> X isn't a subsidiary of Starlink (or vice versa) so I genuinely don't understand the 'common control' argument
“A ‘controlling financial interest’ is generally defined as ownership of a majority voting interest by one entity, directly or indirectly, of more than 50% of the outstanding voting shares of another entity” [1]. When a person has a controlling financial interest in multiple entities, those entities are under common control. The textbook example is “an individual or enterprise holds more than 50% of the voting ownership interest of each entity” [2].
Musk controls SpaceX [3], which in turn controls Starlink. Musk controls X. X and Starlink are under common control.
Whether that means Starlink is liable for X’s liabilities is a separate question. But it’s precedented in practically every jurisdiction for there to be a point at which entities under common control are jointly liable, at least to the degree to which they’re commonly controlled. (SpaceX’s non-controlling interests may have a separate claim on Musk.)
Side note: the comment I’m responding to doesn’t deserve to be downvoted.
Not a lawyer. But X blew off a court. That’s wilful contempt.
Under U.S. civil securities law, Warren Buffett ordering Clayton Homes to break the law could lead to control person liability [1]. If there were no way to hold Clayton Homes, Berkshire Hathaway or Warren Buffett personally liable, the next step would be enforcement against Fruit of the Loom.
Contempt of court is incredibly serious. Contempt pierces the corporate veil under U.S. law [2]. X acted in blatant contempt of Brazil’s courts. Musk publicly admitted to directing it to. There isn’t a competent jurisdiction, almost to the point of defining competence, in which this wouldn’t pierce the corporate veil.
“A ‘controlling financial interest’ is generally defined as ownership of a majority voting interest by one entity, directly or indirectly, of more than 50% of the outstanding voting shares of another entity” [1]. When a person has a controlling financial interest in multiple entities, those entities are under common control. The textbook example is “an individual or enterprise holds more than 50% of the voting ownership interest of each entity” [2].
Musk controls SpaceX [3], which in turn controls Starlink. Musk controls X. X and Starlink are under common control.
Whether that means Starlink is liable for X’s liabilities is a separate question. But it’s precedented in practically every jurisdiction for there to be a point at which entities under common control are jointly liable, at least to the degree to which they’re commonly controlled. (SpaceX’s non-controlling interests may have a separate claim on Musk.)
Side note: the comment I’m responding to doesn’t deserve to be downvoted.
[1] https://viewpoint.pwc.com/dt/us/en/pwc/accounting_guides/bus...
[2] https://www.fasb.org/page/ShowPdf?path=abs02-5.pdf&title=EIT... § 3(a)
[3] https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musks-spacex-stake-moves-l...