undefined | Better HN

0 pointsakoboldfrying1y ago0 comments

>the consequence would be the CIC is fined

Does this in practice mean that the original human person would have to pay that fine? What would the consequences likely be for the original human person?

If those consequences remain severe, then it's not a simple legal manoeuvre after all. This reduces farcicality, but also means there's no way for an individual to safely run this kind of website.

If those consequences round to zero, my next question would be: Can a large company spin up a CIC just to shield itself in the same way? (If so, it seems the farce would be complete.)

0 comments

jimnotgym1y ago

In practice the person would not have to pay the fine. The company would. If the company had no cash to pay it then it could be forced into insolvency.

No a large company can't spin up a CIC to run a business website (because it is not community interest), but it doesn't need to, it is already a limited liability company. However this is not a farce, the limited liability applies to the shareholders, not the company. The company gets fined, and has to pay the fine or risk having its assets siezed.... then the shareholders have lost their company. The liability of the shareholders is limited to the shareholders invested amount, ie the shareholders can't lose any more than they put in. So if the fine was more than the company can afford, the shareholders lose their company, but don't have to pay the rest.

It is not a farce, because losing a profit earning company is bad for a shareholder

akoboldfryingOP1y ago

Thanks for the explanation. However, there's one thing I've now realised I'm not clear on:

Could a company create a non-CIC sub-company (with ~$0 in assets) to own the website, and thereby shield shareholders of the original company? (If so, I think farcicality is conserved.)

jimnotgym1y ago

Yes companies do this kind of thing to try and shield themselves from risk all of the time.

However it probably wouldn't work for a profit seeking company in this case. Big Corp owns Web Corp, and Web Corp owns the site. Which company is operating the site? If it is Web Corp. So when Web Corp gets fined, you lose your site. This is a problem for a profit seeking company, because it lost its value. If Big Corp owned the site, and Web corp operated the site, you may be OK. Your accountancy costs just went through the roof though. Not sure about this law, but some compliance laws treat the group as one whole entity to stop this sort of thing.

Since this applies to laws in general, are you arguing that corporations are a farce? I may be inclined to agree.

Edit: answering your other point, the company could not have no assets, if it owns the site then it has the site as an asset. If it runs the site then it will have cash etc. Etc.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsakoboldfrying1y ago0 comments

>the consequence would be the CIC is fined

Does this in practice mean that the original human person would have to pay that fine? What would the consequences likely be for the original human person?

If those consequences remain severe, then it's not a simple legal manoeuvre after all. This reduces farcicality, but also means there's no way for an individual to safely run this kind of website.

If those consequences round to zero, my next question would be: Can a large company spin up a CIC just to shield itself in the same way? (If so, it seems the farce would be complete.)

0 comments

jimnotgym1y ago

In practice the person would not have to pay the fine. The company would. If the company had no cash to pay it then it could be forced into insolvency.

It is not a farce, because losing a profit earning company is bad for a shareholder

akoboldfryingOP1y ago

Thanks for the explanation. However, there's one thing I've now realised I'm not clear on:

Could a company create a non-CIC sub-company (with ~$0 in assets) to own the website, and thereby shield shareholders of the original company? (If so, I think farcicality is conserved.)

jimnotgym1y ago

Yes companies do this kind of thing to try and shield themselves from risk all of the time.

Since this applies to laws in general, are you arguing that corporations are a farce? I may be inclined to agree.

Edit: answering your other point, the company could not have no assets, if it owns the site then it has the site as an asset. If it runs the site then it will have cash etc. Etc.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse