SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (100939)1/20/2008 3:20:25 PM
From: Jet.ScreamerRead Replies (1) of 306849
 
If both parties knew that the transaction was fraudulent to achieve another purpose beyond a legitimate business deal then all parties should be liable for their actions. This notion of protecting corporation allows them to be unaccountable. There is no reason why the question should not be put to a jury. If the remote participating corporation had no knowledge of the fraud then they can be out of any suit on a motion for summary judgment or a motion to strike. The judiciary should not be drawing a line that gives blanket protection.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News