Or... to look at it another way, when there isn't enough money left in a company, harmed investors are paid first, then whistleblowers/government fines.
That seems right to me...
That seems right to me...
I suppose it is right depending on who's side you're on.
That has always been the case.
Systemically it’s a huge problem to favor investors over whistleblowers and fines. You want incentives to be aligned wherever possible, and being able to declare bankruptcy in order to protect the very people benefiting from unscrupulous acts just leads to more unscrupulous behavior.
I strongly disagree with this, because the GP has used the term "harmed investors". I think it's a dangerous practice to go around claiming other people's posts are tongue in cheek. That's how we come to allow 'locker room talk'.
... Really?
Like, do you know how big a billion :is:?
I suspect a lot of companies which have illegally covered up losses have later managed to recoup losses to make investors whole again, and have never been discovered. In these cases, investors end up better off without a whistleblower.
Harmed investors are the ones that should have done the due diligence in the first place. That they got anything back at all was due to the diligence of the whistle blower. People should be rewarded for calling out white collar crime and the fees should extend to the people actually operating the fraud.
If it's the other way around, then you could go around investing in companies that never pay their bills, ripping off everyone you do business with.
Seems more fair.
As implemented, the law takes away the financial incentive for whistleblowers to take action on the most egregious cases. If a fraudster being uncovered will put the offending entity out of business, there’s no incentive to risk getting blackballed.