4 ms·
It is legally ruled that based on reckless behavior people are owed money. So a corporation takes all of it's money and money making assets and hides it, and th
by BoiledCabbage 4y ago
It is legally ruled that based on reckless behavior people are owed money. So a corporation takes all of it's money and money making assets and hides it, and then takes a worthless thing be held responsible and to you "this is beneficial to the people harmed"?
> with the money making assets separated out so that an going concern isn’t destroyed.
If this isn't an incredibly deceptive sentence. Essentially we should pay them as long as it doesn't inconvenience us. If it would, we should be shielded from it.
Could you explain how that is good? Do you see that as someone or something being accountable or it's actions? Or dodging accountability?
- rcxdude 4y agoThe top comment does explain that because of this agreement between goodco and badco, goodco isn't actually shielded from the liability, because it still has to reimburse for the liabilities now owned by badco. If that's actually honored it doesn't seem like a bad thing at least (now it might be enabling more legal skulduggery later down the road, so it's reasonable to be suspicious, but the actions so far don't seem as nefarious as the plain texas-two-step where the two wind up completely split).
- zajio1am 4y ago> It is legally ruled that based on reckless behavior people are owed money. It is not necessary based on reckless behavior. Businesses often have strict liability, which means they are liable for damages even if they do everything right. It is a practical solution that simplifies legal cases (as proving regular liability would be harder) and also works as implicit insurance provided to customers. But it is fundamentally unjust and may be contraproductive in cases where it would destroy proper business or where legal costs markedly overwhelm compensation to damaged parties.