Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave

[over the mountain]

im no business attorney but from an elementary stand point, LLCs and what not protect the individual assets of the corporation's CEO, president etc from lawsuits that arise from their corporate activities. (you cant take BP's ceo's mansion for an oil spill)

im sure some people alot smarter than me can come up with something. cmaybe you can you attach a judgment to the ceo's mansion if his decisions and actions rise to a level of reckless endangerment (not complying with safety regs and employees are killed).

if a metro bus driver rear ends you, you can sue WMATA and the bus driver.

if a metro bus driver punches you in the face, you can sue the bus driver but you cant sue WMATA b/c punching people in the face is not within the course and scope of employment as a bus driver.

maybe, somehow, it can be shown that BP's ceo punched someone in the face (disregarding and covering up safety hazards which results in foreseeable deaths is not within the corporate activity of drilling and refining oil?)

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

im no business attorney but from an elementary stand point, LLCs and what not protect the individual assets of the corporation's CEO, president etc from lawsuits that arise from their corporate activities. (you cant take BP's ceo's mansion for an oil spill)

im sure some people alot smarter than me can come up with something. cmaybe you can you attach a judgment to the ceo's mansion if his decisions and actions rise to a level of reckless endangerment (not complying with safety regs and employees are killed).

if a metro bus driver rear ends you, you can sue WMATA and the bus driver.

if a metro bus driver punches you in the face, you can sue the bus driver but you cant sue WMATA b/c punching people in the face is not within the course and scope of employment as a bus driver.

maybe, somehow, it can be shown that BP's ceo punched someone in the face (disregarding and covering up safety hazards which results in foreseeable deaths is not within the corporate activity of drilling and refining oil?)

Clearly, the corporate shield protects (and for many very good reasons) individuals within the corporation from liability by the corporate entity or by corporate employees. There are situations, however, when it is appropriate and legally correct to "pierce the corporate veil". In those situations, the corporate managers can be held personally liable for the corporations actions.

This spill is not the equivalent of a Greyhound bus driver rear-ending someone. (FYI - The MTA is a govt. entity and soveriegn immunity is a whole different legal concept). I would suggest it is more akin to a decision by the Greyhound Board saying - "There is no statute or regulation requiring us to check our brakes and based on a cost/benefit analysis (lawsuits losses v. cost to inspect/fix/maintain brakes on the entire fleet) its cheaper not to do so. Therefore we (the CEO and Board) chose not to do so in order to increase our profits even if we know someone is likely to be killed."

Piercing the corporate shield to impose personal liability is difficult and should be so. However, it can be done. I think this is one of those situations where it should be made perfectly clear to BP executives that, unless it changes its tune, the Feds and States are going to be looking awfully hard to pierce the corporate veil in order to impose personal liability and criminal penalties.

[joethiesmanfan]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Clearly, the corporate shield protects (and for many very good reasons) individuals within the corporation from liability by the corporate entity or by corporate employees. There are situations, however, when it is appropriate and legally correct to "pierce the corporate veil". In those situations, the corporate managers can be held personally liable for the corporations actions.

This spill is not the equivalent of a Greyhound bus driver rear-ending someone. (FYI - The MTA is a govt. entity and soveriegn immunity is a whole different legal concept). I would suggest it is more akin to a decision by the Greyhound Board saying - "There is no statute or regulation requiring us to check our brakes and based on a cost/benefit analysis (lawsuits losses v. cost to inspect/fix/maintain brakes on the entire fleet) its cheaper not to do so. Therefore we (the CEO and Board) chose not to do so in order to increase our profits even if we know someone is likely to be killed."

Piercing the corporate shield to impose personal liability is difficult and should be so. However, it can be done. I think this is one of those situations where it should be made perfectly clear to BP executives that, unless it changes its tune, the Feds and States are going to be looking awfully hard to pierce the corporate veil in order to impose personal liability and criminal penalties.

Good luck trying to convince Rand Paul and the Tea Party revolution to do that. They are gonna take the House and Senate. If you take a long hard look Republicans and Democrats are falling to the Tea Party. They operate on principle. They would never vote for this on principle alone. It will never happen because in November we all can do whatever we want and pay no taxes.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by joethiesmanfan

Good luck trying to convince Rand Paul and the Tea Party revolution to do that. They are gonna take the House and Senate. If you take a long hard look Republicans and Democrats are falling to the Tea Party. They operate on principle. They would never vote for this on principle alone. It will never happen because in November we all can do whatever we want and pay no taxes.

How can I even argue with such stunning logic! I can't, I concede! Overwhelming brilliance and rationality on display once more! The Tea Party will reign b/c the vast majority of the U.S. population is just not as smart as you. Please, please, save us from ourselves JTF!!

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Clearly, the corporate shield protects (and for many very good reasons) individuals within the corporation from liability by the corporate entity or by corporate employees. There are situations, however, when it is appropriate and legally correct to "pierce the corporate veil". In those situations, the corporate managers can be held personally liable for the corporations actions.

This spill is not the equivalent of a Greyhound bus driver rear-ending someone. (FYI - The MTA is a govt. entity and soveriegn immunity is a whole different legal concept). I would suggest it is more akin to a decision by the Greyhound Board saying - "There is no statute or regulation requiring us to check our brakes and based on a cost/benefit analysis (lawsuits losses v. cost to inspect/fix/maintain brakes on the entire fleet) its cheaper not to do so. Therefore we (the CEO and Board) chose not to do so in order to increase our profits even if we know someone is likely to be killed."

dang it, nobody has liked my analogies this week. i battle WMATA and their "king can do wrong" soveriegn immunity all the time. currently they are claiming that they are not liable for a finger being cut off b/c of a broken gate/fence b/c get this . . .. .

the decision to put up or not put up a fence/gate was discretionary and therefore they are immune. they could have put up a fence, they could not have put up a fence, in their discretion they decided to put up a fence.

alos that the maintenance and repair of a fence on their property is not a proprietary function. really? you claiming the maintenacne of a fence on your property is not "propritary" in nature?

reading companies making decisions based on weighing the ecomonic cost vs doign the right thing; you should read the complaint filed in response to the '09 train crash in which 9 people dies. it is brutal. WMATA is hopefully screwed. i hate those people. they literally did what you outlined in your greyhound BOD hypo.