News Focus
News Focus
icon url

clawmann

10/22/10 11:37 AM

#243974 RE: jhdf51 #243969

More simply. WMI is not responsible for the liabilities of the bank beacuse of the corporate veil that separates a parent corp from its sub.
icon url

fsshon

10/22/10 11:43 AM

#243978 RE: jhdf51 #243969

The WALL OF LIABILITY.. A Separation if you will.. It protects the Parent from the actions of the child, as long as their is no commingling of funds, blatant fraud and Tax evasion.

The officers ofa corporation usually stand terms on the boards of a subsidiary and some meeting stake place in the same spanse of time, because of the logistics of operation..

WMI is the Parent, they are not responsible for the actions of the Child (WMB).. I have been saying this for over a year now and it was nice to hear Adam Stroschak of Weil argue in our favor today, this tells me Weil is going to use the strucutral defense or Veil defense agaisnt any charges against the parent for the actions of the child..

If your kid goes down to the store and shoplifts, you as the parent can not be held liable for their crime. If you had no knowledge of the actions of your child, they can not put you in jail because your child stole something.