Andy Nachos writes:
>I am not sure just what you are looking for.
Specifically, as I wrote, this:
What I have found missing in this analysis of agency
is the real membrane between the controlling
shareholder and the sham corporation.
[BTW -- thank you for the other points.]
My main interest, in asking, is where the line is drawn between the
protection and the liability.
This is not just a "public issue," also a creditor issue.
>From the bit I have seen and studied, the CPD is a cloak used "on and
off again." When is that switch between on and off allowed? I called it
a membrane. I think that is a fair term, since it seems to be thin and
weak but powerful for the body.
Rather than discuss the national differences between Canada and the US,
I was hoping to hear (from you, certainly) a discussion of the legal
theories of flipping that switch. Which classes are protected in which
manner?
When can you say Conrad Black was really not the guts of the corp and
just a shielded shareholder as opposed to being the mastermind?
Ken.
