I am not making a judgement call, merely describing what the GP meant.
I do believe it is not as clear cut though — taking it to an extreme, imagine you directly invested in Epstein's sexual abuse business but only as minority owner. Should you be held liable or not? Now let's extend that to a pyramid scheme lending business. Or a company using child labour? When can we claim immunity and when not?
the question is why should a legal fiction defy the natural liability. It is perhaps an example of 'common law' versus 'civil law'. A judge may find there is no personal responsibility of the shareholders for some crime, but the CEO is, but the shareholders, being partial owners of the business of course need to drum up the dollars to make a situation right be it a lemonade stand of a billion dollar corporation. As for claiming immunity, I don't see why you should not be responsible for the actions of a company that you own and use to make profit.
I do believe it is not as clear cut though — taking it to an extreme, imagine you directly invested in Epstein's sexual abuse business but only as minority owner. Should you be held liable or not? Now let's extend that to a pyramid scheme lending business. Or a company using child labour? When can we claim immunity and when not?