iLounge

21

I agree with SF, the whole concept is total nonsense, the whole point of a corporation is that the stockholders and the corporation are seperate legal entities, this is a fundamental concept on which they are based. Any first year law (or even finance)student would know straight away this is the case, any lawyer who thinks otherwise should not be practicing.
The author refers to mutual funds but similar to the GM example owning shares in a mutual fund does not mean you own the individual stocks owned by the fund

Posted by Damo on July 29, 2003 at 7:00 AM (PST)

22

“This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read. Owning stock in a company is not the same as owning assets of the company. I’ll give you an example. I own 100 shares of GM. Do you think I can waltz into the factory, grab a new Corvette, and drive off with it because I own it? If this guy talked to lawyers who thought this was a good idea, they’re dumber than he is.”

*****************************

“I agree with SF, the whole concept is total nonsense, the whole point of a corporation is that the stockholders and the corporation are seperate legal entities, this is a fundamental concept on which they are based. Any first year law (or even finance)student would know straight away this is the case, any lawyer who thinks otherwise should not be practicing.”

*****************************

Yeah.  Exactly.

Posted by Z on July 29, 2003 at 11:38 AM (PST)