How (and how effectively) is complete corporate self-ownership prevented?

Question

Corporations are not supposed to be able to have no ultimate beneficial owners. If A Inc. holds 100% of B Group, B Group is not supposed to be able to own 100% of A Inc.

How effectively are these dead-end loops in corporate ownership prevented, especially when the involved entities are in different jurisdictions that might not communicate? If such a loop is discovered to have occurred, how is it usually unwound, and by whom? Who ends up with the assets?

This isn't about whether or not the arrangement is allowed, it is about what is done about it if it manages to arise or how it is prevented from arising.

Answer 1

Usually, the only reason to set up an "ownerless" corporation is to set up a non-profit. Non-profit corporations can have self-perpetuating boards and are very similar to charitable trusts. If it ends up without any board members and has a self-perpetuating board, any person affected by the corporation or a suitable government representative (in the U.S., usually a state attorney general in the place of incorporation) can apply to a court to have new board members appointed.

In a "for profit" context, this generally doesn't happen because the people investing in the company want to be able to profit from it and/or obtain a return of their investment. So, the question is largely hypothetical in that case.