Limited liability

Last updated

Limited liability is a legal status in which a person's financial liability is limited to a fixed sum, most commonly the value of a person's investment in a corporation, company or joint venture. If a company that provides limited liability to its investors is sued, then the claimants are generally entitled to collect only against the assets of the company, not the assets of its shareholders or other investors. [1] [2] A shareholder in a corporation or limited liability company is not personally liable for any of the debts of the company, other than for the amount already invested in the company and for any unpaid amount on the shares in the company, if any—except under special and rare circumstances that permit "piercing the corporate veil". [3] The same is true for the members of a limited liability partnership and the limited partners in a limited partnership. [4] By contrast, sole proprietors and partners in general partnerships are each liable for all the debts of the business (unlimited liability).

Contents

Although a shareholder's liability for the company's actions is limited, the shareholders may still be liable for their own acts. For example, the directors of small companies (who are frequently also shareholders) are often required to give personal guarantees of the company's debts to those lending to the company. [5] They will then be liable for those debts that the company cannot pay, although the other shareholders will not be so liable. This is known as co-signing. A shareholder who is also an employee of the corporation may be personally liable for actions the employee takes in that capacity on behalf of the corporation, in particular torts committed within the scope of employment.

Limited liability for shareholders for contracts entered by the corporation is not controversial because this could and probably would be agreed to by both parties to the contract. [6] However, limited liability for shareholders for torts (or harms that have not been agreed to in advance) is controversial because of concerns that such limited liability could lead to excessive risk-taking by companies and more negative externalities (i.e., more harm to third parties) than would be produced in the absence of limited liability. [1] [6] [7] According to one estimate, negative corporate externalities on an annual basis are equal to between 5 and 20 percent of U.S. GDP. [8] [1]

An issue in liability exposure is whether the assets of a parent entity and the sole owner need to be subject to the subsidiary's liabilities, when the subsidiary is declared insolvent and owes debt to its creditors. As a general principle of corporate law, in the United States, a parent entity and the sole owner are not liable for the acts of its subsidiaries. [9] However, they may be liable for its subsidiaries' obligations when the law supports "piercing the corporate veil". [9]

Provided that the parent entity or the sole owner do not maintain separate legal identities from the subsidiary (through inadequate/ undocumented transfer of funds and assets), the judgment is likely to be in favor of the creditor. [10] In the same regard, if a subsidiary is undercapitalized from its inception, that may be grounds for piercing the corporate veil. [11] Further, if injustice/fraud to the creditor is proven, the parent entity or the owner may be held liable to compensate the creditor. [12] Thus, there is not one characteristic that defines the piercing of a corporate veil –a factors test is used to determine if piercing is appropriate or not. [13]

If shares are issued "part-paid", then the shareholders are liable, when a claim is made against the capital of the company, to pay to the company the balance of the face or par value of the shares.

History

By the 15th century, English law had awarded limited liability to monastic communities and trade guilds with commonly held property. In the 17th century, joint stock charters were awarded by the crown to monopolies such as the East India Company. [14] The world's first modern limited liability law was enacted by the state of New York in 1811. [15] In England it became more straightforward to incorporate a joint stock company following the Joint Stock Companies Act 1844, although investors in such companies carried unlimited liability until the Limited Liability Act 1855.

There was a degree of public and legislative distaste for a limitation of liability, with fears that it would cause a drop in standards of probity. [16] [17] [18] The 1855 Act allowed limited liability to companies of more than 25 members (shareholders). Insurance companies were excluded from the act, though it was standard practice for insurance contracts to exclude action against individual members. Limited liability for insurance companies was allowed by the Companies Act 1862. The minimum number of members necessary for registration as a limited company was reduced to seven by the Companies Act 1856. Limited companies in England and Wales now require only one member. [19]

Similar statutory regimes were in place in France and in the majority of the U.S. states by 1860. By the final quarter of the nineteenth century, most European countries had adopted the principle of limited liability. The development of limited liability facilitated the move to large-scale industrial enterprise, by removing the threat that an individual's total wealth would be confiscated if invested in an unsuccessful company. Large sums of personal financial capital became available, and the transferability of shares permitted a degree of business continuity not possible in other forms of enterprise. [14]

In the UK there was initially a widespread belief that a corporation needed to demonstrate its creditworthiness by having its shares only partly paid, as where shares are partly paid, the investor would be liable for the remainder of the nominal value in case the company could not pay its debts. Shares with nominal values of up to £1,000 were therefore subscribed to with only a small payment, leaving even a limited liability investor with a potentially crushing liability and restricting investment to the very wealthy. During the Overend Gurney crisis (1866–1867) and the Long Depression (1873–1896) many companies fell into insolvency and the unpaid portion of the shares fell due. Further, the extent to which small and medium investors were excluded from the market was admitted and, from the 1880s onwards, shares were more commonly fully paid. [20]

Although it was admitted that those who were mere investors ought not to be liable for debts arising from the management of a corporation, throughout the late nineteenth century there were still many arguments for unlimited liability for managers and directors on the model of the French société en commandite . [21] Such liability for directors of English companies was abolished in 2006. [22] Further, it became increasingly common from the end of the nineteenth century for shareholders to be directors, protecting themselves from liability.

In 1989, the European Union enacted its Twelfth Council Company Law Directive, [23] requiring that member states make available legal structures for individuals to trade with limited liability. This was implemented in England and Wales in the Companies (Single Member Private Limited Companies) Regulations 1992, [24] which allowed single-member limited-liability companies. [25]

Justification

Some argue that limited liability is related to the concept of separate legal personality bestowed on the corporate form, which is promoted as encouraging entrepreneurship by various economists, [26] [27] [28] [29] enabling large sums to be pooled towards an economically beneficial purpose.

Limited liability has been justified as promoting investment and capital formation by reassuring risk averse investors. [1] [30]

Criticisms

An early critic of limited liability, Edward William Cox, a lifelong member of the Conservative Party, wrote in 1855:

[T]hat he who acts through an agent should be responsible for his agent's acts, and that he who shares the profits of an enterprise ought also to be subject to its losses; that there is a moral obligation, which it is the duty of the laws of a civilized nation to enforce, to pay debts, perform contracts and make reparation for wrongs. Limited liability is founded on the opposite principle and permits a man to avail himself of acts if advantageous to him, and not to be responsible for them if they should be disadvantageous; to speculate for profits without being liable for losses; to make contracts, incur debts, and commit wrongs, the law depriving the creditor, the contractor, and the injured of a remedy against the property or person of the wrongdoer, beyond the limit, however small, at which it may please him to determine his own liability. [31]

Others argue that while some limited liability is beneficial, the privilege ought not to extend to liability in tort for environmental disasters or personal injury because this leads to excessive risk-taking and negative externalities by corporations. [32] [33] [34] Others argue that limited liability should be permitted, but should be taxed more heavily to offset the harm that limited liability causes. Such taxes could be structured to generate information for regulators about how risky the activities companies are undertaking are to third parties. [1]

The notion of corporate limited liability has met criticism from certain figures among the libertarian right. In For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, Murray N. Rothbard approvingly quoted Robert Poole, a fellow libertarian, who stated that a "libertarian society would be a full-liability society where everyone is fully responsible for his actions and any harmful consequences they might cause". [35]

Maritime claims

The 1957 Brussels Convention and the 1976 London Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims permit the charterer, manager, operators and salvors of a ship, and the master and members of the crew, to limit their liability for damage caused by events occurring "on board or in direct connection with the operation of the ship, or with salvage operations" and for "consequential loss resulting therefrom". [36]

See also

Notes

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Sim, Michael (2018). "Limited Liability and the Known Unknown". Duke Law Journal . 68: 275–332. SSRN   3121519 – via SSRN.
  2. ↑ Pace, Susan (1996). "The Limited Liability Company: A Catalyst Exposing the Corporate Integration Question". Michigan Law Review . 95 (2): 393–446. doi:10.2307/1290118. JSTOR   1290118. S2CID   158517043.
  3. ↑ Presser, Stephen (2018). Piercing the corporate veil.
  4. ↑ Hannigan, Brenda (2018). Company Law. Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-878770-9 . Retrieved 9 March 2019.
  5. ↑ "When LLC Owners Can Be Liable" . Retrieved 2011-12-04.
  6. 1 2 Hansmann, Henry; Kraakman, Reinier (December 1992). "A Procedural Focus on Unlimited Shareholder Liability". Harvard Law Review . 106 (2): 446. doi:10.2307/1341705. ISSN   0017-811X. JSTOR   1341705. S2CID   55993724.
  7. ↑ "Pigou in the Foreground", Arthur Cecil Pigou, Palgrave Macmillan, 2015, doi:10.1057/9781137314505.0004, ISBN   978-1-137-31450-5 , retrieved 2020-11-03
  8. ↑ Tyranny of the bottom line: why corporations make good people do bad things. 1996-06-01.
  9. 1 2 "Piercing the Corporate Veil". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2020-04-09.
  10. ↑ Macey, Jonathan; Mitts, Joshua (2014-11-01). "Finding Order in the Morass: The Three Real Justifications for Piercing the Corporate Veil". Cornell Law Review . 100 (1): 99. ISSN   0010-8847.
  11. ↑ "The Three Justifications for Piercing the Corporate Veil". corpgov.law.harvard.edu. 27 March 2014. Retrieved 2020-04-09.
  12. ↑ Jimerson; Jimerson, Cobb P. A.-Charles B.; Snell, Brittany N. (2 March 2016). "The Five Most Common Ways to Pierce the Corporate Veil and Impose Personal Liability for Corporate Debts | Lexology". www.lexology.com. Retrieved 2020-04-09.
  13. ↑ "Piercing the corporate veil", Wikipedia, 2020-03-12, retrieved 2020-04-09
  14. 1 2 Reekie, W. Duncan (1996). Adam Kuper and Jessica Kuper (ed.). The Social Science Encyclopedia. Routledge. p.  477. ISBN   978-0-415-20794-2.
  15. ↑ "The key to industrial capitalism: limited liability". The Economist . December 23, 1999.
  16. ↑ Shannon (1931)
  17. ↑ Saville, J. (1956). "Sleeping partnership and limited liability, 1850–1856". The Economic History Review . 8 (3): 418–433. doi:10.2307/2598493. JSTOR   2598493.
  18. ↑ Amsler, et al. (1981)
  19. ↑ Mayson, et al. (2005), p. 55
  20. ↑ Jefferys, J.B. (1954). "The denomination and character of shares, 1855–1885". The Economic History Review . 16 (1): 45–55. doi:10.2307/2590580. JSTOR   2590580.
  21. ↑ Lobban (1996)
  22. ↑ DTI (2005)
  23. ↑ 89/667/EEC
  24. ↑ Statutory Instrument SI 1992/1699
  25. ↑ Edwards (1998)
  26. ↑ Meiners, et al. (1979)
  27. ↑ Halpern, et al. (1980)
  28. ↑ Easterbrook & Fischel (1985)
  29. ↑ Millon, David. "Piercing the Corporate Veil, Financial Responsibility, and the Limits of Limed Liability" (PDF). Emory Law Journal. Emory University School of Law. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-09-16.
  30. ↑ Jensen, Michael C.; Meckling, William H. (2004), "Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs, and Ownership Structure", Economic Analysis of the Law, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 162–176, doi:10.1002/9780470752135.ch17, ISBN   978-0-470-75213-5 , retrieved 2020-11-03
  31. ↑ Ireland, P. (2008). "Limited liability, shareholder rights and the problem of corporate irresponsibility". Cambridge Journal of Economics. 34 (5): 837–856. doi: 10.1093/cje/ben040 .
  32. ↑ Grossman (1995)
  33. ↑ Hansmann & Kraakman (1991)
  34. ↑ Grundfest, J.A. (1992). "The limited future of unlimited liability: a capital markets perspective". The Yale Law Journal . 102 (2): 387–425. doi:10.2307/796841. JSTOR   796841.
  35. ↑ Blankenburg, Stephanie; Plesch, Dan; Wilkinson, Frank (2010). "Limited liability and the modern corporation in theory and in practice" . Cambridge Journal of Economics . 34 (5). JSTOR: 829–830. doi:10.1093/cje/beq028. JSTOR   24231943.
  36. ↑ Convention on limitation of liability for maritime claims, 1976 (with final act). Concluded at London on 19 November 1976, no. 24635, Article 2(1)(a), accessed 18 October 2020

Related Research Articles

Business is the practice of making one's living or making money by producing or buying and selling products. It is an activity or enterprise entered into for profit."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Limited liability company</span> US form of a private limited company

A limited liability company (LLC) is the United States-specific form of a private limited company. It is a business structure that can combine the pass-through taxation of a partnership or sole proprietorship with the limited liability of a corporation. An LLC is not a corporation under the laws of every state; it is a legal form of a company that provides limited liability to its owners in many jurisdictions. LLCs are well known for the flexibility that they provide to business owners; depending on the situation, an LLC may elect to use corporate tax rules instead of being treated as a partnership, and, under certain circumstances, LLCs may be organized as not-for-profit. In certain U.S. states, businesses that provide professional services requiring a state professional license, such as legal or medical services, may not be allowed to form an LLC but may be required to form a similar entity called a professional limited liability company (PLLC).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Joint-stock company</span> Business entity owned by shareholders

A joint-stock company (JSC) is a business entity in which shares of the company's stock can be bought and sold by shareholders. Each shareholder owns company stock in proportion, evidenced by their shares. Shareholders are able to transfer their shares to others without any effects to the continued existence of the company.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Incorporation (business)</span> Legal process to create a new corporation

Incorporation is the formation of a new corporation. The corporation may be a business, a nonprofit organization, sports club, or a local government of a new city or town.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corporate law</span> Body of law that governs businesses

Corporate law is the body of law governing the rights, relations, and conduct of persons, companies, organizations and businesses. The term refers to the legal practice of law relating to corporations, or to the theory of corporations. Corporate law often describes the law relating to matters which derive directly from the life-cycle of a corporation. It thus encompasses the formation, funding, governance, and death of a corporation.

In law, liable means "responsible or answerable in law; legally obligated". Legal liability concerns both civil law and criminal law and can arise from various areas of law, such as contracts, torts, taxes, or fines given by government agencies. The claimant is the one who seeks to establish, or prove, liability.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Limited partnership</span> Form of partnership

A limited partnership (LP) is a type of partnership with general partners who have a right to manage the business and limited partners who have no right to manage the business but have only limited liability for its debts. Limited partnerships are distinct from limited liability partnerships, in which all partners have limited liability.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Piercing the corporate veil</span> Temporary rescission of corporate personhood

Piercing the corporate veil or lifting the corporate veil is a legal decision to treat the rights or duties of a corporation as the rights or liabilities of its shareholders. Usually a corporation is treated as a separate legal person, which is solely responsible for the debts it incurs and the sole beneficiary of the credit it is owed. Common law countries usually uphold this principle of separate personhood, but in exceptional situations may "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil.

Società per azioni is a form of corporation in Italy, meaning 'company with shares'. It is more or less equivalent to S.A. or public limited company (PLC) in other countries.

<i>Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd</i> UK landmark company law case

Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd[1896] UKHL 1, [1897] AC 22 is a landmark UK company law case. The effect of the House of Lords' unanimous ruling was to uphold firmly the doctrine of corporate personality, as set out in the Companies Act 1862, so that creditors of an insolvent company could not sue the company's shareholders for payment of outstanding debts.

<i>Berkey v. Third Avenue Railway Co.</i> 1926 US legal case

Berkey v. Third Avenue Railway Co 244 N.Y. 84 (1926) is a classic veil piercing case by Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo in United States corporate law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Company</span> Association or collection of individuals

A company, abbreviated as co., is a legal entity representing an association of legal people, whether natural, juridical or a mixture of both, with a specific objective. Company members share a common purpose and unite to achieve specific, declared goals.

A corporate group, company group or business group, also formally known as a group of companies, is a collection of parent and subsidiary corporations that function as a single economic entity through a common source of control. These types of groups are often managed by an account manager. The concept of a group is frequently used in tax law, accounting and company law to attribute the rights and duties of one member of the group to another or the whole. If the corporations are engaged in entirely different businesses, the group is called a conglomerate. The forming of corporate groups usually involves consolidation via mergers and acquisitions, although the group concept focuses on the instances in which the merged and acquired corporate entities remain in existence rather than the instances in which they are dissolved by the parent. The group may be owned by a holding company which may have no actual operations.

<i>Adams v Cape Industries plc</i> UK company law case

Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 is a UK company law case on separate legal personality and limited liability of shareholders. The case also addressed long-standing issues under the English conflict of laws as to when a company would be resident in a foreign jurisdiction such that the English courts would recognise the foreign court's jurisdiction over the company. It has in effect been superseded by Lungowe v Vedanta Resources plc, which held that a parent company could be liable for the actions of a subsidiary on ordinary principles of tort law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Limited Liability Act 1855</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Limited Liability Act 1855 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that first expressly allowed limited liability for corporations that could be established by the general public in England and Wales as well as Ireland. The Act did not apply to Scotland, where the limited liability of shareholders for the debts company debts had been recognised since the mid-Eighteenth century with the decision in the case of Stevenson v McNair. Although the validity of the decision in that case had come to be doubted by the mid-Nineteenth century, the Joint Stock Companies Act 1856 – which applied across the UK – put the matter beyond doubt, settling that Scottish 'companies' could be possessed of both separate legal personality and limited liability.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom company law</span> Law that regulates corporations formed under the Companies Act 2006

The United Kingdom company law regulates corporations formed under the Companies Act 2006. Also governed by the Insolvency Act 1986, the UK Corporate Governance Code, European Union Directives and court cases, the company is the primary legal vehicle to organise and run business. Tracing their modern history to the late Industrial Revolution, public companies now employ more people and generate more of wealth in the United Kingdom economy than any other form of organisation. The United Kingdom was the first country to draft modern corporation statutes, where through a simple registration procedure any investors could incorporate, limit liability to their commercial creditors in the event of business insolvency, and where management was delegated to a centralised board of directors. An influential model within Europe, the Commonwealth and as an international standard setter, UK law has always given people broad freedom to design the internal company rules, so long as the mandatory minimum rights of investors under its legislation are complied with.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States corporate law</span> Overview of United States corporate law

United States corporate law regulates the governance, finance and power of corporations in US law. Every state and territory has its own basic corporate code, while federal law creates minimum standards for trade in company shares and governance rights, found mostly in the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by laws like the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 and the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The US Constitution was interpreted by the US Supreme Court to allow corporations to incorporate in the state of their choice, regardless of where their headquarters are. Over the 20th century, most major corporations incorporated under the Delaware General Corporation Law, which offered lower corporate taxes, fewer shareholder rights against directors, and developed a specialized court and legal profession. Nevada has attempted to do the same. Twenty-four states follow the Model Business Corporation Act, while New York and California are important due to their size.

The corporate veil in the United Kingdom is a metaphorical reference used in UK company law for the concept that the rights and duties of a corporation are, as a general principle, the responsibility of that company alone. Just as a natural person cannot be held legally accountable for the conduct or obligations of another person, unless they have expressly or implicitly assumed responsibility, guaranteed or indemnified the other person, as a general principle shareholders, directors and employees cannot be bound by the rights and duties of a corporation. This concept has traditionally been likened to a "veil" of separation between the legal entity of a corporation and the real people who invest their money and labor into a company's operations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corporate law in Vietnam</span> Vietnamese Corporate Law

Corporate law in Vietnam was originally based on the French commercial law system. However, since Vietnam's independence in 1945, it has largely been influenced by the ruling Communist Party. Currently, the main sources of corporate law are the Law on Enterprises, the Law on Securities and the Law on Investment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">British Virgin Islands company law</span>

The British Virgin Islands company law is the law that governs businesses registered in the British Virgin Islands. It is primarily codified through the BVI Business Companies Act, 2004, and to a lesser extent by the Insolvency Act, 2003 and by the Securities and Investment Business Act, 2010. The British Virgin Islands has approximately 30 registered companies per head of population, which is likely the highest ratio of any country in the world. Annual company registration fees provide a significant part of Government revenue in the British Virgin Islands, which accounts for the comparative lack of other taxation. This might explain why company law forms a much more prominent part of the law of the British Virgin Islands when compared to countries of similar size.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.