In theory it’s based on whether the owner of the company intended to run it under capitalized in an effort to shirk liability.
In theory it’s based on whether the owner of the company intended to run it under capitalized in an effort to shirk liability.
But the larger point still stands: Limited liability was granted “on the front end” without the entity needing to demonstrate a minimum amount of capital. You’re only pointing out that in the U.S. that it’s possible that “on the back end” the owners of the entity might become personally liable.
Yes, i’m just elaborating on OP’s point. The US system is different and basically more optimistic on the front end.