• This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    isn’t the one of the main purposes of creating an LLC or Corporation to shield your personal assets from the company’s finances?

    It is but it is not written in stone for all eternity. If people are abusing this law, like Musk, then it gets amended or rewritten.

    • tekato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      I agree. They can try to change the laws, and if the majority of those with voting powers agree on a way to handle these cases while doing more good than harm, I’m sure few would complain.

      • dustyData@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Poor comprehension of the law. LLC in the vast majority of the western world means limited liability, not absolute immunity. Owners are 100% responsible for the actions of their companies, but their liability is limited when other members of the company act without their knowledge or in bad faith, or damages are unintentional. If the damage was intentional and the actions were sanctioned and approved by ownership or leadership they are absolutely liable for the legal repercussions. Liability is limited also for multiple owners, a hedge fund cannot be held responsible for the action of a company they only own 5% of and has an indirect influence on the actions of leadership. The really important element here is that Musk is being identified as acting as primary agent, not just Twitter, and using assets and resources from his other companies. Thus, it’s not Twitter acting, it’s Musk who is acting, and then fines can be on all of his capital holdings, not just Twitter. This nuance of law is exactly according to the laws in place in the EU.