11 ms·

What would that gain you? Wouldnt the same capital holders pool their wealth into a newly minted corporation to continue exploiting the resources they have accr

by Sacho 10y ago

What would that gain you? Wouldnt the same capital holders pool their wealth into a newly minted corporation to continue exploiting the resources they have accrued? Are you going to seize the assets of the corporation and redistribute them? How is your proposed dissolution different from a fine big enough to bankrupt a company?

gonzo41 10y ago
Just quickly on my phone before I run to grab the train. You dissolve the entity and sell the assests to pay back the costs of damage. The people left high and dry by the loss of investment get the signal that there is more risk in involving yourself in companies that can really stuff people over through negligence or greed I mean really after the damage that was done, you don't think companies like BP should still exist. How about all those resource companies walking over the people of the third world. etc etc. As for cutting peoples heads off...Who knows what this new america will bring :)
- Sacho 10y ago
  > You dissolve the entity and sell the assests to pay back the costs of damage VW could pay the damages in its particular case without dissolution. What would you do with the extra money after liquidating its assets? It seems like you're simply arguing for even bigger fines.
  - hvidgaard 10y ago
    Not the parent. If the company can pay for fines, fine. No need to dissolve them, but the leadership responsible still needs to face a judge. Just because you're part of a corporation, shouldn't mean you get to walk from crimes.
    - Sacho 10y ago
      Kind of like this? https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/volkswagen-ag-agrees-plead-guilty-and-pay-43-billion-criminal-and-civil-penalties-six https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/volkswagen-ag-agrees-plead-gu...
      - hvidgaard 10y ago
        Just like that.
      - antivw 10y ago
        That link says that VW agreed to pay $2.8 billion in fines for defrauding 590,000 car owners and cheating on emissions tests. $2.8 billion/590K vehicles < $5K/vehicle. That's a good start on fines. Now make them reimburse 590K owners. Let's see... A Jetta has an MSRP of >$20K. So, how about reimbursing $5K-$10K of every diesel vehicle that was fraudulently sold? Or, force VW to buy them all back at original MSRP. Then they could resell them for whatever they could get for them. Would you pay $10K for a 2 year old cheater Jetta? Edit: removed typo
    - claudius 10y ago
      > but the leadership responsible still needs to face a judge There’s your problem, assuming that there is a way for leadership in a company not be responsible. Managers being ‘responsible’ is the only argument for them being paid disproportionally more than the average worker. In turn, a manager should always be responsible for the actions of their underlings all the way to the top, regardless of personal involvement in or knowledge of those actions. The idea that the management of a company could not be responsible for something done by that company (which, e.g. could have resulted in considerable savings for the company and its shareholders) is simply ludicrous.
      - hvidgaard 10y ago
        There is several layers of leadership. The CEO might say, we need to make a product in this price range, and meeting the new regulations. Several layers below him, are the managers, that goes into the nitty gritty details of the engine and know what the engineers are doing. Is the CEO reponsible if the manager cheated and deliberately hid facts from the upper management, just to please them and make himself look better? You could argue that they should have a seperate control instance, but that was what they had, and they cheated it anyway.
        claudius 10y ago
        > Is the CEO reponsible if the manager cheated and deliberately hid facts from the upper management, just to please them and make himself look better? Morally, certainly yes, that’s why they’re the CEO. Their only defence against responsibility is incapacity to fulfil their duties, in which case they should resign immediately.
        hvidgaard 10y ago
        It is naive to believe a CEO can know about everything. The job is to get out of the habit of running the company day to day, and focus on vision, strategy, and culture. It is entirely possible for the management levels below him to ignore orders, and cheat measures out in place to ensure this. As long as the CEO act accordingly when knowledge about this reaches him, he is doing a proper job. It will never be possible to totally control things with an orginazation so large that you need several layers of management. You do put trust into the lower layers, no matter how you do it.
forgetsusername 10y ago
>What would that gain you? Wouldnt the same capital holders pool their wealth into a newly minted corporation to continue exploiting the resources they have accrued? And the small-timers, with their meagre holdings and pension funds would be wiped out. Corporations aren't monolithic; they are a collection of people working for and owning stake in. Their dissolution wouldn't be small and contained, it would be large and messy.
voidlogic 10y ago
>What would that gain you? This is a deterrent and would be very disruptive to the owners conducting business. It would discourage investors from elevating questionable people to boards of directors. It could be something like this: 1. Sell/auction assets 2. Pay fines and damages and debts 3. Split remaining proceeds amongst non-legally culpable share holders

by Sacho 10y ago

gonzo41 10y ago

Just quickly on my phone before I run to grab the train. You dissolve the entity and sell the assests to pay back the costs of damage. The people left high and dry by the loss of investment get the signal that there is more risk in involving yourself in companies that can really stuff people over through negligence or greed I mean really after the damage that was done, you don't think companies like BP should still exist. How about all those resource companies walking over the people of the third world. etc etc. As for cutting peoples heads off...Who knows what this new america will bring :)

Sacho 10y ago
> You dissolve the entity and sell the assests to pay back the costs of damage VW could pay the damages in its particular case without dissolution. What would you do with the extra money after liquidating its assets? It seems like you're simply arguing for even bigger fines.
- hvidgaard 10y ago
  Not the parent. If the company can pay for fines, fine. No need to dissolve them, but the leadership responsible still needs to face a judge. Just because you're part of a corporation, shouldn't mean you get to walk from crimes.
  - Sacho 10y ago
    Kind of like this? https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/volkswagen-ag-agrees-plead-guilty-and-pay-43-billion-criminal-and-civil-penalties-six https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/volkswagen-ag-agrees-plead-gu...
    - hvidgaard 10y ago
      Just like that.
    - antivw 10y ago
      That link says that VW agreed to pay $2.8 billion in fines for defrauding 590,000 car owners and cheating on emissions tests. $2.8 billion/590K vehicles < $5K/vehicle. That's a good start on fines. Now make them reimburse 590K owners. Let's see... A Jetta has an MSRP of >$20K. So, how about reimbursing $5K-$10K of every diesel vehicle that was fraudulently sold? Or, force VW to buy them all back at original MSRP. Then they could resell them for whatever they could get for them. Would you pay $10K for a 2 year old cheater Jetta? Edit: removed typo
  - claudius 10y ago
    > but the leadership responsible still needs to face a judge There’s your problem, assuming that there is a way for leadership in a company not be responsible. Managers being ‘responsible’ is the only argument for them being paid disproportionally more than the average worker. In turn, a manager should always be responsible for the actions of their underlings all the way to the top, regardless of personal involvement in or knowledge of those actions. The idea that the management of a company could not be responsible for something done by that company (which, e.g. could have resulted in considerable savings for the company and its shareholders) is simply ludicrous.
    - hvidgaard 10y ago
      There is several layers of leadership. The CEO might say, we need to make a product in this price range, and meeting the new regulations. Several layers below him, are the managers, that goes into the nitty gritty details of the engine and know what the engineers are doing. Is the CEO reponsible if the manager cheated and deliberately hid facts from the upper management, just to please them and make himself look better? You could argue that they should have a seperate control instance, but that was what they had, and they cheated it anyway.
      - claudius 10y ago
        > Is the CEO reponsible if the manager cheated and deliberately hid facts from the upper management, just to please them and make himself look better? Morally, certainly yes, that’s why they’re the CEO. Their only defence against responsibility is incapacity to fulfil their duties, in which case they should resign immediately.
        hvidgaard 10y ago
        It is naive to believe a CEO can know about everything. The job is to get out of the habit of running the company day to day, and focus on vision, strategy, and culture. It is entirely possible for the management levels below him to ignore orders, and cheat measures out in place to ensure this. As long as the CEO act accordingly when knowledge about this reaches him, he is doing a proper job. It will never be possible to totally control things with an orginazation so large that you need several layers of management. You do put trust into the lower layers, no matter how you do it.

forgetsusername 10y ago

>What would that gain you? Wouldnt the same capital holders pool their wealth into a newly minted corporation to continue exploiting the resources they have accrued? And the small-timers, with their meagre holdings and pension funds would be wiped out. Corporations aren't monolithic; they are a collection of people working for and owning stake in. Their dissolution wouldn't be small and contained, it would be large and messy.

voidlogic 10y ago

>What would that gain you? This is a deterrent and would be very disruptive to the owners conducting business. It would discourage investors from elevating questionable people to boards of directors. It could be something like this: 1. Sell/auction assets 2. Pay fines and damages and debts 3. Split remaining proceeds amongst non-legally culpable share holders