I think there is a misunderstanding running through this thread. Generally, the limited liability corporate structures are there to protect the personal assets of shareholders from the debts incurred by a company they're tied to financially. So if you own a company that goes under, usually the company's debts can only be paid out of company funds. Therefore, any personal assets of an owner/shareholder, e.g. personal checking/investment accounts, real estate, inheritances, etc., are generally untouchable by the company's debt-holders. The piercing of the corporate veil concept only comes into play when a court cannot see a delineation between the funds of the company and the personal assets of the shareholders. This comes into play most commonly in smaller, closely-held companies where the owner(s) is/are using company funds to supplement their lifestyle, e.g. vehicles purchased with company funds but held in the name of the owner, using company funds to pay for vacations or trips unrelated to business, children's tuition, living in homes paid for with company money, (these are real examples) etc.. That type of commingling of assets is what prompts piercing the corporate veil and seizing personal assets of the owner/shareholder. Without that kind of commingling, limited liability isn't an issue. NB, limited liability doesn't protect a Board of Directors, only shareholders (although often directors are shareholders). The Business Judgment rule is what protects executives and directors from liability for decisions that affect a company negatively.
In this film, given that UNORTH is likely a publicly-traded company, the limited liability aspect isn't really at issue. Any civil liability incurred by UNORTH will not wreck its individuals shareholders' personal finances. However, UNORTH will incur a great deal of billion dollar liability due to evidence of its knowledge of contaminating substances in its products. Shareholders' stocks will be affected, and in that way, the shareholders will be affected. The shareholders would likely sue the board of directors and the senior executive staff for that loss in stock. I know an attorney who brings those kinds of suits against corporations, for basically making stupid decisions or doing stupid things that lower stock prices. It's very interesting.
White-collar contracts also usually contain numerous clauses that withhold certain compensation when a company officer or director acts with moral negligence (a morality clause) or with abandon for company policy. Here, given that Crowder was likely a high-ranking in-house counsel member (possibly a board member), what she did likely will ruin her financially (both due to criminal fines and civil damages) and professionally (it's especially not good when a lawyer kills people, because, you know, they're supposed to follow the law). So indeed, assuming the evidence is there, she will go to jail, she will likely never see any "golden parachute," nor will she likely even have a license by the end.
reply
share