Lifting the corporate veil

[motorbiking]

Baroness Mone among individuals sued to recover PPE Medpro millions

The Baroness and her husband Doug Barrowman are among individuals being sued in a bid to recover some of the money owed to the government by the business.

www.bbc.co.uk

Government attempts to go after directors by trying to lift the corporate veil.

Seizing their personal assets directly from the company’s former dividends is going to be extremely difficult.

 

[Brigadier]

Seizing their personal assets directly from the company’s former dividends is going to be extremely difficult.

Perhaps.
Does that make it the "wrong" thing to do though?

 

[blup]

Seems a fruitless waste of taxpayers money, just change the law to give far more powers to make directors personally liable for specified wrongdoing.

 

[Brigadier]

Seems a fruitless waste of taxpayers money, just change the law to give far more powers to make directors personally liable for specified wrongdoing.

Which is what I was leading to.

Unless the OP thinks it is wrong to pursue the personal assets of directors who have been found to have profited from their nefarious actions.

 

[noseall]

Baroness Mone among individuals sued to recover PPE Medpro millions

The Baroness and her husband Doug Barrowman are among individuals being sued in a bid to recover some of the money owed to the government by the business.

www.bbc.co.uk

Government attempts to go after directors by trying to lift the corporate veil.

Seizing their personal assets directly from the company’s former dividends is going to be extremely difficult.

Why should thieving scroungers like Mone et al get to keep their stolen loot, just because they moved it into a different account.
Proceeds of crime anyone?

 

[blup]

Which is what I was leading to.

Unless the OP thinks it is wrong to pursue the personal assets of directors who have been found to have profited from their nefarious actions.

I imagine he might have that in mind as a successful entrepreneur. But your question whether pursuing the directors/beneficiaries personally is not wrong, raises moral issues about state sponsored SLAP lawsuits. If there is no likelihood of success, should the state be pursuing individuals for political reasons. At the very least It smacks of money for the lawyers making money from an argument that won’t ultimately stand up to legal scrutiny

 

[Brigadier]

I imagine he might have that in mind as a successful entrepreneur. But your question whether pursuing the directors/beneficiaries personally is not wrong, raises moral issues about state sponsored SLAP lawsuits. If there is no likelihood of success, should the state be pursuing individuals for political reasons. At the very least It smacks of money for the lawyers making money from an argument that won’t ultimately stand up to legal scrutiny

I see that point, but it's that then not evidence that the law is ripe for review?

It may have been well - meaning when it was first written (I am being generous there though : I fully expect it was written by the likely beneficiaries, for the likely beneficiaries), but it cannot stand that we continue to facilitate "privatise the profits, and socialise the losses".

 

[SPLINE]

This is just more creeping communism; commies hate private businesses.

If a company director has stolen money it is theft, no extra laws or powers needed.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

The Limited of Limited Company indicates that it has Limited Liability, i.e. that if it goes bust then any debt stops there and is written off. It's essentially the same as a person - if a person dies then you can't pursue a debt against anyone who worked for them.

If you're going to lend to a company then you assess the risk and make your own decision. There are credit ratings companies that assess this risk for you.

It enables entrepreneurs to take risks and try ideas out without risking their own money and assets (e.g. the roof over their head). Without Limited Liability a lot of companies just wouldn't get started.

If our commie government made all directors personally liable as potentially indicated by this case then probably thousands of businesses would immediately lay off all their staff and shut down, as the owners just wouldn't want to risk everything they own.

If there was fraud then the people involved should be prosecuted for their actions. But I don't see how they'd personally owe any money. The government was daft enough to lob its money all over the place, perhaps the people who made the decisions within the government and civil service should be sacked for incompetence.