I think that the corporate veil is an important protection that allows people to take on the risk of starting a company or investing in one in the first place. Without that protection, the uncertainty of a business surviving or not would also include the uncertainty that their personal savings, homes, or other assets would be safe. The veil gives budding entrepreneurs an easier foot in to take a chance that might let to a new product and jobs. Although I understand that some people can and will misuse this protection, and those people should be held accountable. However, in most cases, I think the corporate veil does more good than harm by encouraging business development. Still, not every company operates at the same scale or has the same impact if they to delve in bad business practices. Do you think there should be different levels of liability protections depending on the size of the company or the type of industry it's in?

 The corporate veil is important because it protects business owners and encourages people to invest without being afraid of losing their personal assets. However, I also believe this protection should have limits. If a company commits fraud or acts unethically, the owners should be held personally responsible. Complete protection might make some people careless about their actions. There should be a fair balance between protecting innovation and ensuring accountability. In my opinion, the corporate veil should stay in place but be removed in cases where companies misuse it for illegal or dishonest purposes. Sometimes, when the law is too strict, it can discourage new entrepreneurs from starting businesses. But if there are no clear rules, big corporations might take advantage of the system. That’s why the government should review and update corporate laws regularly to keep a fair and ethical business environment.

Having some exposure to the corporate veil from an engineering law class, I think the corporate veil is very important for owners of a company to be able to separate the liabilities of a company from their own personal assets. Because they have this protection, their is higher encouragement from investors to invest and allow for innovation as they can take those risks without the possibility of losing their personal assets if the endeavor fails. Like you said the shielding is not full proof, and in cases of fraud or unethical behavior the courts can pierce the corporate veil and find individuals responsible. There's definitely a fine line over how much protection it should offer, too much and owners can make reckless decisions as they will face no consequences, if its too little then we would see less businesses forming as well as a limit of innovation in the field. I think the best course of action in the long term is holding bad actors or those who abuse the system accountable for their actions while also maintaining limited liability for those who practice good business in order to allowed for more innovation to occur. To answer @bryan-xavier , I think that a tier system based on the size and industry of company would make a lot of sense. Strong protection should be awarded to small businesses to promote innovation and growth, and a greater responsibility should be placed on large companies or corporations who's products see a wider impact on a larger population. In this way the system can help promote investment and entrepreneurial ventures while also ensuring that there is fairness and the interests of the publics safety are still being taken into account.

The corporate veil in medical device development refers to the legal separation between a company and its owners or shareholders. This separation protects individuals from being personally liable for the company’s debts or legal issues, including product liability claims. In the medical device industry, where safety, compliance, and risk management are critical, maintaining this protection is especially important. However, if a company engages in fraudulent or negligent behavior, courts may “pierce the corporate veil,” holding owners personally responsible. Therefore, maintaining transparent business practices, proper documentation, and regulatory compliance is essential to preserve the corporate veil’s protection.

The corporate veil is indeed a powerful tool utilized to protect individuals of interest within a larger organization. As you’ve correctly identified, this is not foolproof, as there are extreme circumstances that would allow prosecutors to point fingers at individuals, such as fraud, undercapitalization, asset commingling, and even using the company as a cover for nefarious activities.

To answer your first question, I feel that company officers should be shielded from liabilities that do NOT constitute harm to clients, abuse of corporate funds/revenue, or mishandling of promised ROIs to investors. The idea is to shield them from issues that do not negatively impact the lives of those who have invested, done business with, or worked for the company in a physical or financial manner. Employees and customers alike are targets of liabilities that generally constitute the heftiest lawsuits, especially when irreparable physical and economic damage is inflicted against the plaintiffs.

On your second question, the corporate veil should be geared towards protecting the company until the life and financial interests of customers, investors, or partners are at risk. That way, companies must take accountability for their actions, but do not need to answer for menial misunderstandings or issues that do not pose large-scale threats to quality of life.

On your final question, I would argue that reforming the corporate veil concept would actually advance innovation. Companies would be motivated to follow best practices, operate transparently, and build stronger reputations, ultimately improving performance both internally and externally.