Legally speaking, they do. Elon is a shareholder there. In the case of Brazil, in the event of a company's insolvency, the shareholder's other company becomes liable and may have its bank accounts/assets blocked, this is a common case law of the Superior Court of Justice (another high court).
> In the case of Brazil, in the event of a company's insolvency, the shareholder's other company becomes liable
Are you saying Brazilian law doesn't recognize limited liability? Nevertheless, there is no insolvency here. The judge is choosing to pierce the corporate veil.
In this case, X closed the office to not pay the fines.
Usually these decision comes when a company closes to not pay the workers all their benefits left, and the judge then goes back to all the other companies that the shareholder is on, and is part of the "economic group". In Brazil legislation, what matter is if the judge decides that the companies are part of the same "economic group".
I don't know. Maybe companies should have risks associated with being owned by moguls? Other than being destroyed or criplled on a whim by said mogul of course.
Any measure that discintentivises the rich from owning real world things is a step in the right direction.
Do you have a source for this “almost certainty”? Because Musk says they are offering it for free because they can no longer accept payments (due to the bank freeze) and they don’t want to cut off peoples internet in remote areas.
