3 ms·
Honestly as a corporate lawyer I have never heard this view expressed, but it’s super interesting.
by piker 10mo ago
Honestly as a corporate lawyer I have never heard this view expressed, but it’s super interesting.
- onraglanroad 10mo agoWhat are some obvious objections that would spring to your mind? Edit: sorry, that was very abrupt! Nice to have your input. I would be interested to hear what you think would be problematic about the Idea.
- piker 10mo agoIt's inefficient in the case of a wholly-owned subsidiary to require company A's shareholders to hire lawyers, setup bank accounts, books, etc. for a separate company B which ultimately provides the same limited liability vis-a-vis third parties. Joint-ventures become tricky between corporations. Corporations can't hold potentially toxic assets. There are quite a few good ones. Interesting nonetheless. Also as with all corporate law questions, <other jurisdiction> allows it, so we'll just go there instead.
- onraglanroad 10mo agoI'm not sure I understand your first point. If a company can't own another company there's no such thing as a "wholly-owned subsidiary". If you buy a company they become the same company. I'll try to stick to one thought at a time.
- niobe 10mo agoAlso super unlikely, and only worth discussing except as a theoretical exercise. We just aren't undoing centuries of law. Same reason trusts are here to stay.
- onraglanroad 10mo agoLess than 200 years unless I'm misreading. Doesn't seem that difficult to change.