Corporate Law

Corporate Law Order Description Please find the following handout below for your guidance: 1. Purpose of limited liability company; (Dignam & Lowry) 2. The Nature and Purpose of Company: - F. Easterbrook & D. Fischel “Limited Liability and the Corporation” (1985) - H. Hansmann, R. Kraakman & R. Squire, “Law and the Rise of the Firm” (2006) 110 Harvard Law Review 1333 - Posner “Economic Analysis of Law” - H. Manne “Our Two Corporation Systems “Law and Economics” (1967) 3. Criticisms of the nature of the company: - Infringes a moral principle as to personal responsibility for debt Schluter, M., “Risk, reward and responsibility: limited liability and company reform”, (2000) Cambridge Papers Vol. 9(2) - Encourages undue risk-taking at creditors’ expense Freedman, J., “Limited liability: large company theory and small firms” (2000) - Enables shareholders to evade tort liabilities H. Hansmann & R. Kraakman, “Towards Unlimited Shareholder Liability for Corporate Torts” (1991) Yale Law Journal Vol. 100, p. 1879 - Is inappropriate for small businesses Hicks, A., “Limiting the Rise of Limited Liability” (1997) in R. Baldwin (ed.) “Law, Uncertainty and Legal Processes” (London: Kluwer Law International), Ch. 6 4. Principle of the Corporate Law: Petrodel Resources Ltd v. Prest [2013] UKSC 34 Per Lord Sumption: “”Piercing the corporate veil” is an expression rather indiscriminately used to describe a number of things. Properly speaking, it means disregarding the separate personality of the company.” See also Ottolenghi “From Peeping Behind the Corporate Veil to Ignoring it Completely” (1990) A timeline: Dignam & Lowry, op. cit., pp. 35 – 37: Classical veil lifting, 1897 – 1966 The interventionist years, 1966 - 1989 Back to basics, 1989 - present (i) The “evasion principle” Petrodel Resources Ltd v. Prest [2013] UKSC 34 5. Agency? 6. Tourt Liability 7. Salamon Case use OSCOLA for the references's style