• Home
• Order now
• Prices
• How we help
• Press
• Law marking
• Contact us
• Resources
• Log in

Social Corporate Law

The Law and Corporate Social Responsibility

Introduction

A corporate society is not considered as a capitalist society, a business society, a market society or an organizational society. Rather, the concept of the contemporary corporation is viewed as a legal entity, an economic abstraction and an enterprise seeking to make huge profits, that is, the formation of a composite bureaucratic organization. A corporation is defined as a legal personality used to conduct business smoothly (Halebsky, 2004). It survives as a refined product of corporate law, and rules are there for balancing the shareholder interest as they invest huge capital, and employees give contributions in the form of labor. People work in teams so as to produce more.

In any company, it is not advisable to adopt the concept of shareholder dominance and therefore, emphasis should be laid on the communitarian view. I completely agree with this statement and my views in the favor of this are given below.

Corporations are nothing more than an abstraction

In contemporary society, corporations form a leading part of economic life. A company that has been incorporated formally as per the laws of a particular state is referred to as a corporation (Friedman, 1970). People depend on corporations for the purpose of employment, goods and services, pensions, social development and economic growth. The important characteristic of a corporation is that it is legally independent from the people who have created it. Should the corporation fail, there will be a considerable loss of money for the shareholder and job losses for the employees. However, in both cases, no one is liable for the payment of the debts. In other words, it is called the rule of Limited Liability (Young, 2007).

In spite of not being persons, rights and responsibilities have been assigned to the corporation by law similar to the actual people. Corporations are associated with the violation of the human rights and can easily exercise human rights against the state and real individual. Apart from this, corporations can be condemned with criminal offences like homicide and fraud. Five main characteristics of the modern corporation are:

• Delegated management;

• Shareholder's limited liability;

• Separate legal entity;

• Transferable shares; and

• Ownership of investors.

With increases in the economic and the social interdependence, the ownership in a corporation is getting complicated. Most of the corporations in developed countries have representatives on their boards from shareholders and employees who together determine the company strategy. The greater call for increased corporate social responsibility by the consumers, human right activists and the environmentalists has forced corporations to adopt a proper code of conduct (Friedman, 1970). Corporations bear no constitutional rights to exercise their religion freely, because religious exercise can only be performed by the people, that is, only human beings have the ability to exercise religious beliefs. Therefore, the corporation is an abstraction.

Communitarian view

A complete value centred guide is provided by the Communitarian philosophy, which describes the common goal of the society (Etzioni, 1996). In terms of the social order, it holds a Centrist philosophy, which arbitrates between libertarianism and totalitarianism (Friedman, 1970). Regarding the Totalitarian view, collectivity has superior objectives and needs. The existence of the individual is for the purpose of the collective needs. Libertarian views states that the standpoint of the autonomous individual lies at the core of the philosophic universe and no legitimate demand can be made by the individual, except those who are required to establish civil order.

Communitarianism plays a vital role in mediating the stress between two forces of intense centralized authority and intense autonomy depending on their understanding that societies can remain healthy only until they are capable of effectively providing stability between the inward force of the centralized authority and the outward forces of autonomy (Barnet, Richard & Muller, 1974).

Communitarian economics state that economic policies are critically dependent on the common aims to be achieved. In today's scenario, the structures of political and economic decisions have become national instead of global in scope. Therefore, for this cause, there is a need to examine the economic policy initially on the country-to-country basis.

The term Communitarianism was derived in the 1840s by Goodwyn Barmby and referred to the individual who was an advocate or member from communalist society (Barmby, 2008). Furthermore, the sole hunt of private interest eats away the network related to the social environments on which all the people depend. In the system of democratic self-government, it might prove destructive for the shared experiment. Communitarianism states that rights must go together with social responsibility along with the maintenance of institutions belonging to the civil society.

Communitarian philosophy identifies that individuals observe themselves and, for more than one community, they act as members and hence for each of their communities, they experience layered loyalties (Barnet, Richard & Muller, 1974). The Communitarians approach believes that by participating in the single overarching community, the individuals fulfill themselves as well as making effective contributions to the society. The societies are organized on the basis of general characteristics like topography, race, sex, economic interest, cultural and professional interest, and ethnic background. Democratic societies can show their best functions when specific groups operate as community organizations instead of interest groups and participate sensibly with other organizations of community.

Communitarian principles are capable of suggesting more inclusive solutions, depending on the commitment of a firm to a taxation level pegged to a fixed percentage of the GDP over extended periods (Barnet, Richard & Muller, 1974).Therefore; it would be more effective to adopt the communitarian view instead of giving priority to the stakeholder dominance. In order to achieve a suitable level, the adoption of communitarian ideas would suggest that the level is low enough for maintaining suitable incentives for the productive effort given by individuals and is sufficient enough to provide funds for the genuine national goal.

Considering the American economic structure, its businesses exist in a highly self-activating environment, which is ruled by the competition and by making profits; thus, it will continue its existence. The main task of the American economy is to be creative and productive with the outcome of making profits for shareholders and for economy as well as focusing on the maximization of the contribution to the GDP (Benjamin, 1984).

The blend of both good business practice and communitarian thinking utilizes the approaches of management that support teams and individuals to take an active part in improving the performance of the corporation (Benjamin, 1984). Companies should go for the adoption of entrepreneurial management approaches like participatory management so as to make the process of decision-making a decentralized one. Teamwork helps in overcoming the strict barriers which divide people into hierarchical structures. Investment in the training of employees helps to ensure that they possess the required skills and helps in the uninterrupted evaluation of business practices by taking results as a base.

All these practices are capable of creating a feeling of community in the workplace and motivate people to work more laboriously and spend more of their imagination as they are in control of their own work (Etzioni, 1996). The economic consequences associated with these re-energized approaches to managing the workplace are to develop extra and supreme-quality products, which would ultimately increase the profits of the company and enhance the contribution of the company towards the total GDP as well.

As it is not realistic to expect boundless corporate altruism, it is rational to anticipate that social encouragement and stimulated leadership can make sure that the motive for profits will be hardened by concerns for the common good. This suggests that corporations would evade efforts to take undue profits by forming the oligopolies or monopolies, which will manage prices, confine consumer access towards the invention, and eventually have a negative consequence over the GDP. A command economy which forms the part of a corporatist oligopolistic economy is required to greatly control the huge part, instead of relying exclusively on the regulations posed by the government to fight for the undue business collusions. In order to sustain energetic competition, social backing for self-governing initiatives can be an effective tool.

Communitarianism is focused on promoting initiatives that are based on faith and character education, arguing that the government has no business engaging in what they see as social engineering (Etzioni, 1996). The contemporary communitarian movement was initially expressed by the Responsive Communitarian Platform, which was written by activists, ethicists and social scientists by forming groups in the United States. To fulfill social goals and increase economic productivity, the communitarian economies demand superior individuals, communities and corporate groups. All government levels should provide incentives for competition, improvement and innovation; for attentive evaluation and prioritization related to the tax revenues allocation; for local economic and positive national outcomes; and for an approach which is fiscally responsible for balancing the gains of all the regulatory and non-regulatory programs of government in opposition to the indirect and direct economic costs associated with these programs.

Various reforms under taxation and techniques of allocating government revenues should make use of the cut and invest strategy so as to diminish inappropriate subsidies and raise resources for making a venture in human capital and substantial infrastructure. Government programs must be directed towards providing incentives to individuals, minimizing bureaucracy and depending on public accountability and involvement for achieving success. On a national level, infrastructure investments directed to transportation, technology and environmental systems are capable of providing benefits across the industries, unite the home market, and assist American companies to boost their efficiency on a continuing basis (Etzioni, 1996).

Conclusion

In the end it can be said that in economic affairs, corporate responsibility needs a commitment to maintain the society's moral foundations in addition to a commitment for enhancing the productivity of the activities that are economic for the corporation. Continuous improvement in productivity has produced not only comparative economic advantage for the American firms, but also guarantees that firms in America can go forward in contributing to a rising world economy. In all, it is concluded that Communitarians believe that the major community covers human races from all the members. The economics of Communitarianism views the exertions of companies and individuals all over the world so as to amend their comparative economic advantage and hence, provide resources for people worldwide in order to have a superior life. Therefore, based on the above benefits, it is preferable for companies to adopt a communitarian view.

Introduction

Limited shareholder liability concerns the nonpayment regulations that restrain the personal liability of a business firm's stakeholders and players for the business firm's responsibilities (Bergkamp, 2001). It promotes corporations to over-invest in and to exteriorize the costs of risky action. It is necessary for the success of industrial revolution and for corporate risk-taking, and that extreme risk-taking in total gives rise to a net societal profit. It adjusts marketplace imperfections and cuts down the overall costs of investment funds in numerous linked manners. It assists in reducing the inefficiencies linked with the risk aversion of investors; however, it may increase the efficiency of equity markets. The potential costs of limited liability and distributive business concerns have superior power and influence (Hansmann & Kraakman, 1991).

I strongly disagree with the statement that corporations should not enjoy limited liability for tortious conduct and that unlimited shareholder liability in some form is appropriate in the case of corporate torts. Corporations should enjoy limited liability for tortious conduct.

Corporate Torts

Tort can be defined as a civil wrongdoing that has induced any damage to a person or property. Corporate torts can be handled as corporate acts. A tort does not have any legal consequences, as it is entirely different event to the practice of validated abilities. To handle such a tort, which lacks legal force, would cause adversity brought down on the casualty without keeping the public policy in mind. A corporate tort is generally defined as an immediate act of the management officer or employee of the corporation. However, in some cases, it can be delineated to the instruction, authority, acceptance, or approving of the governing board. The rationale of efficient corporate administration and corporate social obligation performs the task of promoting the liability exposure of corporations. The tortious behavior bringing about the tort liability is admitted (Bergkamp, 2001).

Various corporate instruments are used for controlling and reducing risk. In modern Corporations, few big incorporated business concerns have been neglected (this means not many have been neglected) because of overpowering tort liabilities against contractual liabilities. The efficiency statement regarding this is that limited liability induces corporations to be involved in risk-taking, because that neither the corporations nor their shareholders have to be concerned about titles to the level where they surpass the corporation's assets. They do not even have to take into account the incentives to consider the societal price of their actions while making decisions regarding the actions to carry on and up to what level. The principle behind the abolishing behaviour regarding limited liability is that investing the shareholders' assets into risk will hold them to incur these costs (Hansmann & Kraakman, 1991).

The efficiency is proportional to the legal system and is immanent. Hence, it is not possible to establish liability in the abstract of efficiency; a consistent liability hypothesis necessitates establishing liability rights. If the deforming legislative rules, such as taxation law, and health and safety laws, are applied for efficiency analysis, they will assist the corporations in preventing the incentives produced by shareholder liability. The corporations will get no societal profits from the shareholder liability. The efficiency statement will be acceptable only if corporate tort liability is effective. If the liability system of corporate tort is ineffective, limited liability may be essential to restrain the effects of this ineffective regime, and getting rid of it would induce the inefficiencies to disseminate in the system. In addition, as positive externalities are ignored in the efficiency analysis (and neither the corporation nor its shareholders are capable of getting an approval for positive externalities), and the liability's impediment consequences are very much away from certainty, there are no grounds to think that enforcing unlimited liability will take us nearer to the social optimal (Bergkamp, 2001).

Corporations should enjoy limited shareholder liability

Limited shareholder liability provides profits, but it simultaneously imposes costs, which comprise promoting more corporate action involving risk. These costs are easily noticeable in the context of a tort. Limited shareholder liability is the supporting characteristic of the economical viewpoint. Business corporation legislative acts possess limited liability of shareholders to the amount of investment funds for corporate responsibilities. The Modern Business Corporation Act explains that a shareholder of a corporation is not personally legally responsible for the acts or debts of the corporation excluding that the shareholder may be legally responsible for his/her acts or conducts (Hansmann & Kraakman, 1991).

The legal protection is not limited and worldwide. Abstracted considerations bring about direct liability, that is, tortious conduct – a shareholder benefits from limited liability irrespective of the corporation's status. The corporation's legislative acts apparently render shareholders trade protection in contrast to exchangeable liability for the corporation's responsibilities. Statutory approved limited liability for equity stakeholders goes forward to spread out the trade protection. The legal systems have ordained legislative acts providing the prerogative of limited liability to equity stakeholders in corporations for allowing the corporations to coordinate as limited liability companies (LLCs) and limited liability partnerships (LLPs). LLC legislative acts handle the members of the corporation like corporate shareholders' intentions of limited liability.

LLP legislative acts normally protect partners from liability for corporation responsibilities, but some of these legislative acts call for the purchase of a least possible level of insurance and render that a partner stays legally responsible for torts practiced by an employee or agent inside the partner's field of direction (Mendelson, 2002). Limited shareholder liability is beneficial for the society to help it become wealthy. It gives rise to numerous forms of cost economies and marketplace efficiencies.

One of the major requisites for the limited shareholder liability is that it is essential to increase large capital development. In the absence of limited liability, businesspeople could not draw in enough capital to monetarily fund large corporations, because potentially inactive investors would not make an investment if they are dependent on the concept of personal liability for corporation responsibilities. The legal separation of possession and power to direct inside the corporation is easily obtained by limited liability. It encourages low-priced and more inactive capital investment, and diminishes the overall costs of controlling the corporation by cutting down the amount of superintendence required. In a limited liability authority, shareholder wealth is beside the point because of the risk related to loss in the shareholders' investment. Hence, shares are freely exchangeable and tradable at a single price in the liquid marketplace (Bergkamp, 2001).

Problems related to court practice would preclude the effectuation of unlimited liability in a cross-border circumstance. Unlimited liability will not function due to the troubles of the selection of the practice of law and personal legal power. The simple inactive possession of stock in a corporation that dedicates a tort cannot fulfill the least possible contracts examination for statement of legal power. In its application, unlimited liability could have serious effects for small-scale and medium size corporations. Due to their shareholders' limited potentiality to have risky and broadened investments, small-scale corporations may not be feasible under unlimited liability. The reform that creates unlimited liability of some or all shareholders is not realistic, would be ineffectual, and may possess contrary downstream effects for corporate administration. A number of mechanisms are described by which unlimited liability can be counterbalanced, such as the issue by corporations with greater intensity of tort risk actions of equity-like securities that do not possess unlimited liability and the proffering by financial intermediaries of investiture vehicles. Unlimited shareholder liability possesses a close relation with the concept of veil piercing (Hansmann & Kraakman, 1991).

Benefits of limited liabilities

Limited liability gives rise to overall gains to society, and makes up a justifiable and suitable characteristic of corporate and tort law. It is based on efficiency and ethical motive. Limited liability, similar to corporate taxation and labour laws, can be regarded as a component of the “social contract” accompanying enterprisers and investors. In reality, limited liability is even more applicable to tort liabilities, because shareholders cannot contract in contrast to these liabilities to protect their personal assets. Limited liability cuts down the transaction cost. It does so by cutting down the shareholders' cost of supervising corporate risk and creditors' cost of credit valuation, as well as by cutting down enforcement cost. Limited liability is an effective resolution to the problem of interiorizing political risks. It is merely a single constituent of the legal protection provided to investors (Mendelson, 2002).

Limited shareholder liability produces opportunities for wider involvement in corporate possession because of the facilitation of low-priced, inactive investments (Mendelson, 2002). Large businesses would not survive in the absence of limited liability, as it likely to have played a vital role in permitting small-scale and inactive investors to involve in and gain from corporate actions and the equities marketplaces. It assists in shifting risks from shareholders to creditors. It makes an inducement for shareholders to urge the corporation to operate in projects having high risk. Though preferred by the shareholders, such projects may be overly risky and impose fairly large amounts of societal costs. Simultaneously, it cuts down shareholder inducements for collecting the information regarding the corporation's risk-taking and for promoting management to take in safeguards.

The corporation's benefits from limited shareholder liability tend to select projects having detained likely costs, so that the corporation and its shareholders can distinguish assets and derive gains (with the help of the defrayment of dividends) before any judicial decision (Mendelson, 2002). Hansmann and Kraakman assert that a proportionate authority, which would restrain the shareholders' vulnerability for the losses of the tort to the shareholders' symmetrical share of possession, would hold back within the gains of limited liability, which include selective information cost economies, variegation, and share exchangeability. The shareholders deriving limited liability will constantly possess a wielding force, offsetting inducement to exteriorize risk.

Limited shareholder liability alleviates risk-taking conduct and then switches losses to tort victims, who, as a category, are ineffective risk holders (Bergkamp, 2001). Limited liability's enlargement to the modern corporation apparently breaks up the connection between the power to direct and answerability (here direct means command with authority and responsibility, which refers to the command over corporate actions). It suggests that the corporations accommodate shareholders with a capability to perform corporate action richly responsible for corporate torts and legal assaults.

Corporate legislative acts allow non-restricted and worldwide limited liability to shareholders, and traditional courts have acknowledged that the corporate entity, instead of its operating players, is mainly under the tort and authority law. Limited shareholder liability has adhered to and has been elaborated to consider equity stakeholders in former cases of “intercrossed” entities. LLP legislative acts hold collaborator liability for torts practiced by individuals performing below the collaborators' conduct oversight. Legislative bodies and courts of justice have broadened several configurations of civil and vicious liability to corporate operating individuals. Some of the configurations of liability reach operating shareholders similar to other players of corporations.

The core of limited liability states that the shareholder of the company is liable to the level of offerings in the form of the members and not more than that (Barnet & Muller, 1974). The concept of the limited liability was evolved in the 19th century. An enterprise whose authorized capital is divided into shares is called a limited liability company. It is a financial obligation organization bearing a legal attribute. The duties of the company are liable only to the level of its assets. The shareholders have to pay for their shares; they are thus liable only for that amount. However, if due to the deceitful activities of the shareholders, the company is not able to do its duties, the shareholders are held liable for the company's duties and responsibilities.

The concept of Separate Legal Entity is most notably explained in Salomon vs. Salomon (1897) AC 22. According to this principle, the corporation is a separate legal entity from its members, employees and officers. It has been recognized by the statute and the case law that there is the need for improvement in the concept of operation of the policy that a company is a separate legal entity from its members. However in this concern, there is a lack of clarity and uniformity in the law.

The result of this ambiguity is a management dilemma for the directors and advisors, that is, it is the management's prerogative to decide on the allocation of control within the group. This paper describes the present state of the law with respect to the corporate groups and also the kind of the risks laid by the corporate group structure concerning the parent companies and holders of office inside the group.

Apart from the shareholders, who represent the organization in the form of investors, the law puts in another person, namely the Company itself in the form of an artificial person (Bergkamp, 2001). Therefore, according to the law, the capital invested in the company is the company's capital and not the shareholder's capital, and the business being carried out is the business of the company and not of the shareholder. A company is not a mere pretension to serve the purpose of the shareholders, but it is a legal entity with proven facts.

Limited liability is not itself imposed to be the principle of separate legal entity (Bergkamp, 2001). The company is able to acquire obligations separate from those of its members due to the formation of the company as a separate legal entity. This makes it possible for the members to derive the privilege of limited liability. It is limited in the sense that recourse by the company's creditors does not affect the totality of the members' personal assets; it only affects the company's assets.

Applied to corporate groups, the principle means that they can determine the size and choose the limits of their legal responsibilities by the relatively simple mechanism of making one company (the ‘parent' or ‘holding' company) a member of another company or companies (the ‘subsidiary'/‘subsidiaries') in the group. That is, they are able to determine the limits of their ‘capital boundary'. Parent companies should be responsible for the actions of wholly-owned or partly-owned subsidiaries.

The control of the parent company over the subsidiary leaves it opens for the debts and the tortuous liabilities of the subsidiary (Hansmann & Kraakman, 1991). Successful management of a corporate group needs the consciousness of both the responsibilities and risks that control involve.It is a serious challenge for the office-bearers and their consultants to monitor the partly or wholly owned subsidiaries. The general belief is that the subsidiaries and their parent companies are actually separate entities. This belief exists because there is a clear separation by the distinct judicial attribute of the subsidiary company and the limited liability of the parent company. This notion forms the basis of the company law, which is free from any flaws or loopholes.

If analyzed pragmatically, the commercial activities of all the group members are inevitably interlaced; that is, the work of one group will affect the work or activities of another group. The panels of subsidiaries almost consistently spot the office bearer and employees of the parent company. This practicality has been, to a certain extent, realized by the law. The separate legal entity and the limited liability dogmas cannot be changed as they become a set criterion for both the parent and the subsidiary company. Both the general law and the Corporations Act 2001 allow for conditions where the corporal obliterate will be raised, letting the parent company be made liable for the obligations or wrongs of its subsidiary company.

A company's incorporation act should be executed by the legal or natural persons who are the incorporators of a limited liability company. Those employed in integrating are allowed to subscribe to the company's contributions, and a number of stockholders are confined to 100 during the organization of a private limited liability company (UAB). However, in the case of a public limited liability company, the number of stockholders is not fixed (AB).

To make the parent companies responsible for the actions of wholly-owned or partly-owned subsidiaries, courts have devised numerous methodologies so as to penetrate the corporate veil prevailing upon a parent company and its subsidiary (Hansmann & Kraakman, 1991). The subsidiary can be made the agent for the parent company. This means that the liabilities and debts of the subsidiary would be considered to be the part of parent company. From the case of Smith Stone & Knight v Birmingham Corporation [1939] 4 All ER 116, the condition that came forward was that the relationship of agency would be considered to exist to connect a company and shareholders.

In order to consider the relationship of the parent company and its subsidiary as principle and agent, effective and constant functional control is required by the parent company, especially over the day-to-day activities performed by the subsidiary rather than just controlling the capital of the subsidiary. A parent company might be made liable as a reconstructive legal guardian, under the rule in Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244 for some acts of managers which it has nominated to the panel of subsidiaries. According to Barnes v Add, an unknown person who "wittingly aids" in a breach of contract by a fiduciary can be held liable. According to the principle in Barnes v Addy, the parent company will be held liable to any loss of trust belongings, if managers of a subsidiary company violate their legal duties to that company although working at the guidance of the parent company.

The Corporations Act has introduced a number of bases for correcting or checking the secretive or hidden corporate acts. Particularly in some conditions of bankrupt selling, the Corporations Act allows for elevating the corporate veil between parent and subsidiary. The 588V of the Corporations Act states the conditions in which a parent company might be viewed as liable for the financial obligations of a bankrupt subsidiary. There are certain conditions under which the parent company is deemed to be liable for the debts of the subsidiary company.

The conditions as mentioned according to 588V are: where the subsidiary company goes bankrupt at the time or by obtaining the liability; the subsidiary company is bankrupt when there is sensible evidence for surmising the subsidiary's financial condition (or unfitness to obtain the liability without getting bankrupt); either the parent company or one or more of its managers are cognizant of such evidence; or given the degree of control practiced by the parent company, it is sensible to anticipate that the parent company or one or more of its managers ought to have been cognizant of such evidence. A further condition is that, given the degree of control practiced by the parent company, it is sensible to anticipate that the parent or one or more of its managers ought to have been cognizant of such evidence. The purpose of its drafters was that s588V would locate the impulse forthrightly on the parent company to assure that it was cognizant of the fiscal condition of the subsidiary company. The segment is relevant to both completely and partially-possessed subsidiary companies.

Therefore, it can be said that only a default position is being established by the rule of the limited liability for corporations. This is capable of facilitating the sharing of only entrepreneur risk among the investors and the businesses. In this case, the entrepreneurial risk covers the risk of business breakdown because of various market factors like inadequate demand, competition, and failure to keep pace with advancement.

Limited liability is justified only when there is a transfer of entrepreneurial risk from business person to other parties which are capable of negotiating with the corporation and take intended risk while conducting the business. For instance, credit extended by the bank to a corporation knows well the risk related to default, which the bank is able to reflect in the negotiating loan term.

Unfortunately, the current operation of the limited liability distorts the behavior related to the social and environmental risk. Apart from this, limited liability embeds incentives for the corporation, so that minimum care can be taken in those fields. The principle of limited liability is not applied to these situations since the involuntary creditors, who presume environmental and social risks, bear no capacity of negotiation for certain benefits of such risk sharing.

Therefore, the concept of limited liability should not be made legal and it is a positive point for the main company. So, the shareholders of the company are held liable to the level of offerings.

References

Barnet, R. & Muller, R. E. (1974). Global Reach: The Power of the Multinational Corporation. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Benjamin, B.R. (1984). Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. University of California Press.

Bergkamp, L. (2001). Liability and Environment: Private and Public Law Aspects of Civil Liability Environmental Harm in an International Context. Martinus Nijoff Publishers.

Halebsky, S. (2004, Aug) "The Nature of the Beast: Conceptualizing the Modern Corporation" Retrieved August 5, 2008 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p110774_index.html

Hansmann, H. & Kraakman, R. (1991). Toward Unlimited Shareholder Liability for Corporate Torts. The Yale Law Journal, 100(7), 1879-1920.

Etzioni, A. (1996). The responsive community: A communitarian perspective. American Sociological Review 61, 1-11.

Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits, New York Times: Magazine, 33.

Mendelson, N.A. (2002). A Control-Based Approach to Shareholder Liability for Corporate Torts. Columbia Law Review, 102(5), 1203-1303.

Smooker, R. Corporate Groups. Retrieved August 8, 2008 from http://www.claytonutz.com/downloads/RSmooker.pdf

Young, S. (2007). Limited Liability Partnerships (2^nd Edition).Ireland: Tottel Publishing.

Barmby,G. (2008). Communitarianism. Retrieved August 20, 2008 from http://sthweb.bu.edu/index.php?option=com_awiki&view=mediawiki&article=Communitarianism&Itemid=99

Tweet

Do you need to translate this page?

To translate this page into another language, please select the correct language from the box below.

LOOKING FOR SPECIFIC HELP? We can help you in many law areas!

Did you know that we also provide a service that can help you in other law areas such as:

• GCSE Law Coursework
• A Level Law Coursework
• Law Essay Writing
• BVC/BPTC Writing
• LLM Writing
• LPC letter drafting
• Opinion Writing
• English Legal System
• And much more!

Want to see what our customers say about us? Click here to watch our video.

Want to become a writer for Law Teacher and earn up to £4,000 per month? Click here now!

Secure your law degree, order your law essay right now!

Order Now. It takes less than 2 minutes.

1. * Name   
2. * Email   
3. * Phone   

1. * Your essay question 
   (please give as much detail as possible)  

Copyright © 2012 All Answers Ltd. All Answers Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with Company Registration No: 4964706 VAT Registration No: 842417633 - Law Teacher - The law essay professionals