3 ms·
I mean, she profited when the company sold all the opioids that caused the stock to go up, why should she be off the hook on the negative end?
by Geeek 7y ago
I mean, she profited when the company sold all the opioids that caused the stock to go up, why should she be off the hook on the negative end?
- kube-system 7y agoShe didn't realize any profit if she still holds the stock. But that technicality aside, we already do hold her liable, but only to the amount of her investment. The point of my comment is, why would increasing her liability (from the amount of her investment, to everything she owns) decrease inequality?
- flyingfences 7y ago> we already do hold her liable, but only to the amount of her investment That's the thing, though - we don't. Her liability is limited to effectively zero. Her investment may lose value, but that is another risk entirely. If the company in which she is invested goes bankrupt with a billion dollar debt, she isn't on the hook for a penny of it.