Unions Want Crime Of Corporate Killing

[Sebrof]

and those actually responsible will get off scot-free whilst the shareholders pick up the fine.

 

well thay wont really will thay, thay all wont have to dip there hands in there pockets and pay out for it,

it be the company that has to pay, not each shareholder,

 

Don't you understand how companies work? The shareholders own the company, so any reduction in its value IS paid for by them. And if it's a public body, the taxpayers will pay. You and me, in other words, just as we pay for things like the MEA fiasco because the powers that be won't make people accountable.

 

does this law effect you in anyway, ie could u lose out on profits because of this law, or do u just not like the idea,

 

It could affect anybody, including you and me, by making people less accountable for their actions. And for that reason, I don't like it.

 

also if its only the company thats at fault,......

You still don't get it, do you? The company cannot be at fault, except through the actions of human beings.

 

And, for the last time, the company can do nothing by itself. It is PEOPLE that make the decisions, and it is these same people who should carry the can.

[Sebrof]

sometimes it is management fault, and thay should be held responsable,

 

Yes, Gazza, you're getting there. "Management" is people. And it's people who should take responsibility, not taxpayers or shareholders.

[Alias]

Where does insurance come into this?

[Sebrof]

You can repeat it as many times as you like but it won't change mine or other peoples opinions on the matter.

 

Your presumption is amusing.

 

In what way is it amusing? I'm not presuming anything.

What are you saying here, are you saying that you're the only person on the forum entitled to an opinion and everyone has to agree with you?

 

It is amusing because it is so absurd, and because you are so hypocritical.

 

You accuse me of thinking I'm the only person entitled to an opinion, but claim to speak for everybody: "but it won't change mine or other peoples opinions on the matter."

 

You are unable to discuss the matter without gratuitous insults: "complete utter tosh", which again implies that you are the sole arbiter of what is sense and what is nonsense.

 

And you are unable to argue a point. All you do is make unsupported assertions: "Nobody will get off the hook."

 

And your statement that "I haven't read the book on corporate law" shows you know very little about the law, but still claim to know how it will work.

 

I have to say that I am disappointed that this thread has generated no intelligent debate whatsoever (Chinahand and PK excepted). Perhaps I have chosen the wrong forum. It would be nice to think that before an important law is passed the electorate would take some interest in it, but it seems I was too optimistic.

[Sebrof]

Duplicate post removed.

[WilDDog]

You're going over posts that you've already commented on, if you feel that strongly about someone wanting to bring this law in, do something about it instead of whinging on a forum.

Just for the record I've come to the conclusion that your posts in this thread don't warrant any discussion or debate because you can't take the fact that someone disagrees with you. As for arguing a point believe me I can do just that, but I haven't the time or inclination to be bothered with you because you think you are right and everyone else is wrong.

 

I have to say that I am disappointed that this thread has generated no intelligent debate whatsoever (Chinahand excepted). Perhaps I have chosen the wrong forum. It would be nice to think that before an important law is passed the electorate would take some interest in it, but it seems I was too optimistic.

 

Looks like you'll have to find another forum where everyone on it agrees with you.

 

Shut the door on the way out.

[Sebrof]

Sebrof, I think you are mistaken in your analysis. A company is owned by its shareholders, but run by the agents of the owners, usually the directors in a public or private limited company.

 

It is the officers of the company who have to put the systems in place to avoid a corporate manslaughter charge - it will be them in the dock, not the shareholders.

Not quite true as unfortunately it's often the shareholders that ultimately pay. For years it's been common practice that the contract for a director includes a clause that the company will pay any fines, costs incurred etc etc in the event that the director ends up before the beak. I've seen it happen to the tune of millions of US$. The shareholders tried to object but they got nowhere because a contract of employment signed by both parties is effectively cast in stone. However it's not clear what would happen in the event of a custodial sentence.

 

The issue, therefore, is to make those responsible personally liable for their actions.

 

At last! A voice of reason in the wilderness. It would be good to see a proposal that where, in a director's service contract, any terms are against the public interest, they should be null and void. That would be much more sensible than this present proposal.

 

And bring on the custodial sentences! Where merited, of course.

 

Sebrof

[Triple H]

At last! A voice of reason in the wilderness. It would be good to see a proposal that where, in a director's service contract, any terms are against the public interest, they should be null and void. That would be much more sensible than this present proposal.

 

And bring on the custodial sentences! Where merited, of course.

 

 

 

You want the directors and shareholders to be blameless. You dismiss other peoples opinions who disagree with you and basically keep repeating yourself.

 

You've got to be a troll.

[Sebrof]

At last! A voice of reason in the wilderness. It would be good to see a proposal that where, in a director's service contract, any terms are against the public interest, they should be null and void. That would be much more sensible than this present proposal.

 

And bring on the custodial sentences! Where merited, of course.

 

 

 

You want the directors and shareholders to be blameless. You dismiss other peoples opinions who disagree with you and basically keep repeating yourself.

 

You've got to be a troll.

 

No, I don't (want the directors and shareholders to be blameless). Please re-read what I wrote. I want the HUMAN BEINGS involved to be held responsible, not shareholders or tax-payers (which is what happens when you blame "the organisation").

 

If the directors are culpable, they should take the blame.

 

If you read what I wrote the first time, I wouldn't have to keep repeating it.

 

And don't call people trolls when you can't take the trouble to read what they have written.

[Sebrof]

Duplicate post deleted.

[Gladys]

Where does insurance come into this?

Insurance generally only pays out for civil liability, not criminal as that would be contrary to public policy.

 

And PJ, company law prohibits a company from indemnifying its directors except in specific circumstances - in other words, a director is expected to discharge his duties to an exacting standard (he is acting in a fiduciary capacity) if he fails to meet those standards and so incurs a personal fine or other penalty, then the company cannot indemnify him.

[Sebrof]

Where does insurance come into this?

 

It's not really relevant. Corporate manslaughter is a criminal offence, and the object of a case involving this crime it to punish the guilty, not to compensate the victims.

 

DOI (Directors and Officers Insurance) serves to protect directors if they are sued, but it will not usually protect them against criminal acts.

[Triple H]

Yawn

 

Troll.

[P.K.]

And PJ (eh?), company law prohibits a company from indemnifying its directors except in specific circumstances - in other words, a director is expected to discharge his duties to an exacting standard (he is acting in a fiduciary capacity) if he fails to meet those standards and so incurs a personal fine or other penalty, then the company cannot indemnify him.

How it works in practice:

 

Six former top officials at the Xerox Corporation agreed yesterday to pay more than $22 million to settle accusations by securities regulators that they participated in a large accounting fraud that allowed the company to overstate its profits by $1.4 billion over four years.

So who paid it:

 

Xerox said that it would reimburse the executives for all but $3 million of the money they are paying and would also pay for their legal fees. The $3 million was classified as a fine by the S.E.C. and cannot be reimbursed under its rules.

 

''Since these individuals were not found guilty of any wrongdoing, under the bylaws of the company, Xerox is required to indemnify them for legal fees and disgorgement,'' said Christa Carone, a spokeswoman for Xerox. ''We are now in discussions with our insurance carriers to file claims for these settlement-related expenses.''

Needless to say the insurance companies didn't pay up - they didn't have too! Ever tried to sack someone for not working as well as you would have liked? Dream on. The cost of that insurance? $5.2 m pa. Money from the bottom line to cover CEO asses well spent not. Xerox also had to pay off the SEC with another cool $10 million.

 

So total cost to the shareholders out of their divvy that year - over $35 million.

 

The CEO "agreed" to be fined $1 million - it's a civil case. However over the previous four years he had received his retainer of several million pa plus $5.2 million net selling options at the artificially inflated price plus $2m in bonuses and a further $2m in interest on those amounts. A "fine" of $1m? Well, why not! Byeeee....

 

The thing is it's a civil case because it's just cash. Causing death/injury surely should be a criminal one with those responsible personally liable for the lot. That's what I would like to see.

[WTF]

At last! A voice of reason in the wilderness. It would be good to see a proposal that where, in a director's service contract, any terms are against the public interest, they should be null and void. That would be much more sensible than this present proposal.

 

And bring on the custodial sentences! Where merited, of course.

 

 

 

You want the directors and shareholders to be blameless. You dismiss other peoples opinions who disagree with you and basically keep repeating yourself.

 

You've got to be a troll.

 

or a politician??