Abstract
Shareholders of corporations have their liability for actions of the corporation limited by law. Unlike the equity holder in a partnership or proprietorship, the assets that a shareholder has distinct from her holdings in the enterprise can not be taken to satisfy liabilities arising from actions of the enterprise itself. This paper argues that a reasonable principle of fairness argues for an alternative to limited liability, proportional liability. Proportional liability makes a shareholder liable for the same proportion of a corporation's excess of liabilities over assets that her number of shares bears to the total number of shares outstanding. The key idea is that it is unfair in situations in which explicit agreements can not be reached for shareholders to bear only limited risk when they may receive gains from stock dividends and appreciation that are not limited to any pre-determined amount. Proportional liability has not been much examined in the financial literature. Good utilitarian arguments have been given for limited liability over unlimited liability for corporate shareholders, but these arguments do not clearly support the choice of limited liability over proportional liability.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arrow, K. J.: 1974, Essays in the Theory of Risk-Bearing (North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam).
Baird, D. G. and T. H. Jackson: 1990, Cases, Problems, and Materials on Bankruptcy (Little, Brown and Company, Boston).
Berle, A. A. and G. C. Means: 1968, The Modern Corporation and Private Property (Harcourt, Brace & World, New York).
Blumberg, P. I.: 1986, ‘Limited Liability and Corporate Groups’, The Journal of Corporation Law 11 (Summer), 573–631.
Carr, C. T.: 1907, ‘Early Forms of Corporateness’, in J. H. Wigmore, E. Freund and W. E. Mikell (eds.), Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History (Little, Brown, and Company, Boston), pp. 161–182.
Chew, P. K.: 1996, Directors’ and Officers’ Liability (Practising Law Institute, New York).
Dodd, E. M.: 1954, American Business Corporations Until 1860 (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).
Donaldson, T.: 1982, Corporations and Morality (Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
Donaldson, T. and T. W. Dunfee: 1995, ‘Integrative Social Contracts Theory’, Economics and Philosophy 11, 85–112.
Easterbrook, F. H. and D. R. Fischel: 1985, ‘Limited Liability and the Corporation’, University of Chicago Law Review 52, 89–117.
Freeman, R. E.: 1984, Strategic Management-A Stakeholder Approach (Pitman Publishing Inc., Boston).
French, P. A.: 1979, ‘The Corporation as a Moral Person’, American Philosophical Quarterly 16(3), 207–215.
Halpern, P. and M. Trebilock et al.: 1980, ‘An Economic Analysis of Limited Liability in Corporation Law’, University of Toronto Law Journal 30, 117–150.
Handlin, O. and M. F. Handlin: 1945, ‘Origins of the American Business Corporation’, Journal of Economic History 5, 1.
Hardin, R.: 1988, Morality within the Limits of Reason (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago).
Hartman, E. M.: 1996, Organizational Ethics and the Good Life (Oxford University Press, New York).
Henn, H. G.: 1970, Handbook of the Law of Corporations and Other Business Enterprises (West Publishing Co., St. Paul).
Hessen, R.: 1979, In Defense of the Corporation (Hoover Institution Press, Stanford, CA).
Hohfeld, W. N.: 1909, ‘Nature of Stockholders’ Individual Liability for Corporate Debts’, Columbia Law Review 9, 285–320.
Hunt, B. C.: 1936, The Development of the Business Corporation in England 1800–1867 (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).
Jensen, M. and W. Meckling: 1976, ‘Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure’, The Journal of Financial Economics 3, 305–360.
Keeley, M. F.: 1988, A Social-Contract Theory of Organizations (University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN).
Landers: 1975, ‘A Unified Approach to Parent, Subsidiary, and Affiliate Questions in Bankruptcy’, University of Chicago Law Review 42, 589.
Manne, H. G.: 1965, ‘Mergers and the Market for Corporate Control’, Journal of Political Economy 73, 110–120.
Manne, H. G.: 1967, ‘Our Two Corporation Systems: Law and Economics’, Virginia Law Review 53 (March), 259–284.
May, L.: 1987, The Morality of Groups: Collective Responsibility, Group-Based Harm, and Corporate Rights (University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN).
Mitchell, W.: 1907, ‘Early Forms of Partnership’, in J. H. Wigmore, E. Freund and W. E. Mikell (eds.), Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History (Little, Brown, and Company, Boston), pp. 183–194.
Nozick, R.: 1974, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (Basic Books, Inc., New York).
Pfeiffer, R. S.: 1995, Why Blame the Organization?: A Pragmatic Analysis of Collective Moral Responsibility (Littlefield Adams Books, Lanham, MD).
Posner, R. A.: 1976, ‘The Rights of Creditors of Affiliated Corporations’, University of Chicago Law Review 43 (Spring), 499–526.
Rawls, J.: 1971, A Theory of Justice (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).
Scanlon, T. M.: 1982, ‘Contractualism and Utilitarianism’, in A. Sen and B. Williams (eds.), Utilitarianism and Beyond (Cambridge University Press, New York), pp. 103–128.
Seymour, E. B.: 1903, ‘The Historical Development of the Common-Law Conception of a Corporation’, The American Law Register 51(9), 529–551.
Shannon, H. A.: 1931, ‘The Coming of General Limited Liability’, Economic History 2 (January), 267–291.
Stone: 1980, ‘The Place of Enterprise Liability in the Control of Corporate Conduct’, Yale Law Journal 90(1), 65–76.
Werhane, P. H.: 1985, Persons, Rights, and Corporations (Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
Winton, A.: 1993, ‘Limitation of Liability and the Ownership Structure of the Firm’, The Journal of Finance XLVIII(2), 487–512.
Woodward, S. E.: 1985, ‘Limited Liability in the Theory of the Firm’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte 141, 601–611.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sollars, G.G. An Appraisal of Shareholder Proportional Liability. Journal of Business Ethics 32, 329–345 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010768824610
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010768824610