Avoid Automatic Piercing: A Comment on Blumberg and Strasser

Georgakopoulos Nicholas L
Additional contact information
Georgakopoulos Nicholas L: Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis

Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium, 2011, vol. 1, issue 1, 12

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.

Keywords: corporate law and economics; enterprise groups (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2011
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.2202/2152-2820.1002 (text/html)
For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bpj:aelcon:v:1:y:2011:i:1:n:12

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.degruyter.com/journal/key/ael/html

DOI: 10.2202/2152-2820.1002

Access Statistics for this article

Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium is currently edited by Reuven S. Avi-Yonah, Yuri Biondi and Shyam Sunder

More articles in Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium from De Gruyter
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Peter Golla ().