alt Hacker NewsI have the impression the situations where that actually happens are at least arguably serious misconduct, and usually targeted at someone with significant assets.
A construction company that pockets ten million dollars and doesn't build anything probably can't shield its owner this way, but a single-developer software consultancy that pockets ten thousand dollars and delivers buggy code can.
Replies
Much the same in the UK. Usually some kind of fraud or failing to stop trading when it was obvious insolvency was unavoidable. No minimum capital requirements either.
Thats cause the software and computing industry early on, disclaimed all liability.
"Computers are hard, yo!". It devalues the profession.
And I thought no liability was bad enough... But no. Now its LLMs and " for entertainment purposes only". I take it management and leadership also read that, and don't give one fuck.
While extreme cases are the easiest to imagine, in real life the plaintiff almost always argues to pierce the veil and the defendant always argues the opposite, and both sides earnestly believe that they are right.
In theory it’s based on whether the owner of the company intended to run it under capitalized in an effort to shirk liability.