Returning to something I mentioned a few pages ago: what would be the plausibility of... not "corporate death penalty" in the sense of wiping out that corporation and its assets, but more of a "revocation of corporate status/protection?"
Earlier on this thread I outlined the difference
-- as I understand it, though I admitted upfront that I might be incorrect -- between, for example, "Jennifer the ordinary individual who made a little extra money buying tchotchkes at estate auctions and selling them for a profit," versus "JenCorp Tchotchke Company LLC": it's my understanding that "incorporating" my business would provide a certain level of protection to my own personal finances: "JenCorp" is effectively a different legal entity from "Jennifer, the person posting on the Gryll right now" -- if someone gets hurt from a JenCorp tchotchke, "JenCorp" might be sued and lose some or all of its assets, but "Jennifer's" assets (plus the assets of any other members of Jennifer's household) are not up for grabs.
Is this a generally accurate (though oversimplified) explanation of corporate status and its ostensible purpose? If so, then I wonder -- off the top of my head -- if revocation of corporate status would be a sufficient "corporate death penalty"? As in, if JenCorp knowingly and deliberately keeps selling tchotchkes that kill people, JenCorp no longer gets that protective corporate status?
Perhaps if those GM and Wells Fargo and other executives knew they personally would be screwed over their felonious activities committed under the corporate umbrella, they wouldn't have been so blase about allowing them to happen.
EDIT: "Quoted" my last post when I meant to "edit" it. Whoops.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b