In a message dated 12/18/02 1:09:04 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Perhaps the ideal structure would be two classes of investors:
1) limited-liability bondholders, with dividends per bond equal to that of
owners of common shares, and no voting rights.
2) unlimited liability shareholders
be lenders they make loans. A sharehold buys and owns.
> Owners shouldn't be allowed to unilaterally abrogate the tort rights of
> everyone else.
> David
Perhaps the ideal structure would be two classes of investors:
1) limited-liability bondholders, with dividends per bond equal t
In a message dated 12/18/02 9:19:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< > In practice, small corporations usually cannot get loans without the
> major stockholder personally guaranteeing the loans, so in those cases
limited liability serves mostly to protect the owner(s) from liabi
> In practice, small corporations usually cannot get loans without the
> major stockholder personally guaranteeing the loans, so in those cases
limited liability serves mostly to protect the owner(s) from liability
to tort victims. Why that should be so I'm not sure.
> David
A
enders involved?
Yes, but there are also liabilities that can be incurred without contracts,
such as if the corporation is sued for damages.
> Without a personal guarrantee, from a primary
> stakeholder, that serves to turn a limited liability into a full
> liability, lenders are no
hout contracts,
such as if the corporation is sued for damages.
> Without a personal guarrantee, from a primary
> stakeholder, that serves to turn a limited liability into a full
> liability, lenders are not very willing to make loans.
True, especially if there is not adequate collateral,
personal guarrantee, from a primary
stakeholder, that serves to turn a limited liability into a full liability,
lenders are not very willing to make loans.
Cheers,
Michael Giesbrecht
Internet Engineering
Lucasfilm Ltd. >>
But what about contingent creditors of the corporation--that is,
sonally liable, or not, for a
corporations debts, based on whatever terms they reach with the lenders involved? The
directors of *small* corporations certainly find themselves in that position today.
Without a personal guarrantee, from a primary stakeholder, that serves to turn a
limited liability
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [With] a corporation there's nobody with personal liability.
The directors (members of the board of directors) have liability, which is
why boards buy liability insurance.
U.S. and State laws limit this liability, but in a pure market, the
directors should be person
In a message dated 12/17/02 12:21:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Fred Foldvary wrote:
> The argument for [limited liability] is that investors are more
> willing to put up funds if they will not be personally liable.
>
> Nor should they be liable, since lenders are also
Fred Foldvary wrote:
> The argument for [limited liability] is that investors are more
> willing to put up funds if they will not be personally liable.
>
> Nor should they be liable, since lenders are also not, and one could
> map limited partners into lenders who get a return
William Dickens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Can your friend explain why vaccines are different
from other drugs?"
While I'm certainly not qualified to negotiate that
legal minefield, may I guess? I'd say that a drug is
intended to fix an existing problem, whereas a vaccine
applies a "dangerous" e
Can your friend explain why vaccines are different from other drugs?
Everything has side effects. Precisely because the Democrats have such a
stake in pushing the interests of trial lawyers the Republicans have the
opposite incentive making just about any pronouncements on this topic
highly suspect
David:
As you seem interested in this issue, here's a reply I got to my
vaccine question from my knowledgeable friend, Ron, who is not on this
network.
Your,
Asa
The proposal, as I understand it, is not to cap liability for actual
damages
In a message dated 11/20/02 11:50:17 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Armchairs:
What are the pros and cons of limiting liability for the maker of a new
vaccine? It seems to me that a disadvantage of limited liability is the
moral hazard that the maker will do a less responsible
Armchairs:
What are the pros and cons of limiting liability for the maker of a new
vaccine? It seems to me that a disadvantage of limited liability is the
moral hazard that the maker will do a less responsible job of trying to
prevent bad side effects. One advantage that has been put
Jason DeBacker wrote:
>What is the economic argument for limited liability of corporations?
>Can anyone suggest some readings on this?
For starters, I would recommend:
Easterbrook, Frank and Fischel, Daniel (1991) "The Economic Structure of
Corporate Law", Harvard University Pr
bt?
There are many other reasons, but these two are the must crucial.
Also, two misconceptions:
A) That limited liability shields liability from consequence of actions.
No, officers are liable of any criminal actions (fraud, etc) of a company,
and any employee (owner or not is irrelevant) m
What is the economic argument for limited liability of corporations?
Can anyone suggest some readings on this?
Jason DeBacker
19 matches
Mail list logo
