SSRN Home Search and Download Papers Browse Abstract and Paper Submission Subscribe to Networks View Briefcase Top Papers Top Authors Top Institutions

 

Abstract

 


 


Download | Share | Email | Add to Briefcase | Buy Hard Copy

Disputing Limited Liability

Christina L. Boyd
State University of New York - Department of Political Science

David A. Hoffman
Temple University - James E. Beasley School of Law



Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 104
Temple University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2009-38

Abstract:     
This project presents six years of hand-collected federal district court data to analyze the first representative sample of veil piercing litigation. Our method identifies veil piercing complaints through Westlaw's trial pleadings database and codes each case through a detailed examination of PACER records. We test a variety of hypotheses to understand how such litigations are resolved.

We find that plaintiffs succeed quite often in veil piercing litigation, if success is defined as winning on motions that do not terminate a case. A variety of legal and extra-legal factors predict such interstitial veil piercing successes. Voluntary creditor causes of action promote veil piercing; LLCs are in very limited circumstances better insulated from veil piercing claims than corporations; undercapitalization is strongly associated with success while conclusory grounds like "façade" and "sham" are not; and defendants' legal sophistication is predictive of plaintiff failure. Extra-legal factors play a more striking and counterintuitive role. Plaintiffs suing companies with few employees are much more likely to win veil piercing motions, and obtain relief in cases, than plaintiffs suing companies employing many workers. This results holds even when controlling for legally-relevant variables. Contrary to both theory and previous empirical work, we also find that judicial liberalism is inversely related to the likelihood of plaintiff success.

Our results call into question existing normative and descriptive approaches to the disputation of limited liability and contribute to more general scholarship about selection effects and judicial behavior. They do not provide any easy answers to the question of what defendants can do to insulate themselves from veil piercing. Our analysis suggests: Very little, apart from being very big.

Keywords: veil piercing, docketology, selection effects, priest-klein, undercapitalization, ideology, cultural cognition, LLCs, limited liability, empirical analysis, settlement

JEL Classifications: C12, C15, C5, K12, K13, K22, K41, L2

Accepted Paper Series

Date posted: October 06, 2009 ; Last revised: October 29, 2009

Suggested Citation

Boyd, Christina L. and Hoffman, David A., Disputing Limited Liability (October 5, 2009). Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 104; Temple University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2009-38. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1483278


Export to: Export Citation What's this?

Contact Information

David A. Hoffman (Contact Author)
Temple University - James E. Beasley School of Law ( email )
1719 N. Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19122
United States
215-204-0612 (Phone)
Christina L. Boyd
State University of New York - Department of Political Science ( email )
520 Park Hall
University at Buffalo
Buffalo, NY 14260
United States
HOME PAGE: http://boyd.wustl.edu
Feedback to SSRN (Beta)


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 323
Downloads: 105
Download Rank: 76,476
Paper comments
No comments have been made on this paper

© 2009 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use  Privacy Policy
This page was served by apollo2 in 0.110 seconds.