In a message dated 1/7/00 2:03:13 PM Central Standard Time,
bradbury@genebee.msu.su (I really don't know who wrote the original text I'm
quoting) writes:
> >
> > >> Are they safe? Corporations have limited liability remember.
> >
> > How about Bopohl (sp?) India, thalidomide?
> >
>
> I'm unsure of how this finally got resolved.
[The usual rushed note during the week . . . ] I don't get the point of this
"corporations have limited liability" comment I've seen a couple of times.
The corporation can limit its SHAREHOLDERS' liability for the company's
obligations, but corporations have no special legal immunity from suit or
liability. I don't know about the thalidomide cases, but I've studied the
other one you ask about. Union Carbide got the snot sued out of it over
Bhopal and paid a LOT of money to victims (although certainly not as much as
some people believed it should). In fact, one of the problems in that case
was the Indian government sticking its nose into the trough, demanding that
it be the sole agent for the victims in litigation against Union Carbide.
At any rate, corporations do NOT have limited liability, shareholders do (in
most, but not all circumstances).
P.S. -- Robert I'm getting bounces from those damned Russian machines. Do
you have access to your aeiveos account? I've sent some private mail to that
account after getting bounces from the russkie machines.
Greg Burch <GBurch1@aol.com>----<gburch@lockeliddell.com>
Attorney ::: Vice President, Extropy Institute ::: Wilderness Guide
http://users.aol.com/gburch1 -or- http://members.aol.com/gburch1
"We never stop investigating. We are never satisfied that we know
enough to get by. Every question we answer leads on to another
question. This has become the greatest survival trick of our species."
-- Desmond Morris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:08 MDT