Rupert Murdoch owns far more than 30 media outlets

Post Reply New Topic

After entering the United States, Deng lived with the Cherry family (whom she had met in China) for a while when attending university. Mrs. Cherry suspected her husband was having an affair with Deng (30 years his junior) and demanded she leave the house. Mr. Cherry soon followed and moved in with her. The two married in 1990. Deng and Cherry's marriage lasted 2 years and 7 months before they were legally divorced, but he would later explain they only stayed together for 4 or 5 months, after which he learned of the extramarital relationship Deng had with a David Wolf, a man closer to her age. Nonetheless, she had been able to secure a green card through being legally married to Cherry.

It depends what you mean by "responsible."

If you speaking of cirminal liability for, say, "dangerous operation of a motor vehicle," then clearly not. The employee was the one who was drunk and the one who had care and control of the forklift. Criminal liability attaches to him.

But in the area of civil liability, liability would attach to the employer under the doctrine of "vicarious liability." In the case of a coporation with limited liability, liability attaches to the corporation, but not to the shareholders.

There are also numerous areas in which the directors of corporation are personally liable for the debts of the corporation--some by statute and others at Common Law.

Finally, there are numerous circumstances in which a court will find that a person has kept himself "wilfully blind" to activities undertaken in an area of his responsibility. In such circumstances the court may impute "constructive knowledge" to the person. The phrase, "knew or ought properly to have known," is meant to capture constructive knowledge.

Single incidents of misconduct will not, generally, attach beyond a corporation's vicarious liability. But a pattern of misconduct, engaged in by mulitple employees over an extended period of time may well be treated with less latitude--especially where criminal conduct is involved.

As a parent company, News Corp is basically a share holder of the now dissolved News of the World.

You're gonna have to explain that one.

Because I'm pretty sure there are a number of hard and fast business regulations with regard to when you own or don't own a company.

You can own a company as the majority shareholder, but you aren't liable for any stunt the company pulls without your knowledge. Murdoch is the head of News Corp, he wasn't the head of News of the World, his company was just the majority shareholder, meaning while it had some say on who was running News of the World, they probably didn't know what was going on in day to day operations.

News International acquired News Of The World as a purchase, not as a stock takeover.

Murdoch has stated that he has proprietary control of it.

It doesn't have to be a stock takeover, because there are public corporations and private corporations. News Corp may have been the owner, but News of the World was its own corporate entity. Companies do this a lot, especially in the movie business in case something happens on the set, the whole company can't be sued.
You're pulling stuff out of your ass to protect your ideology here. We're starting to get embarrassed for you.

As a parent company, News Corp is basically a share holder of the now dissolved News of the World.

I have broken my usual practice of deleting previous messages in the quote, in order to preserve another typical example of Inuyasha moving the goalposts.

You began by speaking of an employers responsibility for the misconduct of an employee, and now you have replied with the entirely different issue of a parent company's liability for a subsidiary.