Corporate Death Penalty - For or Against

[SpidermanTuba]

Should a corporation that has committed a grave offense be confiscated from its shareholders and sold off by the government?

 

[goldcatt]

Why not? The corporate entity is a fiction that exists only on paper sanctioned and recognized by the State. If they're going to have individual rights they should also have individual responsibilities - and penalties.

Of course the Enrons and Countrywides of the world tend to kill themselves long before the State could convict them and take them over.

 

[Meister]

I guess if you want to screw the shareholders, that would be one way of doing it.
It would give a whole new meaning to 401K's and IRA's, and the trust in 401K's and IRA's. Could have a grave impact on the stock market, and the money in the market. But, hey.....more power to our government....I know we all trust them to do the right thing.

 

[Modbert]

I would say my opinion on this, but way too broad of a question to be determined either way. However, from what I'm hearing, not liking too much.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Why not? The corporate entity is a fiction that exists only on paper sanctioned and recognized by the State. If they're going to have individual rights they should also have individual responsibilities - and penalties.

Of course the Enrons and Countrywides of the world tend to kill themselves long before the State could convict them and take them over.

It also will save the people from a lot of regulating. A corporation is much more likely to self regulate if its possible they could be killed for fucking the people.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I guess if you want to screw the shareholders, that would be one way of doing it.

The shareholders accepted liability up to the amount they paid for the shares when they bought them.

It would give a whole new meaning to 401K's and IRA's, and the trust in 401K's and IRA's. Could have a grave impact on the stock market, and the money in the market. But, hey.....more power to our government....I know we all trust them to do the right thing.

So are you also against the DP for individuals or do you think corporations should have special rights?

 

[goldcatt]

I guess if you want to screw the shareholders, that would be one way of doing it.
It would give a whole new meaning to 401K's and IRA's, and the trust in 401K's and IRA's. Could have a grave impact on the stock market, and the money in the market. But, hey.....more power to our government....I know we all trust them to do the right thing.

The corporations that engage in the kind of behaviors that would warrant "death" for the entity are going to screw their shareholders anyway. I'm not sure about the government seizing assets for sale - by that point there would be nothing left. But revoking a corporate charter for egregious wrongdoing and putting any remaining assets into receivership? Why not?

 

[Modbert]

Should a corporation that has committed a grave offense be confiscated from its shareholders and sold off by the government?

1.) What would be considered a "grave offense?"

2.) Who would regulate this? The SEC?

3.) Sold off to whom?

4.) Why blame the shareholders (especially if it's a large group of people) for the actions of a few when they have little to no hand in a corporation making a grave offense.

5.) Is the Federal Government going to override state charters? Including any sort of contracts?

Looking at just this plainly, I would never support such a thing.

 

[goldcatt]

Why not? The corporate entity is a fiction that exists only on paper sanctioned and recognized by the State. If they're going to have individual rights they should also have individual responsibilities - and penalties.

Of course the Enrons and Countrywides of the world tend to kill themselves long before the State could convict them and take them over.

It also will save the people from a lot of regulating. A corporation is much more likely to self regulate if its possible they could be killed for fucking the people.

I disagree on the regulating. It would mean an entire new criminal code specifically designed for corporations. Every offense would have to be clearly defined. For example, what in a corporate sense would actually constitute "treason"?

I doubt it can or will be done, but in theory revocation of the corporate charter (which equals corporate death) for the worst offenses isn't a bad idea. Which leaves it to the States, since corporations are only formed at the State level. Rough, broad, lots of details to work out, but an interesting idea.

 

[Meister]

I guess if you want to screw the shareholders, that would be one way of doing it.

The shareholders accepted liability up to the amount they paid for the shares when they bought them.

It would give a whole new meaning to 401K's and IRA's, and the trust in 401K's and IRA's. Could have a grave impact on the stock market, and the money in the market. But, hey.....more power to our government....I know we all trust them to do the right thing.

So are you also against the DP for individuals or do you think corporations should have special rights?

I don't think that corporations should have special rights.......But I'm not for a government seizing control of a business. I'm not for big government like you are, obviously spider.
I am for regulations that DO prevent a "grave offense". I do know that the government seems to want to over regulate, there lies the problem....not to you, I do understand that, but to me and most Americans.
The shareholders do take risk and most do know that, but to wake up one day and read in the WSJ that the government seized the assets of a corporation.....give me a break. There solutions to problems without the government seizing control.

 

[Meister]

I guess if you want to screw the shareholders, that would be one way of doing it.
It would give a whole new meaning to 401K's and IRA's, and the trust in 401K's and IRA's. Could have a grave impact on the stock market, and the money in the market. But, hey.....more power to our government....I know we all trust them to do the right thing.

The corporations that engage in the kind of behaviors that would warrant "death" for the entity are going to screw their shareholders anyway. I'm not sure about the government seizing assets for sale - by that point there would be nothing left. But revoking a corporate charter for egregious wrongdoing and putting any remaining assets into receivership? Why not?

Who decides the death of a corporation? Yes, if there is an ongoing problem the the shareholders will drop, and in will step the bottom feeders to buy the shares, I get that.
But until there is just a shell left, Who defines egregious wrongdoings? Will the bars keep moving? I'm against the government getting their mits on this except for the regulations. The government will keep trying to get a foot in the door. I'm against a government like that. I don't trust them.

 

[Avatar4321]

I would be against it. It would give politicians way too much control over peoples lives. If a corporation doesnt donate to your campaign, well im sure we can manufacture some sort of offense and destroy the corporation.

Not to mention it seems stupid to go after Corporations but leave Partnerships, LLCs, and sole proprietorships untouched.

 

[goldcatt]

Should a corporation that has committed a grave offense be confiscated from its shareholders and sold off by the government?

1.) What would be considered a "grave offense?"

2.) Who would regulate this? The SEC?

3.) Sold off to whom?

4.) Why blame the shareholders (especially if it's a large group of people) for the actions of a few when they have little to no hand in a corporation making a grave offense.

5.) Is the Federal Government going to override state charters? Including any sort of contracts?

Looking at just this plainly, I would never support such a thing.

What is a corporate charter but a license granted by the State for individuals to organize in a certain manner and do business? Playing devil's advocate here, how is that any different from any other license the State can grant - or revoke for wrongdoing?

You have some good questions here, and the details are where something like this could turn into a nightmare. Or not. But I have no problem with the general concept, depending on how it's done. Or, in the alternative, I also have no problem with leaving revocation off the table - but then they shouldn't receive special treatment as far as individual rights when there are no equal responsibilities. I'd be happy with either one.

 

[goldcatt]

I would be against it. It would give politicians way too much control over peoples lives. If a corporation doesnt donate to your campaign, well im sure we can manufacture some sort of offense and destroy the corporation.

Not to mention it seems stupid to go after Corporations but leave Partnerships, LLCs, and sole proprietorships untouched.

Partnerships and sole proprietorships don't really apply here since there is no shield from personal liability. Their owners would simply have the same personal responsibility we all have. LLCs (and their cousins LLPs and the like) I would treat the same as corporations. It's the limited liability entity, not the specific form called a "corporation".

 

[Modbert]

What is a corporate charter but a license granted by the State for individuals to organize in a certain manner and do business? Playing devil's advocate here, how is that any different from any other license the State can grant - or revoke for wrongdoing?

You have some good questions here, and the details are where something like this could turn into a nightmare. Or not. But I have no problem with the general concept, depending on how it's done. Or, in the alternative, I also have no problem with leaving revocation off the table - but then they shouldn't receive special treatment as far as individual rights when there are no equal responsibilities. I'd be happy with either one.

The general concept all relies on the foundation of what is a "grave offense." If it involves cooking the books, why punish the stockholders? There are already laws on the books to punish those who decide to cook the books. In fact, CEOs are now liable since they have to sign off on the financial documents.

I just don't want someone with a agenda (and with politics, there is always one) going around like Paul Kersey taking out corporations at will.

A corporate charter is just a license to exist. However, I'm referring to the contracts that these corporations have with current businesses. Will the Government pay for any contracts that are legally broken? What will happen?

I just don't get why you would punish the shareholders and not those who actually commit the grave offenses. As much as we've had with the Enron, Worldcom, etc situations, the shareholders were not in it. They all lost their money, some their life savings, and you want to say their shares are null and void? You'd be bankrupting people in many cases for no good reason.

 

[goldcatt]

I guess if you want to screw the shareholders, that would be one way of doing it.
It would give a whole new meaning to 401K's and IRA's, and the trust in 401K's and IRA's. Could have a grave impact on the stock market, and the money in the market. But, hey.....more power to our government....I know we all trust them to do the right thing.

The corporations that engage in the kind of behaviors that would warrant "death" for the entity are going to screw their shareholders anyway. I'm not sure about the government seizing assets for sale - by that point there would be nothing left. But revoking a corporate charter for egregious wrongdoing and putting any remaining assets into receivership? Why not?

Who decides the death of a corporation? Yes, if there is an ongoing problem the the shareholders will drop, and in will step the bottom feeders to buy the shares, I get that.
But until there is just a shell left, Who defines egregious wrongdoings? Will the bars keep moving? I'm against the government getting their mits on this except for the regulations. The government will keep trying to get a foot in the door. I'm against a government like that. I don't trust them.

For something like this the 14th Amendment would apply, which means due process.

As I mentioned, there would actually have to be a written criminal code and corporate entities would have to be processed through the criminal justice system and the States obtain convictions. Those convictions would be subject to the appeals process. There would be sentencing guidelines, I'm sure. Slapping on regulations and seizing assets based on some kind of administrative process wouldn't cut it - I'd be against that too.

But if limited libaility entities want to be treated as individuals, then they should be treated as individuals for all purposes.

Like I said, I doubt it would or could happen. But theoretically? Why not?

 

[goldcatt]

What is a corporate charter but a license granted by the State for individuals to organize in a certain manner and do business? Playing devil's advocate here, how is that any different from any other license the State can grant - or revoke for wrongdoing?

You have some good questions here, and the details are where something like this could turn into a nightmare. Or not. But I have no problem with the general concept, depending on how it's done. Or, in the alternative, I also have no problem with leaving revocation off the table - but then they shouldn't receive special treatment as far as individual rights when there are no equal responsibilities. I'd be happy with either one.

The general concept all relies on the foundation of what is a "grave offense." If it involves cooking the books, why punish the stockholders? There are already laws on the books to punish those who decide to cook the books. In fact, CEOs are now liable since they have to sign off on the financial documents.

I just don't want someone with a agenda (and with politics, there is always one) going around like Paul Kersey taking out corporations at will.

A corporate charter is just a license to exist. However, I'm referring to the contracts that these corporations have with current businesses. Will the Government pay for any contracts that are legally broken? What will happen?

I just don't get why you would punish the shareholders and not those who actually commit the grave offenses. As much as we've had with the Enron, Worldcom, etc situations, the shareholders were not in it. They all lost their money, some their life savings, and you want to say their shares are null and void? You'd be bankrupting people in many cases for no good reason.

You're right, the devil is in the details. But you cannot have a taking without due process, if done this would not be some schmuck with a czarship deciding who lives and who dies based on political persuasion. It couldn't be.

Look at your list of capital offenses for individuals. Treason topping that list, of course. Then your highest degrees of homicide (whatever it's called in your State). Fancy capital charges for things like terrorism are really just blends or twists of those two, those are the benchmarks.

Can corporations (or LLCs, etc.) as an entity commit treason? Can they, as an entity, knowingly and willfully kill people with their actions? Or, since they are a different kind of entity, are there different kinds of offenses they could commit as an entity that would be of equal gravity? All of these questions would have to be answered and the specifics put into law - not regulations but legislative acts - as a very first step. And survive constituional challenge in the courts, guaranteed.

There are some interesting questions and issues here, but why not take a look at the possibility?

 

[Yurt]

against

as goldcatt stated, the corporation is a fictional entity...it is run by people, and lately has been given certain first amendment protections. but killing it? why? killing the corporation alone doesn't stop the people who committed the illegal acts. think of shell corporations. if you kill the shell, it does nothing to the people. killing corporations will not stop the people who run them.

you need to go after the people, not a piece of paper

 

[rightwinger]

Should a corporation that has committed a grave offense be confiscated from its shareholders and sold off by the government?

No...but all their executives should be jailed

 

[goldcatt]

against

as goldcatt stated, the corporation is a fictional entity...it is run by people, and lately has been given certain first amendment protections. but killing it? why? killing the corporation alone doesn't stop the people who committed the illegal acts. think of shell corporations. if you kill the shell, it does nothing to the people. killing corporations will not stop the people who run them.

you need to go after the people, not a piece of paper

Problem is if you expand individual liability, you really are killing the corporation in general by compromising the limited liability aspect of the entity - which is one of the main benefits of incorporating in the first place. I'm not anti-corporation, far from it. They serve an important purpose. But what's the best way to hold them accountable for wrongdoing without weakening the ones who play by the rules?