Why Is The General Corporation Law Silent On Shareholder Liability For Corporate Debts?

AM
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

Contributor

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP logo
Allen Matkins, founded in 1977, is a California-based law firm with more than 200 attorneys in four major metropolitan areas of California: Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, and San Francisco. The firm's areas of focus include real estate, construction, land use, environmental and natural resources, corporate and securities, real estate and commercial finance, bankruptcy, restructurings and creditors' rights, joint ventures, and tax; labor and employment, and trials, litigation, risk management, and alternative dispute resolution in all of these areas. For more information about Allen Matkins please visit www.allenmatkins.com.
Today's blog revisits (and answers) a question that I posed nearly eight years ago in this post. The question was: "Where Exactly Is It Written That Shareholders Aren't Liable For Corporate Debts?"
United States California Corporate/Commercial Law

Today's blog revisits (and answers) a question that I posed nearly eight years ago in this post.  The question was: "Where Exactly Is It Written That Shareholders Aren't Liable For Corporate Debts?"

Shareholder immunity from corporate obligations is not an immutable law of nature.  In fact, the California Constitution and various statutes imposed proportional liability for corporate obligations on shareholders until 1931, when they were repealed.  The late Professor Harold Marsh, Jr. provides the following explanation for why the current General Corporation Law nowhere negates shareholder liability for corporate debts:

The Drafting Committee decided that they would not attempt to formulate a statutory definition of the alter ego doctrine.  In view of that decision, it was considered unwise to make a general statement of non-liability, although that clearly is the general rule, since it might have been considered as intended to effect a repeal of the alter ego doctrine.

Marsh's California Corporation Law § 16.03.   

Note to readers:  I am a co-author (with R. Roy Finkle) of the Fifth Edition of Professor Marsh's treatise.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More