Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Webbased Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS),”available at <http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/> (last visited August 22, 2007).
2.
CukierW.SidelV. W., The Global Gun Epidemic (Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing, 2006).
3.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Traffic Safety Facts 2005, at 2.
4.
Pan American Health Organization, “Deaths from Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents in Selected Countries of the Americas, 1985–2001, “Epidemiological Bulletin25, no. 1 (2004): 2–5.
World Health Organization, “An International Treaty for Tobacco Control,”available at <http://www.who.int/features/2003/08/en/> (last visited August 21, 2007).
7.
JerniganD. H., Global Status Report: Alcohol and Young People, World Health Organization, Geneva, 2001, at 10–13.
8.
TeretS. P.MichaelisA. P., “Litigating for Native American Health: The Liability of Alcoholic Beverage Makers and Distributors,”Journal of Public Health Policy26, no. 2 (2005): 246–59.
By the term “legal fictions,” we mean that corporations are a creation of the law, and exist only because the law has authorized their existence.
11.
WiistW. H., “Public Health and the Anticorporate Movement: Rationale and Recommendations,”American Journal of Public Health96, no. 8 (2006): 1370–75.
12.
BakanJ., The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power (New York: Free Press, 2004): at 37.
13.
HillsS. L., ed., Corporate Violence: Injury and Death for Profit (Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield, 1987): At 190–91.
14.
HillmanR. W., “Limited Liability in Historical Perspective,”Washington and Lee Law Review54 (Spring 1997): 615–27.
15.
RutledgeT. E., “Limited Liability (or Not): Reflections on the Holy Grail,”South Dakota Law Review51, no. 3 (2006): 417–49, at 419–21.
16.
DavisK. B.Jr., “Once More, the Business Judgment Rule,”Wisconsin Law Review2000, no. 3 (2000): 573–95.
17.
See, e.g., FrankN., “Murder in the Workplace,” in Hills, ed., supra note 13, at 103–07.
18.
MicklethwaitJ.WooldridgeA., The Company: A Short History of a Revolutionary Idea (New York: Modern Library, 2003) .
19.
Id., at 17–21.
20.
Id.
21.
See Bakan, supra note 12, at 11–13.
22.
Id.
23.
Id., at 158.
24.
Id, at 37.
25.
BainbridgeS. M., “The Case for Limited Shareholder Voting Rights,”UCLA Law Review53 (February 2006): 601–36, at 625; FriedmanM., “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits,”New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970.
26.
E.g., Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., 204 Mich. 459, 507 (1919) (“A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders. The powers of the directors are to be employed for that end. The discretion of the directors is to be exercised in the choice of means to attain that end, and does not extend to a change in the end itself…”).
27.
See Bakan, supra note 12, at 37, 50.
28.
Harwell WellsC. A., “The Cycles of Corporate Social Responsibility: An Historical Retrospective for the Twenty-First Century,”University of Kansas Law Review51, no. 1 (2002): 77–140.
29.
See, e.g., Starbucks Corporation, Corporate Social Responsibility Fiscal 2006 Annual Report (Seattle: Starbucks Coffee Company, 2007): at 57.
30.
See, e.g., Pfizer, A Prescription for Access (New York: Pfizer, 2004) .
31.
See KortenD. C., When Corporations Rule the World (Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press, 2001): At 202–4.
32.
See, e.g., Starbucks Corporation, supra note 29, at 10.
VentoruzzoM., “‘Cost-Based’ and ‘Rules-Based’ Regulatory Competition: Markets for Corporate Charters in the U.S. and in the E.U.,”NYU Journal of Law & Business3 (Fall 2006): 91–153.
35.
EisenbergM. A., Corporations and Other Business Organizations (New York: Foundation Press, 2000): at 100.
36.
Id.
37.
See Bakan, supra note 12, at 8.
38.
BlumbergP. I., “Limited Liability and Corporate Groups,”Journal of Corporation Law11, no. 4 (1986): 573–631.
39.
See Eisenberg, supra note 35, at 203.
40.
Id.
41.
MollD. K., “Minority Oppression & the Limited Liability Company: Learning (or Not) from Close Corporation History,”Wake Forest Law Review40, no. 3 (2005): 883–976, at 888.
42.
See Blumberg, supra note 38.
43.
Id., at 575.
44.
See Hillman, supra note 14.
45.
EasterbrookF. H.FischelD. R., “Limited Liability and the Corporation,”University of Chicago Law Review52, no. 1 (1985): 89–117.
46.
See Eisenberg, supra note 35, at 219.
47.
See Bakan, supra note 12, at 61.
48.
ArmstrongG. L., “The Economics of Routine Childhood Hepatitis A Immunization in the United States: The Impact of Herd Immunity,”Pediatrics119, no. 1 (2007): e22–e29.
49.
GordisL., Epidemiology (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 2000): At 19–20.
50.
ChristianiD. C.WoodinM. A., “Urban and Transboundary Air Pollution,” in McCallyM., ed., Life Support: The Environment and Human Health (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2002): 15–37.
51.
See Eisenberg, supra note 35, at 233.
52.
See Blumberg, supra note 38, at 616.
53.
HansmannH.KraakmanR., “Toward Unlimited Shareholder Liability for Corporate Torts,”Yale Law Journal100, no. 7 (1991): 1879–1934, at 1894.
54.
Id., at 1882–83.
55.
Id.; see Blumberg, supra note 38.
56.
See HansmannKraakman, supra note 53, at 1907.
57.
See Bakan, supra note 12, at 22.
58.
See MicklethwaitWooldridge, supra note 18, at 141.
59.
DerberC., Corporation Nation (New York: St. Martin's Griffin, 1998): at 168.
60.
Id., at 43–48.
61.
See Blumberg, supra note 38, at 575–77.
62.
LopuckiL. M., “The Death of Liability,”Yale Law Journal106, no. 1 (1996): 1–92, at 20–23.
63.
See German Law on Pharmacies, § 7, quoted in LafontaineC., National Law on Pharmacies and its Non-Application by a Member State's Public Authorities (Saarbrucken, Germany: Law Web Saarbrucken, 2006): At 304, available at <http://www.jura.uni-saarland.de/projekte/Bibliothek/text.php?id=432> (last visited August 21, 2007).
64.
HarrisE., “Germany Attempts to Update Pharmacy Laws,”Morning Edition, National Public Radio Programs, November 14, 2006.
65.
See German Law on Pharmacies, § 8, quoted in Lafontaine, supra note 63, at 304.
66.
CullenA.BauerS., “Drug Chain Rattles Markets in Germany,”International Herald Tribune, April 17, 2007.
67.
See Harris, supra note 64.
68.
Id.
69.
ThompsonM., “Government Urges ECJ to Retain German Ban on Foreign Ownership of Pharmacies,”Global Insight, August 20, 2007.
70.
BostonW., “Pills + Politics,”Time, September 24, 2006; see Harris, supra note 64.
BernsteinD. E., “The Breast Implant Fiasco,”California Law Review87, no. 2 (1999): 457–510, at 462.
75.
FederB. J., “Dow Corning in Bankruptcy Over Lawsuits,”New York Times, May 16, 1995.
76.
See Bernstein, supra note 74, at 464.
77.
See, e.g., RoseN. R.PotterM., “The Silicone Controversy: Towards a Resolution,”Immunology Today16, no. 10 (1995): 459–60.
78.
See Feder, supra note 75.
79.
“Dow Corning Emerges from Bankruptcy,”New York Times, June 2, 2004.
80.
See, e.g., Radaszewski v. Telecom Corp., 981 F.2d 305, 311 (8th Cir. 1992) (“The doctrine of limited liability is intended precisely to protect a parent corporation whose subsidiary goes broke.”)
81.
See Blumberg, supra note 38, at 575–77.
82.
See HansmannKraakman, supra note 53, at 1880.
83.
ThompsonR. B., “Piercing the Veil: Is the Common Law the Problem?”Connecticut Law Review37 (Spring 2005): 619–34, at 619.
84.
KrendlC. S.KrendlJ. R., “Piercing the Corporate Veil: Focusing the Inquiry,”Denver Law Journal55, no. 1 (1978): 1–60.
85.
Berkey v. Third Avenue Railroad Co., 244 N.Y. 84 (1926).
86.
ThompsonR. B., “Piercing the Corporate Veil: An Empirical Study,”Cornell Law Review76 (July 1991): 1036–74.
87.
524 U.S. 51 (1998).
88.
Id., at 56.
89.
MendelsonN. A., “A Control-Based Approach to Shareholder Liability for Corporate Torts,”Columbia Law Review102, no. 5 (2002): 1203–1303.
90.
ReedB. C., “Clearing Away the Mist: Suggestions for Developing a Principled Veil Piercing Doctrine in China,”Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law39, no. 5 (2006): 1643–75.