The court in Rea noted that corporate losses are not shareholder losses, relying on
the traditional legal distinction between the two, and further finding that a plaintiff in an oppression action must show some grounds as to why he or she was personally harmed by the defendants, and that a general harm suffered by all shareholders equally for a harm actually done to the corporation can not ground an oppression action.
As a result,
the traditional legal distinctions between corporations and their shareholders should not be relied upon to interfere with the availability of these oppression remedies.
The respondent relied on
the traditional legal distinctions between a corporation and its shareholders, asserting that it was the corporation that had sustained losses, not the individual shareholder.
Not exact matches
The
distinction is in the augmentation (to use an appropriate AI reference) and integration of
traditional legal education with 21st century experience and skills ranging from:
Some additional
distinctions between Liam Brown's «law company» and the
traditional law firm include: (1) performance and reward structures that value output over input; (2) closer alignment with the financial and enterprise objectives of the consumer; (3) a corporate structure that takes a long - term, client - centric view over profit - per - partner; (4) continuous process improvement; (5) investment in technology; (6) focus on «the right resource for the task»; (6) compressed delivery time; (7) a continuous quest to use technology and process to automate tasks and gather «big data» for benchmarking, predicting, and quantifying risk; (8) a transparent, 24/7/365 accessible connection with
legal consumers; (9) supply chain management expertise; and (10) reduced cost.