Avoid Automatic Piercing: a Comment on Blumberg and Strasser

dc.contributor.authorGeorgakopoulos, Nicholas L.
dc.date.accessioned2021-01-25T02:24:03Z
dc.date.available2021-01-25T02:24:03Z
dc.date.issued2011
dc.description.abstractThis 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citation1 Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium [xxv]en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.2202/2152-2820.1002
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1805/24954
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.titleAvoid Automatic Piercing: a Comment on Blumberg and Strasseren_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Avoid Automatic Piercing a Comment on Blumberg and Strasser.pdf
Size:
1.08 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.99 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: