Corporate Three Strikes law

[Luvian]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: After the second strike, I'd file Chapter 11, restructure the corp., and sell it wholesale to another shell corp. I formed in Delaware online inside of 1 hour. No company, new strikes. [img]tongue.gif[/img] Sorry, we attorneys can beat this. I like the full page news ad though.

Timber, according to this part:

The Romero plan would provide that the first two strikes against the criminal corporation could occur in any state, not just California. But the third felony would have to be committed in California.

The first two strikes could have happened elsewhere. That mean that any company with a "criminal past" would have to restructure to be able to safely do buiseness in that state. Is that right?

And even after having restructured, if they comited a crime in another state, they would have to publish the newspaper ads in order to keep doing buiseness in that state, and it would count as a strike, too. Right?

Restructuring every few months seem anoying to me.

[ 05-02-2003, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

[Timber Loftis]

If you are restructuring every few months due to felonies, you've got bigger problems anyway. Corporate felonies are few and far between, folks.

As for the Pepsi label, why would it not go from PepsiCo to PepCorp. if the company was sold. PepCorp. would still sell cans labelled "Pepsi" out of the same factories. The bottlers are already independent anyway. And PepCorp. could file a d/b/a as PepsiCo and operate under that name.

At worst, if my little "hole" in the legislation were addressed, PepsiCo would not do business in CA, but would sell to some company that would take its products into CA and market them. That's not doing business there. MOreover, lets not take my hypothetical ad stupididum in its specifics. The point is, with corps., there are many ways around these issues.

Besides, the real problem is that whether Enron ran itself broke or the gov't disbanded it, you still have folks with no jobs. They would have had their pensions, though.

I'm not saying it's a horrible idea. I *do* like the publishing requirements - very nice idea. Full page ad in NY Times would cause the corps to reconsider. They could be similar to the class action settlement notices.

I do agree with MagiK that California has proven time and again that it is completely incapable of doing anything but ill when it mucks with the inner workings of business.

[ 05-02-2003, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Thorfinn]

I only asked because I don't know how transferable trademarks are. Never been in a situation where I needed to know, I guess.

I do agree that if it were successful, this rule would mostly harm those jobs within California, and harm California consumers. Harming Californians is nothing new to the California Assembly, though...