One of the benefits cited for the organizational structure of a corporation or limited liability company is the limited liability feature associated with these forms of organization. However, our legal system contains a judicial doctrine known as piercing the corporate veil, which essentially asks the courts to disregard the limited liability feature of the organization and impose personal liability on the shareholders, officers, andqor directors. This study provides evidence regarding the extent to which the U.S. courts have ruled to pierce the corporate veil and suggests steps that family-owned businesses can take to minimize this potential risk.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Black, H.C. (1991). Black's law dictionary with pronunciations, abridged6th edition. St. Paul: West Publishing Co.
2.
Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 et seq.
3.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 9601 et seq.
4.
Hamilton, R.W. (1990). Corporations including partnerships and limited partnerships cases and materials, 4th edition. Minnesota: West Publishing Co. Heating & Air Specialists, Inc. v. Jones, 180, F. 3d, 923 (8th Cir. 1999).
5.
House, v. 22 Texas Services, Inc., 60, F. Supp. 2d, 602 (S.D. TX. 1999).
6.
Johnson v. Exclusive Properties Unlimited, 720, A.2d, 568 (ME. 1998).
7.
Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe Database as of January 10, 2000 and August 3, 2001.
8.
Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1961 et seq.
9.
Thompson, R.B. (1991). Piercing the veil: An empirical study. Cornell Law Review, 76(5), 1036-1074.
10.
Thompson, R.B. (1999). Piercing the veil within corporate groups: Corporate shareholders as mere investors. Connecticut Journal of International Law, 13(2), 379-396.
