Interrelation Between the Piercing the Corporate Veil and Limited Liability Principles in Corporate Law
Keywords:
limited liability, piercing the veil, piercing, preconditions of piercing the veil, types of piercing, corporate veil, voluntary creditors, involuntary creditors.Abstract
The limited liability principle is one of the essential and, at the same time, most intensively discussed institutes of corporate law. The paper offers the analysis of this fundamental issue on a contextual level in system-comparative context and reveals its virtues and shortcomings in close connection with veil piercing doctrine. The liability and fate of the persons behind a juristic person, as an artificial formation created by natural persons (as a rule) on the basis of a fiction theory, has been and still is intensively discussed by legal systems of the antic world - Roman Law, Islamic Law and Italian Law of Medieval centuries on the one part and by almost every contemporary leading legal system on the other. Because of this very reason the paper provides the analysis of historical prerequisites, virtues and shortcomings, forms, preconditions, factors and challenges of practical use of these institutes in system-comparative context. All the foregoing will promote the correct practical application of characteristic for Georgian corporate law veil piercing, as an exc from limited liability rule.References
Dewing A.S., The Financial Policy of Corporations, New York, 5th ed., 1953.
Powell F.J., Parent and Subsidiary Corporations, 1931.
Armour J., Haansmann H., Kraakman R., The Essential Elements of Corporate Law: What is Corporate Law? Harvard, John M. Olin Center For Law, Economics, and Business, Discussion Paper № 643, 7/2009, 2.
Cabrelli D., The Case Against ‘Outsider Reverse’ Veil Piercing in Company Law, University of Edinburgh, School of Law, Working Paper Series, № 2010/03, 3, 4.
Presser S.B., Thwarting The Killing Of The Corporation: Limited Liability, Democracy, And Economics, 87 Nw. U.L. Rev. 148, 1992, 2.
Blumberg P.I., Limited Liability and Corporate Groups,11 J. Corp. L. 573, 1985-1986, 33.
Meiners R.E., Mofsky J.S., Tollison R.D., Piercing The Veil of Limited Liability, 4 Del. J. Corp. L. 351, 1978-1979, 351, 357.
Millon D., Piercing The Corporate Veil, Financial Responsibility and the Limits of Limited Liability, Washington
& Lee Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series, Working Paper №, 03-13, 09-2003, 3.
Manne H.G., Our Two Corporation Systems: Law and Economics, Virginia Law Reviews, Vol. 53, 1967, №2, 263.
Posner R.A., The Rights of Creditors of Affiliated Corporations, 43 U. Chi. L. Rev. 499 1975-1976, 359
Hillman R.W., Limited Liability in Historical Perspective, 54 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 615, 1997, 621, 625.
Hicks J., Limited Liability: the pros and cons, in T. Orhnial, ed., Limited liability and the corporaƟon, London, 1982, 11.
Halpern P., Trebilcock M., Turnbull S., An Economic Analysis of Limited Liability In Corporation Law, The University of Toronto Law Journal, Vol. 30, № 2, Spring 1980, 117-150.
Smith D.G., A Federalism-Based Rationale For Limited Liability, 60 Ala. L. Rev. 649, 2008-2009, 654, 667, 668, 669.
Malik M.K., InternaƟonal Aspects of Corporate Law and Governance, Universiy of Warwick, UK, partial fulillment of the requirements og LLM for the session 2005-2006.
Woodward S.E. Limited Liability in the Theory of the Firm, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 141, 601-611, 1985, 601, 602.
Sollars G.G., An Appraisal of Shareholder Proportional Liability, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 32, № 4, Aug. 2001, 329-345, 334.
Levmore S., Monitors and Freeriders in Commercial and Corporate Seƫngs, 92 Yale L. J. 49, 1982, 49.
Coffey M.P., In Defense of Limited Liability - A Replay To Hansmann And Kraakman, 1Geo. Mason L. Rev. 59, 1994.
Macey J.R., Miller G.P., Double Liability of Bank Shareholders: History an Implications, Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship Series, 1-1-1992, 31.
Grossman R.S., Fear and greed: The evolution of double liability in American banking, 1865-1930, Explorations in Economic History 44, 59-80, 2007, 62.
Blumberg P.I., Blumberg on Corporate Groups, 2nd ed., Vol. 3, 122-60.
Easterbrook F.H., Fischel D.R., Limited Liability and the Corporation, 52 U. Chi. L. Rev.,1985, 89.
Marcantel J.A., Because Judges are not Angels Either: Limiting Judicial Discretion By Introducing Objectivity Into Piercing Doctrine, Kansas Law Review, Vol.59, №2, 2011, 12,13,14,15,16,19.
Hansmann H., Kraakman R., The End of History Corporate Law, 89 Geo. L.J. 439, 2001, 466, 467.
Kahan D.R., Shareholder Liability for Corporate Torts: A Historical Perspective, The Georgetown LawJournal, Vol. 97:1085, 1087.
Alexander J.C., Unlimited Shareholder Liability Through a Procedural Lens, 106 Harv. L. Rev. 387, 1992, 3.
Cheng T.K., The Corporate Veil Doctrine Revisited: A Comparative Study of the English and the U.S.Corporate Veil Doctrines, Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, Vol.34, Issue 2, Art. 2, 5-1-2011, 354, 371.
Millon D., The Still-Elusive Quest to Make Sense of Veil-Piercing, Texas Law Review See Also, Vol. 89:15, 2009, 16.
Wix G.W., Piercing the Corporate Veil: Should Michigan Consider Statutory Solutions? 79 U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 637, 9.
Rands W.J., Domination of A Subsidiary By A Parent, Indiana Law Review, Vol. 32:421, 1999, 456.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Journal of Law
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
