[ronsor]

> Action was against X, and then Musk shut down X's Brazilian office and left outstanding debts. The supreme court evaluates that X and Starlink have same ownership and therefore Starlink (which still has local representation) is being held responsible for X's delinquent debts.

This defeats the purpose of corporations.

[7jjjjjjj]

If that's the purpose of corporations, I'm happy to declare victory.

[gruez]

SpaceX has other shareholders as well. How would you feel if the Florida government got mad at blackrock for ESG, fined them for it, and took that money out of your 401k?

[Qem]

> This defeats the purpose of corporations.

I'm this context, this declaration makes me believe the purpose of corporations is to allow billionaires to disregard laws.

[ronsor]

Musk is a minority shareholder in SpaceX which owns Starlink. One corporation (SpaceX) is not supposed to be liable for the actions of another (X), even if they are owned by the same person.

The correct move is to go after Musk directly.

[Qem]

Musk doesn't refrain from using his companies, mainly Twitter, as weapons in petty personal disputes and showdowns. It's a situation that allows piercing the corporate veil, even under US law. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil#...