|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 08 2013 @ 04:52 AM EDT |
Precisely.
Incorporating is a way for me to set up a business to do something useful for
the economy that protects me if it fails.
But when the incorporation is being used in a way to avoid personal liability
(which would normally occur) and is seen as such, then it is considered never to
have happened.
It is a perfect way to stop me [personally] deciding to sue you on flimsy
grounds and getting you to settle as it's cheaper for you than fighting in
court; for if you do fight and I lose, I lose [almost] nothing as I incorporated
a [troll] entity for this purpose: the incorporation acting as a shield to my
actions.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Saturday, June 08 2013 @ 08:45 AM EDT |
And this rarely happens in the UK, precisely because it CAN.
Just like we rarely get nuisance law suits because the aggressor is almost
certain to get landed with the entire defence bill.
Which is better? That a rich aggressor can outspend and bankrupt an innocent
competitor? Or that if a *real* *person* incorporates with the deliberate
intention of launching a malicious lawsuit can have the incorporation declared
invalid, to force them to pay the liability they tried to avoid.
The thing you need to see here, is that this sanction is only used if the
directors actions were LIKELY to trigger the liability, and they KNEW WHAT THEY
WERE DOING.
So if I do something stupid, I'm protected. If I intend to launch a lawsuit with
a low likelihood of success (ie I intend to troll), and I incorporate to shield
my private assets, the Judge will be quite likely to tear the veil. If I start a
genuine business and it goes pear-shaped, there's no way a Judge would be able
to tear the veil.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|