Limited liability and multinational enterprises: A case for reform?

Cambridge Journal of Economics

Volumn 34, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 915-928

  Muchlinski, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Corporations; Involuntary creditors; Limited liability; Multinational enterprises; Risk allocation

Indexed keywords

ACCOUNTABILITY; LIABILITY; MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISE; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; THEORETICAL STUDY;

EID: 77955956200     PISSN: 0309166X     EISSN: 14643545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/cje/beq023     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Blumberg, P. I. 1986. Limited liability and corporate groups, Journal of Corporate Law, vol. 11, 573-631
2. Blumberg, P. I. 1993. The Multinational Challenge to Corporation Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press
3. Blumberg, P. I., Strasser, K. A., Georgakopoulos, N. L. and Gouvin, E. J. 2005. Blumberg on Corporate Groups, 2nd edn. Vol. 1. ch. 3, New York, Aspen Publishers
4. Cheffins, B. R. 1997. Company Law: Theory, Structure and Operation, Oxford, Oxford University Press
5. Cox, E. 1856. The Law and Practice of Joint Stock Companies, London, Law Times Office
6. Davies, P. L. 1997. Gower's Principles of Modern Company Law, 6th edn. London, Sweet & Maxwell
7. Davies, P. L. 2008. Gower's Principles of Modern Company Law, 8th edn. London, Sweet & Maxwell
8. Easterbrook, F. and Fischel, D. 1985. Limited liability and the corporation, University of Chicago Law Review, vol. 52, 89
9. England and Wales Court of Appeal. 1991. Adams v Cape Industries, [1991] 1 All England Reports 929 CA
10. England and Wales House of Lords. 1897. Salomon v Salomon, [1897] AC 22
11. England and Wales House of Lords. 2000. Lubbe et al. v Cape Industries, [2000] 2 Lloyds Rep 383, [2000] 4 All ER 268
12. Gower, L. C. B. 1979. Gower's Principles of Modern Company, 4th edn. London, Sweet & Maxwell
13. Gordon, J. N. and Roe, M. J. 2004. Convergence and Persistence in Corporate Governance, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
14. Gordon, M. W. 1974. Argentine jurisprudence: the Parke-Davis and Deltec cases, Lawyer of the Americas, vol. 6, 320-45
15. Hadden, T. 1977. Company Law and Capitalism, 2nd edn. London, Weidenfeld and Nicholson
16. Hansmann, H. and Kraakman, R. 1991. Toward unlimited shareholder liability for corporate torts, Yale Law Journal, vol. 100, 1879-1934
17. Hansmann, H. and Kraakman, R. 2004. What is corporate law? in Kraakman, R. R., Davies, P., Hansmann, H., Hertig, G., Hopt, K. J., Kanda, H., Edward, R. B (eds) The Anatomy of Corporate Law: A Comparative and Functional Approach, Oxford, Oxford University Press
18. Ireland, P. 2008. Limited liability, shareholder rights and the problem of corporate irresponsibility, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Advance Access published 28 November 2008
19. Kluver, J. 2005. Entity vs enterprise liability: issues for Australia, Connecticut Law Review, vol. 37, 765-84
20. Leebron, D.W. 1991. Limited liability, tort victims and creditors, Columbia Law Review, vol. 91, 1565-650
21. Mendelson, N. A. 2002. A control-based approach to shareholder liability for corporate torts, Columbia Law Review, vol. 102, 1203-303
22. Muchlinski, P. T. 1987. The Bhopal case: controlling ultrahazardous industrial activities undertaken by foreign investors, Modern Law Review, vol. 50, 545-87
23. Muchlinski, P. T. 2001. Corporations in international litigation: problems of jurisdiction and the United Kingdom asbestos case, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 50, 1-25
24. Muchlinski, P. T. 2007. Multinational Enterprises and the Law, 2nd edn. Oxford, Oxford University Press
25. New South Wales Supreme Court. 1998. James Hardie v Hall [1998] 43 NSWLR 554 SC NSW
26. Plesch, D. and Blankenburg, S. 2007. Corporate Rights and Responsibilities: Restoring Legal Accountability, London, Royal Society of Arts
27. Rothbard, M. N. 1973/1978. For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, New York and London, Collier Books and Macmillan
28. Schipani, C. A. 2005. The changing face of parent and subsidiary corporations: enterprise theory and federal regulation, Connecticut Law Review, vol. 37, 691-714
29. Strasser, K. A. 2005. Piercing the veil in corporate groups, Connecticut Law Review, vol. 37, 637-65
30. Thompson, R. B. 1991. Piercing the corporate veil: an empirical study, Cornell Law Review, vol. 76, 1036-74
31. Thompson, R. B. 2005. Piercing the veil: is common law the problem? Connecticut Law Review, vol. 37, 619-35
32. US District Court. 1984. The Amoco Cadiz [1984] 2 Lloyds Rep 304
33. US Supreme Court. 1998. United States v Bestfoods et al., 524 US 51, 118 S Ct 1876, 141 L ed. 2d 43 [1998] US LEXIS 3733