Avoid Automatic Piercing: a Comment on Blumberg and Strasser

If you need an accessible version of this item, please email your request to digschol@iu.edu so that they may create one and provide it to you.
Date
2011
Language
American English
Embargo Lift Date
Department
Committee Members
Degree
Degree Year
Department
Grantor
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Found At
Abstract

This comment argues against piercing by default, a regime that the arguments of the main piece do not justify. Piercing of subsidiaries' veil in contract law is justified but under exceptional circumstances and presumed piercing would not cover all of them. Legislatures, courts, and agencies have moved to validate rather than undermine limited liability. Moreover, automatic piercing would erode the socially desirable incentive for business creation that limited liability provides, reduce or eliminate the markets for venture capital, buyouts and corporate control, and preclude the flexible financing that limited liability makes possible.

Description
item.page.description.tableofcontents
item.page.relation.haspart
Cite As
1 Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium [xxv]
ISSN
Publisher
Series/Report
Sponsorship
Major
Extent
Identifier
Relation
Journal
Source
Alternative Title
Type
Article
Number
Volume
Conference Dates
Conference Host
Conference Location
Conference Name
Conference Panel
Conference Secretariat Location
Version
Full Text Available at
This item is under embargo {{howLong}}