Exclusivity In Wholly Owned Companies

Summary

Owning a wholly-owned company offers exclusivity benefits like full control and profit retention. In litigation, typically the subsidiary is sued, but the parent company might also be liable depending on the case specifics. An apex deposition involves deposing high-level executives and is closely scrutinized by courts. If a subsidiarys machine causes injury due to lack of repairs, both the subsidiary and parent company could be sued, especially if the parent instructed not to repair.

Full Conversation

What i an exclusivity benefit when it comes to owning an entire company
Owning an entire company (wholly-owned) provides several exclusivity benefits:
- Full control over business decisions.
- Retention of all profits.
- Protection of proprietary information.
- Streamlined decision-making process.
Do you need more details on any specific aspect of exclusivity benefits?
If a wholly owned company is being litigated against will the wholly owned company or the parent company be the one under litigation
Generally, if a wholly owned company is being litigated against, it is the subsidiary (wholly owned company) that will be under litigation, not the parent company. However, there could be circumstances where the parent company might also be held liable, depending on the specifics of the case.
Do you have any specific details about the litigation or the nature of the claim?
what is an apex deposition
Case Rating: *
An apex deposition involves deposing a high-level executive (like a CEO or a president) in a company. Courts often scrutinize these depositions closely since they can be burdensome and disruptive.
Do you need information on how to handle an apex deposition, or are you concerned about a specific situation involving such a deposition?
a company is being told to not repair a machine that their subsidiary is using on a daily basis as a result an injury occurred as a result of the lack of proper repairs to malfunctioning equipment. What company would be sued, the wholly owned company that is operating the machines or the parent company who instructed the wholly owned company not to repair the machines.
In this situation, both the wholly owned subsidiary and the parent company could potentially be sued. The subsidiary might be directly liable for the injury due to operating the faulty machine, while the parent company could be liable for instructing not to repair the machine, possibly showing negligence.
Do you have any details about the injury or any communications regarding the repair instructions?