4 ms·

The shareholders aren't the ones manufacturing the PFAS. I think that I want the operating unit to be halted and dismantled. Not the shareholders, management, o

The shareholders aren't the ones manufacturing the PFAS. I think that I want the operating unit to be halted and dismantled. Not the shareholders, management, or other units. So, I don't think Chapter 11 is the right solution.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
alistairSH 3y ago
I think Chapter 11 was just meant as an example of a "closed" company continuing to operate. No reason we can't dismantle Dupont in a similar fashion.
- briantakita 3y ago
  Will it solve the problem though? Assets & IP would be auctioned off. Shell companies would be formed to handle liability. The problem lies with the people who made the decisions that led to the toxic materials being discharged into the environment & the people harmed. A Chapter 11 would allow the same staff who caused the problems to join the new companies. Unless the people who caused the problems are personally & criminally held liable, nothing would change.
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    The idea is the owners/shareholders get punished. If we punish them, they'll stop hiring criminally negligent C-suites. I'd prefer we do both. Hold the actual bad actors accountable AND also kill the company and hurt the shareholders. Anybody involved needs to have incentive to stop the bad behavior. I'm tired of people using corporate shells as a get-out-of-jail card when they do things that are illegal and/or knowingly bad for society/environment.
    - politician 3y ago
      > If we punish them, they'll stop hiring criminally negligent C-suites. I sympathize with your frustration, but this statement implies a Minority Report level of knowledge of the future. What happens when executives become negligent after being hired? Are shareholders still to blame? What happens when some activity that wasn't known to be unacceptable becomes known to be unacceptable?
      - briantakita 3y ago
        > Are shareholders still to blame? The shareholders willingly take a financial risk in pursuit of wealth. The people in the public harmed by the corporate actions did not willingly accept the risk to their health. The public people harmed were victimized by the corporation & the people involved with the corporation. If the shareholders have skin in the game, they will be more motivated to ensure that the corporation does not endanger the public in any way. The officers' fiduciary duty becomes aligned with public safety as well. If the shareholders are simply chasing the bottom line without regard to the consequences of the company they invested in, there is no incentive to maintain public safety. History has shown what happens...companies repeatedly harm the public with a relatively minor punishment which is less than the money they made off of harming the public, if the company is punished at all. Corporations are chartered for the betterment of society. If a corporation is harmful to society, anyone involved with those actions should be aggressively removed from society under criminal statute, with even greater fervor then prosecuting a murderer, rapist, or any other criminal who impacts less people than corporate criminals.
JohnFen 3y ago
> The shareholders aren't the ones manufacturing the PFAS. True. They're just bankrolling it. I think it's totally fair to hold them responsible as well. Perhaps it would make investors pay more attention to what they're really supporting with their investment money.
- politician 3y ago
  Without strictly regulating how many product lines a given company can open, I don't think your suggestion is workable.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

alistairSH 3y ago

I think Chapter 11 was just meant as an example of a "closed" company continuing to operate. No reason we can't dismantle Dupont in a similar fashion.

briantakita 3y ago
Will it solve the problem though? Assets & IP would be auctioned off. Shell companies would be formed to handle liability. The problem lies with the people who made the decisions that led to the toxic materials being discharged into the environment & the people harmed. A Chapter 11 would allow the same staff who caused the problems to join the new companies. Unless the people who caused the problems are personally & criminally held liable, nothing would change.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  The idea is the owners/shareholders get punished. If we punish them, they'll stop hiring criminally negligent C-suites. I'd prefer we do both. Hold the actual bad actors accountable AND also kill the company and hurt the shareholders. Anybody involved needs to have incentive to stop the bad behavior. I'm tired of people using corporate shells as a get-out-of-jail card when they do things that are illegal and/or knowingly bad for society/environment.
  - politician 3y ago
    > If we punish them, they'll stop hiring criminally negligent C-suites. I sympathize with your frustration, but this statement implies a Minority Report level of knowledge of the future. What happens when executives become negligent after being hired? Are shareholders still to blame? What happens when some activity that wasn't known to be unacceptable becomes known to be unacceptable?
    - briantakita 3y ago
      > Are shareholders still to blame? The shareholders willingly take a financial risk in pursuit of wealth. The people in the public harmed by the corporate actions did not willingly accept the risk to their health. The public people harmed were victimized by the corporation & the people involved with the corporation. If the shareholders have skin in the game, they will be more motivated to ensure that the corporation does not endanger the public in any way. The officers' fiduciary duty becomes aligned with public safety as well. If the shareholders are simply chasing the bottom line without regard to the consequences of the company they invested in, there is no incentive to maintain public safety. History has shown what happens...companies repeatedly harm the public with a relatively minor punishment which is less than the money they made off of harming the public, if the company is punished at all. Corporations are chartered for the betterment of society. If a corporation is harmful to society, anyone involved with those actions should be aggressively removed from society under criminal statute, with even greater fervor then prosecuting a murderer, rapist, or any other criminal who impacts less people than corporate criminals.

JohnFen 3y ago

> The shareholders aren't the ones manufacturing the PFAS. True. They're just bankrolling it. I think it's totally fair to hold them responsible as well. Perhaps it would make investors pay more attention to what they're really supporting with their investment money.

politician 3y ago
Without strictly regulating how many product lines a given company can open, I don't think your suggestion is workable.