In a message dated 12/18/02 9:19:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << > In practice, small corporations usually cannot get loans without the > major stockholder personally guaranteeing the loans, so in those cases limited liability serves mostly to protect the owner(s) from liability to tort victims. Why that should be so I'm not sure. > David
A lender is also protected from tort damages, and should be, because he is not in charge of the business but only lending funds. If one agrees that lenders should not be liable to tort claims, then it follows that stockholders may also be free of liability, since they can be considered legally as lenders who get a return from a share of profits. The benefit is that the corporation is able to assemble a greater amount of lender-investors. Fred Foldvary >> If people want to be lenders they make loans. A sharehold buys and owns. Owners shouldn't be allowed to unilaterally abrogate the tort rights of everyone else. David
