Tactics of a corporation suing another corporation.
When a corporation sues another corporation but also names specific
current and former employees of that corporation as co-defendants what
is the advantage to the plaintiff? There must be one as I have never
noticed this tactic before.

What are the advantages and disadvantages for the defendant
corporation?  In other words, does the counsel for the corporation
welcome this as a chance to offload all the liability to the named
individuals?  Does that conflict with the old maxim of the corporation
never agreeing to having committed any wrongdoing---only that they
will promise not to do it again in the future.

http://www.globeadvisor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/gam/20041108/RAIRCANA08


posted circa November 8, 2004. 

"Air Canada added Mr. Beddoe and four other Calgarians -- three
WestJet managers and one former vice-president -- to its list of
defendants. Mr. Hill, previously named as a defendant, resigned as
vice-president of strategic planning in July."
 
The price is below my usual reference line but I will consider tipping :)

---

Clarification of Question by grthumongous-ga on 02 Dec 2004 14:09 PST

The responder shall strike the last sentence and substitute grumpy face.

---

Clarification of Question by grthumongous-ga on 03 Dec 2004 12:15 PST

thanks alex101.  The specific civil case I cited is apparently being heard in
"Ontario Superior Court".

The probable advantage is that, by naming employees, the Plaintiff can
probably keep the case in State Court and out of Federal Court by
destroying Diversity Jurisdiction.  Federal Courts tend to be more
favorable for Defendants.

A potential, but unlikely, advantage to the Defendant is if an
argument can be crafted to shift liability.  However, an employer will
most often be responsible for the actions of its employees.

If you ask me (which you did, sort of), the main reason for naming
individual empployees is to create prosecutorial pressure on real
people.  If it's only the corporation at fault, no one's really
sweating all that much, but as soon as possible liability is on an
individual's shoulders, then they're much more likely to spill the
beans in exchange for cutting a deal with the prosecution.  Going
after mid-level players in that way is often the way to get them to
squeal on the bigger fish.

paf

In Civil Litigation, suing individual employees can cause
embarrassment but almost never personal liability unless they did
something either really bad (ex. gross negligence) or something
outside of the scope of their employment.  An employer is almost
always resposible for the acts of its employees.  I wasn't thinking
about Canada when I made my last comment so the State Court vs.
Federal Court analysis may or may not apply.  I know relatively little
about Canadian law.