I’m not sure that’s right?

I think the limited liability is for debts to creditors and shareholders, rather than limited liability against criminal or other behaviour.

Maybe I’m wrong, but as I understand it, Australian law treats a corporation as a person and the directors are answerable if the corporation breaks the law.

The real problem (as I see it) is that a company the size of Optus can afford to defend their behaviour for so long that enforcement itself becomes a burden. The closer you get to the CEO and board, the more they will spend shareholders money defending themselves.

> The whole idea of forming a business entity is to limit the liability of its principals

When you really think about it, that is a VERY scary thing.

Quite literally it goes:

"If I do this illegal thing myself, I'll get in lots of legal trouble."

"If I form a company and do the illegal thing, I'm safe."

Companies exist to limit the liability of shareholders / investors, not principals. The idea is that you can buy equity and receive dividends if the company goes well, without standing to lose more than you put in if the company harms others through mismanagement. The company doesn't shield the directors from personal liability for that mismanagement as a matter of law, it just pays for high quality legal representation if the allegation is made.

Oh let's. Please. The 'baby' is killing our entire living world, and nothing short of removing the idiocy of limited liability is very likely to save it.

Actions without proportional consequences were never going to lead to anywhere but destruction. Folk psychology told us that was likely (however much virtual-economists feigned ignorance). Empirical reality has confirmed it.

Directors in Australia can be personally liable for unpaid tax. So the limited liability is limited when it suits the right people.

In this case it feels like the baby turned into a corpse some time ago from being left in the rancid bath water for too long.