The CEO has no fiduciary duty here under any law whatsoever.
The NRA is a private organization. The morals of corporate decision making (or lack thereof) is an internal matter that should be resolved internally according to org docs in a civil court.
There is nothing criminal to hire your wife as an employee.
There is nothing criminal about using the company issued credit card for expenses.
The company is of course free to bring litigation for malfeasance of company assets, but that would be the company, referring to the contract between employer and employee that defines what is allowed and what is not. The DA is nowhere to be seen.
If either was the case, 20% of corporate managers would be in jail.
The DA has nothing to do with this. Except of course its a political overreach which is repugnant.
Again, how do you know this without consulting an attorney? You keep spouting legal facts that may or may not be true (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) but are you, the CEO of a publicly traded corporation, going to simply say no because you think, despite no real legal expertise, that you are never legally required to help an investigation? Or are you going to consult with attorneys? What about the small guy who owns a video rental store that makes $40k a year in profit for him? He's going to have to go plunk down 10% of his yearly earn on a retainer just to discover that fact.
And even if what you say is true, which it surely could be, and even if it were common knowledge, it's still irrelevant. Corporations don't exist to police the government, it's the other way around. Penalizing a private enterprise for cooperating with a government agency's request is ridiculous.
It does have to do with a corporation because we're discussing about hiring for a business.
If the statements are false, does that mean the individual/corporation won't get any repercussion from the gov't? No. When it comes to the matter of doing business, there's a level of restriction and punishment on the things they say.
Also it's NOT corporate legal that makes ANY decisions - that's reserved for management hierarchy - legal is merely advisory to management and NOTHING MORE.
So if a company hands you a gun and tells you to shoot someone you would pull the trigger because even if you refuse someone else would do it? Nothing but excuses for profiting off morally bankrupt behavior.
Yes, sorry, that is what I meant by "corporate elite".
I'm not so sure it applies in this case as I don't really see the corp in question as being big (relatively speaking).
To your point, this is basically what the book covers. It is the logical conclusion of both fiduciary duty and the overwhelming effect that strong legal representation has on the justice system. At this extreme, the legal representation outright prevents prosecution instead of simply affecting the outcome.
> Corporations in the USA have the same legal rights as individuals...
They don't. For example, 5th Amendment protections against self-incrimination do not apply to corporations. Also, corporations have a right to an attorney but one is not provided to them free of charge by the government.
> But when it comes to criminal liability, the people in charge are not held accountable...
Bernie Madoff, Jeffrey Skilling, Martha Stewart, and others put in jail for corporate crimes would disagree with you.
If there's no corporation, then there's nobody to do that compliance. You can't get $50k per day out of a nonexistent corporation.
And in general, you can't go after the actual people -- the point of a corporation is to limit the liability of the people involved. That corporate veil can be pierced, and it's up to the judge to decide when. It's not at all certain that a judge would decide it's valid in this case.
I won't try to talk you out of the equivalence you're drawing, which I believe is false. Even so, I think you should consider that this case represents a serious accusation that turned out entirely false, and it's a positive thing that they are being required to follow the laws about it.
The CEO has no fiduciary duty here under any law whatsoever.
The NRA is a private organization. The morals of corporate decision making (or lack thereof) is an internal matter that should be resolved internally according to org docs in a civil court.
There is nothing criminal to hire your wife as an employee. There is nothing criminal about using the company issued credit card for expenses.
The company is of course free to bring litigation for malfeasance of company assets, but that would be the company, referring to the contract between employer and employee that defines what is allowed and what is not. The DA is nowhere to be seen.
If either was the case, 20% of corporate managers would be in jail.
The DA has nothing to do with this. Except of course its a political overreach which is repugnant.
reply