5 ms·

If your corp causes damage or commits crimes, you're not magically shielded because you did it as a business. You can absolutely be held personally liable. Extr

If your corp causes damage or commits crimes, you're not magically shielded because you did it as a business. You can absolutely be held personally liable. Extracting money from your company just so they can't come after it doesn't work. An example is the Bollea v. Gawker lawsuit, where the founder had to personally pay $10m on top of everything else, or the demise of criminal enterprises such as Prenda Law. Deterrence absolutely works because individuals are affected in the end.

BobbyJo 3y ago
The problem isn't the law, it's enforcement. We can't prove wrong doing in most cases because who made what decisions with what information is often intentionally obfuscated. This is a good example. DuPont almost certainly knew these chemicals posed a long term risk to human health, and DuPont chose to keep manufacturing them and making money with them, but we can't arrest DuPont. Instead we have to prove that individuals within DuPont did the above, but no single person (or collection of coconspirators) is likely to be proven to commit the above crime.
- stonogo 3y ago
  The company, at that point, is a collection of coconspirators. This is the fundamental difference between the executives of a company and other employees. The executives should be held responsible.
  - BobbyJo 3y ago
    Is that the way the law has been applied? Or are you saying thats how it should be?
    - stonogo 3y ago
      It is arguably the entire purpose of the managerial class to take responsibility for the times when organizational policy results in illegal actions. Wage theft is a well-documented (and well-litigated) example of management being held personally liable. Obviously the way the law is applied is that none of these executives will be held accountable. I often wonder where the line is.

5 ms·

If your corp causes damage or commits crimes, you're not magically shielded because you did it as a business. You can absolutely be held personally liable. Extr

by chmod775 3y ago

BobbyJo 3y ago
The problem isn't the law, it's enforcement. We can't prove wrong doing in most cases because who made what decisions with what information is often intentionally obfuscated. This is a good example. DuPont almost certainly knew these chemicals posed a long term risk to human health, and DuPont chose to keep manufacturing them and making money with them, but we can't arrest DuPont. Instead we have to prove that individuals within DuPont did the above, but no single person (or collection of coconspirators) is likely to be proven to commit the above crime.
- stonogo 3y ago
  The company, at that point, is a collection of coconspirators. This is the fundamental difference between the executives of a company and other employees. The executives should be held responsible.
  - BobbyJo 3y ago
    Is that the way the law has been applied? Or are you saying thats how it should be?
    - stonogo 3y ago
      It is arguably the entire purpose of the managerial class to take responsibility for the times when organizational policy results in illegal actions. Wage theft is a well-documented (and well-litigated) example of management being held personally liable. Obviously the way the law is applied is that none of these executives will be held accountable. I often wonder where the line is.