| > multiple taco trucks Trucks? The lawsuit involves one discrete corporation, and its small size is underscored by how it's just one stand/kiosk. (I suppose it could be mobile, but that's not what I was thinking of.) However same owner/investor happens to be involved in many un-enumerated companies, some of which might easily be guilty of the same problems, including ones that would normally "pierce the corporate veil" and affect investors directly. > but Scrooge would get immunity, and so would the taco truck. The taco-stand corporation isn't immune, it's going bankrupt paying judgements. CEO/Owner Scrooge is coming in from the sidelines to preempt a personal lawsuit, and also trying to get someone in authority to (wrongly) grant him immunity from other potential lawsuits from other claimants. > plus, the taco truck is still selling tacos Oh, I think I see: No, this isn't a duck-ified version of the entire national controversy, I'm just trying to illustrate the how an "immunity" grant can be bogus. In other words, the taco-stand is not a 1:1 analogy placeholder for Purdue Pharma, you can assume it's been bankrupted into Chapter 7 and broken up and sold off. |