4 ms·
The article says that Richard would have personal liability if the sale didn't go through. That doesn't make sense to me - can someone explain? Edit: the artic
by kens 12y ago
The article says that Richard would have personal liability if the sale didn't go through. That doesn't make sense to me - can someone explain?
Edit: the article says both Richard and the investors would have personal liability, but isn't a purpose of a corporation to avoid personal liability?
- idlewords 12y agoI believe it says the investors could be liable.
- cperciva 12y agoBoard members can theoretically face personal liability if they fail to discharge their fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the shareholders. And in some states I think claims can also be made against directors for unpaid wages -- I'm not sure how the jurisdictional issues play out for a Delaware corporation with employees elsewhere though.
- alexqgb 12y agoThat was exactly the point - the personal liability isn't to the investors, it's to the state, which tends to take a very dim view of unpaid wages. In California, I believe treble damages are standard, so missing a $50,000 payroll can cost you $200,000 in addition to court fees and legal costs. INALB I'm pretty sure this is what the OP was getting at.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]