[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by punkgrrrlie10

I've read many cases dealing with the SEC going after fraudulent CEOs who were undercapitalizing or using corporate resources for their own personal benefit.

I'm sure many cases have been exploited, but the SEC are only as strong as the budget they're given by the same elected officials who receive campaign contributions from companies like ENRON and MCI. I'm sure corporate fraud is frequently nailed, but I'm willing to bet it's not nearly enough.

It's not always going to be their investment. They could actually participate in the voting process and still be a minority shareholder so the company can go on w/o them in their decisions. Someone may decide unless they can buy at least a certain controlling share, that they perhaps shouldn't invest just b/c they become liable even though they participate and aren't able to have a say in company decisions.

Again, doesn't this question the viability of the whole system? If I follow you correctly, you're saying this will discourage investment, b/c investors won't want to invest and defer decisions, at the risk of being held liable for poor decisions. Wouldn't this change, perhaps democratize, the entire process, create more accountability on all ends?

The system is also set up so that corporate negligence and environmental disregard are punished under criminal theories b/c they are illegal rather than a "risk" taken. Just as surveillance cameras aren't placed in people's homes to make sure they aren't committing illegal acts, it is assumed that corporations will act in their best judgment. Sometimes in business that judgment will be wrong and we can't punish more than what a company is worth when it just comes to mistaken judgment.

If I commit a crime, perhaps immense property damage, am I not held to the cost of the destruction as opposed to my own affordability??? Corporations are granted the rights of a citizen, so why not hold them accountable beyond their own worth??

There's a difference between a risk associated w/business, which includes your stock bottoming out b/c the company lost their gov't contract building bombs and stock bottoming out b/c a CEO has committed massive fraud. It's like the difference between going to play with the sharks in the ocean in a cage and going in w/o the cage. One's a risk, the other is a reckless risk. It's not assumed that investing in stock should be a reckless risk which is why there are so many laws in place against dumping stock within certain periods of time for persons with certain percentages and making fraudulent representations about the company to inflate prices.

If I commit a crime, receive a DWAI, I could lose my job, I could have it placed on my record for life. It creates accountability. It seems that corporations often enjoy certain aspects of individualized status as a citizen, yet are exempt from others.

If I pay for my child to go to college, whether they flunk out or get kicked out due to drug use, they have still proven to be a poor investment with my money. Their grades may have been excellent, and they may have done everything academically necessary. But they broke the rules of society, as well as the policies of the college, and now they pay, and I'm out a few grand. I may even need to cover my child's legal expenses beyond college expenses.

I realize this is a loose analogy, but I feel that it draws parallels between citizens and corporations, a line that is often blurred, generally in favor of the corporation, and I feel it's a double standard.

You probably know far more about corporate entitlement laws than I do, so please, share.