't think it's silly to personally co-sign stuff. I mean, it's not something to be done lightly, sure, but if you need a lease, you need a lease. sometimes you need to take the risk
The take away is that a liability shield is not the same as a credit shield. Your credit will follow you, even if your debts do not. Some people care about this. Some don't.
For $17k, I'd surely think about my credit before walking away.
You are suggesting that he take out a private loan even though he's already committed his savings to this venture to the tune of $17K in order to protect his credit rating?
Worst case he won't be able to borrow money for a while, and he might not be able to get a mortgage or other financing.
Would you borrow money in order to be able to borrow money later? It makes very little sense to me, to pay back $17K privately (so that's after taxes) means that you'd have to be earning roughly double that just to get rid of this debt, at a regular salary and expenses that comes down to at least two years before you can get rid of that debt, not counting the interest.
How does that make any sense at all, is your credit rating worth 20K and two years of your life to you?
First, no. I'm not suggesting that he do that. I'm suggesting that it's an option on the table.
Different strokes for different folks. My primary income requires that I be able to secure large amounts of non-recourse debt, for example. A guy might have a wife who expects to be able to buy a house in the near future. Some may not care that the lawyer they hired worked 10-12 hours without getting paid. Others will. For some people $17k may take two years to pay back. Others, not so much. Some people just want to make good on their commitments if at all possible.
Not everyone takes the by-the-numbers view of debt (legitimate though it may be). Those who don't will consider you a deadbeat for walking. What's the cost of that? The answer is different for everyone, and counseling someone to consider the aftermath is just plain sensible.
And a serious question: Where can you get a merchant account for a new business that does not require a personal guarantee? I'd love to know.