Search

This paper examines the incentive effect of the personal legal liability for a CEO. Exploiting a unique Chinese law that a legal representative of a firm bears personal legal liability for a firm's illegal activities, we document a decrease in earnings management when the CEO is also the firm's legal representative. Additional analysis shows that the impact of a CEO's legal liability on earnings management is more salient when the CEO is externally recruited, lacks family background, and when the firm faces enormous litigation risk. The findings are robust to endogeneity and after accounting for the CEO's characteristics. Our study contributes to managerial legal liability, law and finance, and financial reporting research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Extensive studies have revealed that newsvendor decisions by human decision-makers are often biased by cognitive limitations, and, therefore, fail to achieve optimal profits prescribed by normative models. These biases are typically considered as liabilities in individual inventory decision-making, and much research has focused on developing methods to debias the decision-maker—for example, by providing decision support tools. However, in competitive settings biases can provide a competitive advantage, such that a biased newsvendor may earn a higher profit than an unbiased one. This raises the question of whether and when firms should debias their decision-makers. In this paper, we analyze decision biases that are endogenous rather than exogenous in competing newsvendor games. Specifically, we develop a two-stage game-theoretic model in which competing firms first select their decision-makers typefied by their bias levels, and then engage in a classic inventory competition game. Our analysis confirms the positive effect of the decision-maker's bias on a firm's economic outcome. However, this effect only appears in competitions in which decision biases are exogenously given. When biases are endogenously selected, firms are always (weakly) worse off than if they all had rational decision-makers. Our results suggest that debiasing at the industry level (e.g., adopting advanced inventory planning software) could benefit all players; however, individual firms do not have the incentive to do so in the absence of coordination mechanisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While major depression has been linked to changes in white matter architecture, it remains unclear whether risk factors for depression are directly associated with these alterations. We reexamined white matter fiber tracts in individuals with depressive symptoms and investigated the connection between genetic and environmental risk for depression and structural changes in the brain. We included 19,183 participants from the UK Biobank imaging cohort, with depression status and adverse life experience based on questionnaire data and genetic liability for depression quantified by polygenic scores. The integrity of 27 white matter tracts was assessed using mean fractional anisotropy derived from diffusion magnetic resonance imaging. White matter integrity was reduced, particularly in thalamic and intracortical fiber tracts, in individuals with depressive symptoms, independent of current symptom status. In a group of healthy individuals without depression, increasing genetic risk and increasing environmental risk were associated with reduced integrity in relevant fiber tracts, particularly in thalamic radiations. This association was stronger than expected based on statistical dependencies between samples, as confirmed by subsequent in silico simulations and permutation tests. White matter alterations in thalamic and association tracts are associated with depressive symptoms and genetic risk for depression in unaffected individuals, suggesting an intermediate phenotype at the brain level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article deals with the liability of the supervisory authority of the financial market. It could be questioned whether the supervisory authority, as the public authority, is liable for the supervisory performance. If the answer is yes, then the question is what kind of liability could be found and if any special conditions (prerequisites) are needed. In general, there could be two lines of public liability found. One is systemic liability for the safe financial market—e.g., financial market stability. The other perspective is individual liability for damages caused by unlawful administrative procedure or maladministration, where unlimited strict liability is granted. This kind of liability might be widely questioned, especially when the central bank is the supervisory authority, like in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and other EU member states. This article aims to evaluate the liability of the supervisory authority in the Czech Republic and Hungary concerning the European level of such liability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article "Admissibility of medical coercive measures in forensic psychiatry" deals with the legal aspects of medical coercive measures. It discusses when such measures are permissible and what requirements are placed on determining the attempt to convince the person concerned. It also addresses the personal liability of doctors. The article also mentions the integration of contracted doctors into the telematics infrastructure and the associated legal aspects. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Contemporary Accounting Research is the property of Canadian Academic Accounting Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The author presents a response to David Blankfein-Tabachnick and Kevin Kordana's criticism of his argument that economic torts in unjust economic systems do not justify John Rawls's difference principle, as well as his contention that the principle requires maximizing the position of the less advantaged to the more advantaged, not their absolute position. He discusses the application of Rawls's difference principle in determining personal tort liability and remedies, including economic torts.

Previous studies have implicated both rare copy number variations (CNVs) and common variants in liability for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). However, how common and rare genetic variants jointly contribute to individual liability requires further investigation in larger cohorts. This study comprises 9385 participants of European descent and 7810 participants of African American ancestry who were recruited from the greater Philadelphia area by the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. The polygenic risk score (PRS) of each participant was estimated by linkage disequilibrium pruning and p -value thresholding (P + T) methods using PRSice-2. We investigated whether the risk of ADHD follows a polygenic liability threshold model wherein 1) the risk of ADHD requires less contribution from common variants in the presence of a rare CNV, and 2) control carriers of ADHD-associated CNVs have lower common risk allele burden than noncarriers. CNVs previously reported in ADHD cases were significantly associated with ADHD risk in both the European American cohort and the African American cohort. Healthy control participants carrying those same risk CNVs had lower PRSs than those without risk CNVs in the European American cohort. This result was replicated in the African American cohort. However, PRSs were not significantly different in case participants carrying risk CNVs versus those without risk CNVs. These findings provide evidence in support of interactive effects of PRS and ADHD-associated CNVs on disease risk and add novel insights into the genetic basis of ADHD by highlighting a protective role of low PRS in ADHD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Who should be liable for competition law infringements? While the answer should be, in theory, a simple application of the personal liability principle – the infringer pays – the corporate changes that an infringer may undergo in the years necessary to come to an imputation of the infringement make the matter, in practice, significantly more complex. In this article, we first investigate the core of the antitrust liability theories, all to be traced back to the fundamental concept of undertaking, which constitutes their indispensable theoretical background. Then, we will try to provide an answer to the question, by analyzing, on the basis of the case-law, the multifaceted and colourful applications of antitrust liability theories to M&A transactions involving antitrust infringers. Lastly, we lay out practical suggestions which may be useful for companies to minimize the risks of being left with antitrust liability as a result of corporate transactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Derecho del Estado is the property of Universidad Externado de Colombia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This Note examines the implications of the 2022 amendments to Delaware's General Corporation Law-- particularly the changes to Section 102(b)(7), which extends exculpation provisions to corporate officers. Previously limited to directors, these provisions now allow corporations to shield officers from personal liability for breaches of duty of care, albeit in a more constrained manner. The expansion raises questions about its necessity and potential impact on corporate law--with particular focus on the remaining accountability mechanisms available to shareholders. Delving into the evolving dynamics of corporate governance, this Note considers the current topography of corporate law: focusing on the roles and interplay of shareholders, directors, and officers within the corporate structure. It further explores the historical and legal contexts, particularly in Delaware, which have shaped current fiduciary duties and corporate accountability. It raises concerns regarding the implications of exculpation expansion on fiduciary duties, future legislative action, and potential judicial reception, particularly in light of recent shifts in shareholder litigation strategies and rulings. Central to this discussion is the impact of the exculpation amendment on various aspects of corporate governance. For corporate officers, the expansion potentially reduces accountability and alters the power dynamics within corporations. For shareholders, additional exculpation diminishes their ability to hold officers accountable for negligence, impacting their litigation rights and potentially influencing shareholder rights. In addressing these considerations, this Note also analyzes specific cases, including In re McDonald's Derivative Shareholder Litigation, to illustrate the practical applications of these legal shifts, and In re Brookfield Asset Management, to raise the issue of diminution of available shareholder claims in instances where shareholder claims are needed most. This Note argues that, in light of all of these changes from shifting roles within corporations, recent rulings, and the exculpation amendment, fiduciary duties are in prime position to be scrutinized and shareholders' accountability options abrogated. Finally, this Note posits that this legislative change, passed without substantial scrutiny or debate, reflects a broader trend in corporate law. It suggests a potential dissonance between the desire to protect officers from frivolous litigation and the need to maintain robust mechanisms for corporate accountability. The analysis concludes that while the exculpation provision aims to balance interests within the corporate legal framework, its long-term effects on corporate accountability remain uncertain and warrant careful observation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Business entities have their own unique characteristics. Entrepreneurs and lawyers who represent them select an entity structure based on the business's current and projected needs. The different needs of each business span myriad topics such as capital requirements, taxation, employee benefits, and personal liability protection. These choices present advantages and disadvantages, many of which are built into the type of entity chosen. It is critically important that people, especially lawyers, recognize the difference between entities such as corporations and limited liability companies (LLCs). It is an egregious, nearly unforgivable, error to call an LLC a "limited liability corporation." This is not only because lawyers should try to get things right but also because conflating the two entity types can lead to unpredictable outcomes. Perhaps more important, it could lead to incorrect and unjust results. A prime example lies within the veil piercing context. There are nearly nine thousand references to the phrase "limited liability corporation" in court cases. Practicing attorneys are not the only people messing this up. Judges, legislators, federal and state agency officials, and media pundits are also getting it wrong. Most recently, Justice Samuel Alito scribed an op-ed that was published in The Wall Street Journal where he misused the term. Even the TV show Jeopardy! allowed "What is a limited liability corporation?" as the correct answer during one episode. Enter artificial intelligence (AI). AI relies on information it can find, and therefore text generators, like ChatGPT, replicate the incorrect term. With a proliferation of users and programs using ChatGPT and other AI resources, the use of incorrect terminology will balloon and exacerbate the problem. Perhaps one day, AI can be used to correct this problem, but that cannot happen until there is widespread understanding of the distinct nature of LLCs and a commitment to using precise language. This Article informs of the looming harms of misidentifying and conflating LLCs with corporations. Additionally, it presents a warning together with ideas on how to correct the use of incorrect terminology in all contexts surrounding LLCs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Jordanian Journal of Law & Political Science is the property of Mutah University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Theoretical arguments regarding the effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on firm liability risk are abundant; however, empirical evidence about this relationship is scarce. We investigate the relationship between CSR and the personal liability risk of a firm's directors and officers. We argue that companies with better CSR performance represent a better underwriting risk for directors' and officers' (D&O) insurance providers and, therefore, have a lower cost of insurance. Our results show that firms with better CSR performance are more likely to purchase D&O insurance and have a lower premium-to-coverage ratio, known as the insurance rate-on-line. We also show that this risk-reduction effect is stronger for firms that operate in a high-risk environment and have higher sales growth. These results provide evidence that CSR can be used as a risk management tool to mitigate liability risk and suggest which firms benefit most from this effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article describes a court case concerning the criminal liability of vasectomy in individuals lacking capacity to consent. The defendant was convicted of fraud and bribery in healthcare. The obtained economic benefits amounted to a total of €59,539.18. The defendant was convicted of attempted grievous bodily harm as he had attempted to impair the fertility of the victim. However, the court determined that the crime was not completed as the defendant revealed the act and referred the patient for refertilization. Therefore, the verdict was changed to negligent bodily harm. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Prudentia Iuris is the property of Pontificia Universidad Catolica Argentina and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The "common agency" model, introduced by Bernheim and Whinston in 1986 combines the fundamental challenge of the principal–agent model with the challenges of coordinating multiple principals. In "Incomplete information VCG contracts for common agency," Alon, Talgam-Cohen, Lavi, and Shamash show that the class of common agency settings for which there exists a contract that guarantees truthfulness of all principals, welfare maximization, and the two standard properties from contract theory—limited liability for the agent and individual rationality for the principals—is identifiable by a polynomial-time algorithm. Furthermore, for these settings, the authors design a polynomial-time computable contract: given valuation reports from the principals, it returns, if possible for the setting, a payment scheme for the agent that constitutes a contract with all desired properties. We study contract design for welfare maximization in the well-known "common agency" model introduced in 1986 by Bernheim and Whinston. This model combines the challenges of coordinating multiple principals with the fundamental challenge of contract design: that principals have incomplete information of the agent's choice of action. Our goal is to design contracts that satisfy truthfulness of the principals, welfare maximization by the agent, and two fundamental properties of individual rationality (IR) for the principals and limited liability (LL) for the agent. Our results reveal an inherent impossibility. Whereas for every common agency setting there exists a truthful and welfare-maximizing contract, which we refer to as "incomplete information Vickrey–Clarke–Groves contracts," there is no such contract that also satisfies IR and LL for all settings. As our main results, we show that the class of settings for which there exists a contract that satisfies truthfulness, welfare maximization, LL, and IR is identifiable by a polynomial-time algorithm. Furthermore, for these settings, we design a polynomial-time computable contract: given valuation reports from the principals, it returns, if possible for the setting, a payment scheme for the agent that constitutes a contract with all desired properties. We also give a sufficient graph-theoretic condition on the population of principals that ensures the existence of such a contract and two truthful and welfare-maximizing contracts, in which one satisfies LL and the other one satisfies IR. Funding: Funding is by the European Union (ERC, ALGOCONTRACT) [Grant 101077862]. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The arrival of the Anthropocene requires a profound rethinking of business accountability. A central challenge in this age is the possibility of pushing past planetary boundaries, which may irreversibly propel the Earth system into a new equilibrium that is less hospitable for human civilization. Businesses drive many of the processes contributing to such boundaries, and are powerful political actors who may shape or obstruct the necessary transformations to our socio‐economic systems. We therefore need to reconsider their accountability, focused on the following guiding question: Who (in business) should be accountable to whom for what? The answer to this question has important implications for environmental policy and governance. Drawing on a range of recent conceptual and policy developments, I present four major lines of thinking for reconsidering business accountability in the Anthropocene context: to rethink the purpose of business; to acknowledge companies' expanded but shared accountability for productive activities; to heighten collective and individual liability for past and future actions linked to overshooting planetary boundaries; and to recognize business accountability for influencing political and societal processes. Each of these lines of thinking imply policy changes related to, inter alia, corporate governance, due diligence, liability, and lobbying laws. I further call on businesses to actively participate in the large‐scale transformation necessary to keep within planetary boundaries by changing not only their production processes, but also product portfolios, business models, legal forms, and political and societal engagement; and highlight avenues for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mit dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof (IStGH) und dem im Römischen Statut kodifizierten Völkerstrafrecht ist die individuelle Strafbarkeit außerhalb nationaler Rechtsordnungen etabliert. Diese Entwicklung verändert das Verhältnis von Staaten, internationalen Organisationen sowie Gerichten und Individuen in einer globalen Rechtsordnung. Der Beitrag geht der Frage nach, wie sich die Struktur des Völkerstrafrechts entwickelt hat. Die Vermutung ist, dass die Strukturbildung des Völkerstrafrechts in einem vertikalen Modus der Kooperation verläuft, der die horizontale Kooperation der Staaten und die vertikale Kooperation mit dem IStGH kombiniert. Indem die strukturellen Voraussetzungen zum Thema werden, kann eine eigenständige rechtssoziologische Perspektive entwickelt werden, die disziplinäre Ansätze aus den Politikwissenschaften und der Rechtswissenschaft aufgreift und weitergehende Fragestellungen ermöglicht. Dies wird mit einer qualitativen Analyse der Präambel des Römischen Statuts vorgeführt und anhand der Ergebnisse diskutiert. The International Criminal Court (ICC) and the international criminal law codified in the Rome Statute have established individual criminal liability outside the national legal systems. This development changes the relationship between states, international organizations such as courts, and individuals in a global legal order. This article explores the question of how the structure of international criminal law has evolved. The conjecture is that the formation of the structure of international criminal law has proceeded in a vertical mode of cooperation, combining horizontal cooperation among states and vertical cooperation with the ICC. By making the structural preconditions the subject, it is possible to develop an independent sociological perspective on law that takes up disciplinary approaches from political science and law and allows for broader questions. This is demonstrated with a qualitative analysis of the preamble of the Rome Statute and discussed on the basis of the results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We study the potential for asset collateralization to expand access to credit in rural Kenya. Increasing the share of a loan for a durable agricultural asset that is collateralized by the physical asset itself (from 0 to 96%) while reducing the share backed by financial assets increases loan take-up considerably, with only a very limited impact on repayment behavior and the lender's profitability. A Karlan–Zinman test finds evidence of small and marginally significant selection effects in some specifications but no evidence of moral hazard. We find no evidence that joint versus individual liability affects take-up or repayment. Loans had real impacts on investment, milk sales, and girls' school enrollment. The lender, a savings and credit cooperative, responded to the study results by offering 80% asset-collateralized loans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to the general rule of liability, a person is responsible for their own acts or acts committed under their instruction. Therefore, liability arising from the act of another person has exceptions and is contrary to the general rule. Another form of liability arising from the act of another person is known in common law as "vicarious liability," which is interpreted as proxy liability. In the civil liability sources of common law, the discussion of employer's liability for the actions of their employees has been addressed under the same title. This article, using a descriptive-analytical method, examines the latest theories on the foundations and conditions of this liability in Iran's and England's laws. According to Article 12 of the Iranian Civil Liability Law, employer's liability is based on the theory of fault and its specificity lies only in the fact that it arises from the act of another person. In contrast, in English law, this liability is considered distinctive from two perspectives: firstly, it is contrary to the principle of personal liability, and secondly, it falls within the framework of the theory of strict liability and is solely based on the element of harm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Bucerius Law Journal is the property of Bucerius Law School e.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Rule 10b5-1 enables insiders to preplan future trades before becoming informed. Within a strategic rational expectations equilibrium framework, I characterize an insider's unique optimal trading plan, which balances portfolio diversification against exploitation of the rule's selective termination option. Because the rule reduces adverse selection and provides insurance against bad outcomes, the rule generally improves welfare for both the insider, who later becomes informed, and uninformed outsiders, provided there exists a sufficient degree of information asymmetry. Eliminating the rule's selective termination option results in an even greater welfare improvement under a large subset of parametric conditions. Received March 9, 2018; editorial decision January 11, 2019 by Editor Wei Jiang. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Guidelines of scientific societies and associations (including the Polish Ophthalmological Society) do not constitute binding laws and do not determine the only correct procedures; they are only an opinion of a group of experts from a given field. The opinion reflects the current state of knowledge based on available scientific research results. The guidelines do not exempt healthcare workers from personal liability with regard to making the correct decisions for individual patients. Personal responsibility for the used therapeutic methods rests with all individuals who practise medicine. It should be based on thorough knowledge and practical skills, while observing necessary safety measures with regard to oneself and the patient. Readers of this paper are obliged to make themselves familiar with current information on the presented treatments and pharmacotherapies with special attention paid to manufacturers' information on doses, time, and administration as well as side effects of the used drugs. The publishers and editors of the paper shall not be responsible for any damages that could in any way be connected to the contents of this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A haven for articles of association freedom, in that it constitutes a company tailored to the will of its shareholders, the Simplified Public Limited Company has henceforth imposed itself as a commercial entity whose introduction into the OHADA space has crystallized the contractual design of the commercial company. It allows the partners to freely insert in their articles of association anything that is not expressly prohibited and relating to the constitution, governance, and dissolution of the company. Nevertheless, this exuberant articles of association freedom, which contrasts sharply with the absence of personal liability of the shareholders for company debts, may be detrimental to the interests of the shareholders, the company, and the economy. Mandatory commercial companies' rules and the general theory of commercial companies then timidly take it upon themselves to try to tame articles of association freedom and correct the defects of the Simplified Public Limited Company. All this heightens the feeling of distrust vis-à-vis articles of association freedom, which, in the absence of serious limitations, enslaves more than it releases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An exception to the most sacrosanct feature of company law, the opaque corporate veil, applies to directors of companies that have failed to remit taxes that have been withheld from payments to third persons, including employees' salaries. Replacing an earlier crown priority for debts owed to the government by bankrupt individuals and liquidating companies, tax law now creates a personal liability of directors for non-remitted taxes that were withheld from payments to third parties. In recent years, this personal liability has been extended to primary obligations of companies to remit amounts related to their superannuation and goods and services tax responsibilities. Extending directors' personal liability to include primary company income tax would be a logical extension of the policy underlying the current rules. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article focuses on the personal liability of managers of undertakings for breaches of competition law. This article starts with a review of the sanction regime for managers of undertakings according to the Competition law of the Republic of Lithuania. Reviewed are legal provisions and judicial practice of the Lithuanian courts starting from 2017, that is, when the first request to sanction a manager of an undertaking was submitted to the court by the Competition Council (CC). It is pointed out that in most cases the courts do not fully accept the requests of the CC with respect to the severity of the sanctions to be imposed on managers. The second part of the Article comprehensively analyses the case-law of administrative courts of the Republic of Lithuania, and presents key elements of the imposition of sanctions on company managers. Firstly, in exceptional circumstances, courts may impose a lower penalty than the one specified by competition law. Secondly, the courts may impose both, the main sanction as well as an additional one, or any of them. Thirdly, the level of sanctions should be determined the light of the fines imposed on undertakings for their infringements of competition law. The article concludes with a short summary.

To provide society with the benefit of an effective emolument attachment order (EAO) environment, several role-players must fulfil essential interconnected functions. The process relies on the cooperation of the garnishee (the employer of the EAO debtor), who is responsible for the periodic deductions from the employees' salary and the transfer of these funds to the creditor(s). Employers therefore carry an administrative burden to maintain the human resource capacity and administrative systems necessary to properly enforce EAOs. In addition to this administrative duty, employers are at risk of incurring personal liability vis a vis the creditor as well as the debtor. This article will highlight the risk to employers in the administration of EAOs, specifically arising from the legal uncertainty regarding proportionality in EAO deductions. The article describes the current legislative framework and its relevant frailty. It then delineates the scope of the study by exploring the concept of proportionality within the context of EAOs. This is followed with a summary of the relevant historic and contemporary context, before dealing with the prevailing EAO-related challenges. Although a detailed comparative analysis falls outside the scope of this article, it also contains a brief overview of how these challenges regarding proportionality in wage garnishment are managed in England and the United States of America. The contribution concludes with recommendations based on the research findings. Ultimately, the author submits that employers are currently more at risk from liability for the maladministration of their employees' EAOs than they may generally appreciate and that proactive steps should be taken to address the situation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyzed the significance of the ultimatum as a means of declaring aggression against another state in international law, and what influence it has in evaluating the actions of the head of USSR in the context of the events of January 13th 1991. The first part of the article analyzed the classical concept of ultimatum and its meaning in international law. Later, alternative forms of expression of ultimatum, which were formed in the 20th century, and practiced during international conflicts, and their assessment in international law, were analyzed. Finally, after refining the existing legal significance of the ultimatum, we analyzed the significance of the ultimatum against Lithuania issued by the head of the USSR on 10 January 1990, We also examined his further actions on 11–13 January 1991 in evaluating assumptions of his personal responsibility as head of USSR of the armed forces regarding the tragic events of January 13th 1991. As a result of the investigation, it was concluded that the ultimatum of the head of the USSR issued on January 10th, 1991, within the meaning of international law, had a direct connection in the assessment of the issue of criminal liability in relation to international crimes committed by the armed forces of the USSR. The aggressive foreign policy pursued by the head of the USSR in expressing it within a tacit ultimatum based on the try and see method, and subsequently international crimes against the Lithuanian state committed by military units, are considered the actual basis for the emergence of personal criminal liability of the head of the USSR for the events of January 13th, 1991 under international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Abgaben-, Finanz- und Steuerrecht is the property of Verlag Oesterreich GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Przegląd Europejski is the property of University of Warsaw and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Should corporate legal risk be treated similarly to corporate business risk? Currently, the law draws a clear-cut distinction between the two sources of risk, permitting the latter and banning the former. As a result, fiduciaries are shielded from personal liability in the case of business risk and are entirely exposed to civil and criminal liability that arises from legal risk-taking. As corporate law theorists have underscored, the differential treatment of business and legal risk is highly problematic from the perspective of firms and shareholders. To begin with, legal risk cannot be completely averted or eliminated. More importantly, decisions involving negligible levels of legal risk might yield significant profits for firms. Thus, the outright ban on legal risktaking harms shareholders, who would have favored a more nuanced regime to optimize legal risk. In this Article we make two novel contributions to corporate law scholarship, one descriptive and one normative. Descriptively, we offer a novel justification for the differential treatment of business and legal risk. We argue that because board members are exposed to personal liability for losses resulting from legal risk, they will veto all policies and decisions implicating legal risk, minimal though they may be. Aware of this disposition, managers--whose compensation is often tied to performance and who are therefore more risk-seeking--will prefer not to raise policies and decisions that implicate legal risk to board discussion. This preference, however, works to the detriment of shareholders who are deprived of the protective mechanism of board overview with respect to legal risk. Legal risks, therefore, largely escape board scrutiny. While the justification we advance has stronger explanatory power than prior justifications, it leaves open the possibility that the law may be redesigned in a more nuanced and desirable way. This rationale leads to the normative contribution of the Article. Consistent with the modern philosophy toward risk that maintains that all risks can be managed, we propose that legal risks be divided into two categories of severity: (1) risks involving criminal prohibitions and (2) risks pertaining to noncriminal norms. Each category should then be further broken down into three classes of risk based on probability of occurrence: remote, reasonable, and probable risk. Combining our two criteria generates six classes of legal risks, for each of which we develop a unique liability regime. The framework that we advance will allow corporate executives and directors to address low and reasonable levels of legal risk in a responsible way that will benefit shareholders without eroding respect for law and morality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Ius et Praxis (07172877) is the property of Universidad de Talca and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista de Direito Internacional is the property of Revista de Direito Internacional and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The focus of recent workplace harassment scholarship has been on expanding institutional liability, framing harassment as more of a structural problem than one of individual bad apples afflicting irreproachable workplaces. Without detracting from that literature, this Article seeks to rehabilitate the individualist approach as a worthy supplement to institutional liability. It explicates, contextualizes, and outlines solutions to the moral hazards that would shelter workplace harassers from the risks of individual harasser liability if such liability ever comes to pass, thereby reclaiming the deterrent potential of the individualist approach. This Article begins by exploring how, without additional law reform, individual harasser liability would fail to optimally deter workplace harassment in two regards. First, it presents and analyzes original empirical evidence exposing the degree to which employers shield accused harassers from risk through indemnification, defense, and insurance arrangements. Second, it exposes the free rider problem that would arise from employer-funded settlements of workplace harassment claims even if these "harasser risk shields" were eradicated. Then, it contextualizes these moral hazards within social sciences scholarship; through the lenses of law and economics and tort law's optimal deterrence theory, it resolves that non-transferable risk for both employers and accused harassers would optimally deter workplace harassment. Finally, this Article considers how public ordering might assail these moral hazards and achieve the ideal of optimal deterrence. It assesses different models of the individualist approach, explaining why some would deter harassment better than others. It then explores articulations of public policy against insurance for intentional acts, applies that public policy to harasser risk shields, and argues for interdiction of harasser risk shields by administrative agencies. Lastly, it considers a proposal to decrease institutional liability, thereby decreasing survivors' restitution opportunities, but curbing employer-funded settlements and forcing accused harassers to shoulder the risks of harassment themselves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Law of Ukraine / Pravo Ukraini is the property of Editorial Board of Journal "Law of Ukraine" and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Qualified immunity is a judicially created doctrine that shields government officials from personal liability for civil damages. Courts applying the doctrine, which is heavily dependent on the facts of the case, must determine whether the government officials' conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. This inquiry is discretionary as judges must determine if the alleged violation was "clearly established," a term that the Supreme Court has defined in conflicting ways. Moreover, when federal judges conduct the qualified immunity inquiry at the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss stage, their decision is guided only by their discretionary interpretation of allegations in the complaint. Thus, plaintiffs face two layers of judicial discretion when defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. This double discretion can lead to inconsistent results, as evidenced by the different approaches taken by circuit court judges in such situations. This Note addresses the implications of this double discretion by examining the role judicial discretion plays in both (i) Rule 12(b)(6) motions as a result of the modern pleading standard and (ii) during the qualified immunity inquiry when judges define "clearly established." These examinations show that judges are granted with considerable discretion while determining the sufficiency of a complaint and while conducting a qualified immunity inquiry. This Note then reveals the implications of these discretions overlapping when judges engage in a qualified immunity analysis in the motion to dismiss stage. For example, this Note inspects Hart v. Hillsdale County, 973 F.3d 627 (6th Cir. 2020), a 2-1 Sixth Circuit decision in which the dissenting judge disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the complaint and definition of "clearly established law." Finally, this Note proposes four solutions that would either eliminate this double discretion or help lead to more consistent judgments when qualified immunity is invoked in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The limited liability company (LLC) is regarded as a significant contributor to the national economy. Many people use it because they believe their liability is limited to the amount of their capital share. The UAE lawmaker recognized this in the Commercial Companies Law No. 32 of 2021, when it identified cases in which the partners’ liability for debts and obligations becomes personal and joint in the event of violation of the law or fraud by the partners or managers of the company. As a result, the capital is not the only guarantee for the creditors of the company. This study aims to analyze the legal texts and elucidate the cases in which the partners' liability is regarded personal and joint.

There is considerable pressure in the pharmaceutical industry to advance better molecules faster. One pervasive concern for protein-based therapeutics is the presence of potential chemical liabilities. We have developed a simple methodology for rapidly de-risking specific chemical concerns in antibody-based molecules using prior knowledge of each individual liability at a specific position in the molecule's sequence. Our methodology hinges on the development of sequence-aligned chemical liability databases of molecules from different stages of commercialization and on sequence-aligned experimental data from prior molecules that have been developed at Amgen. This approach goes beyond the standard practice of simply flagging all instances of each motif that fall in a CDR. Instead, we de-risk motifs that are common at a specific site in commercial mAb-based molecules (and therefore did not previously pose an insurmountable barrier to commercialization) and motifs at specific sites for which we have prior experimental data indicating acceptably low levels of modification. We have used this approach successfully to identify candidates in a discovery phase program with exclusively very low risk potential chemical liabilities. Identifying these candidates in the discovery phase allowed us to bypass protein engineering and accelerate the program's timeline by 6 months. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several decades ago, an incorrect legal idea surfaced in Texas jurisprudence: that business entity actors are immune from liability for fraud that they themselves commit, as if the entity is solely responsible. Though the Supreme Court of Texas has rejected that result several times, it keeps coming back. The most recent manifestation is as a construction of Texas's unique veil-piercing statute. Many lawyers have suggested that this view of the veil-piercing statute originated in Menetti v. Chavers, a San Antonio Court of Appeals case decided in 1998. Menetti has in fact played a prominent role in the movement to construe the statute this way. This Article shows that Menetti held no such view of the veil-piercing statute. Menetti has been misread. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista FAPAD: Revista da Faculdade Pan-Americana de Administração e Direito is the property of Revista FAPAD: Revista da Faculdade Pan-Americana de Administracao e Direito and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Hacettepe Law Review is the property of Hacettepe Law Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article aims to determine the most appropriate liability regime for accidents caused by Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) resulting in personal injury or death. The motivation for this research lies in the fact that AVs are currently not adequately regulated within South African legislation. Seeing as the regulation of AVs should begin sooner rather than later, it is essential to examine the capability of the Road Accident Fund (RAF) to provide for AVs and consider other possible liability regimes. The article will focus on the RAF Act and the possibility of including the definition of AVs under section 1 thereof. The RAF Act currently defines a motor car as a motor vehicle designed or adapted for the conveyance of not more than ten persons, including the driver. The article will analyse the Civil Aviation Act (Aviation Act) to propose a regime where the owners of AVs are required to have private insurance. Section 8(5) of the Aviation Act will form the basis for the proposed regime change as this section holds that a registered owner or operator of an aircraft must have insurance as prescribed for any damage or loss that is caused by an aircraft to any person or property on land or water. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The object of this article is the integrity and governance programme instituted by the National Institute of Social Security (INSS) through Ordinances 3.212/19 and 3.213/19. The problem addressed is the scenario of non-compliance of the autarchy with the deadlines for analysis and judicial implementation of benefits provided by Law 8.213/91, leading to the application of fines and official letters reporting crime of prevarication and disobedience of public servants. Will this governance system provide the manager with tools to prove the absence of personal responsibility in decision-making? It is intended to demonstrate that this legal regime of governance can impact the limits of personal liability of public servants. Its specific objectives are to evaluate such Ordinances; to establish a comparison with the decisions of the Federal Regional Courts and the Federal Court of Auditors and, finally, to verify if the autarchy is structured to demonstrate the exemption of responsibility of the manager. The applied methodology includes the deductive method, considering a systemic analysis, with bibliographic review and data collection. The research findings indicate that the INSS integrity and governance programme is still incipient, with a threat of liability falling on the servant, which can be mitigated by data transparency and permanent collaborative governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Yearbook of Antitrust & Regulatory Studies is the property of University of Warsaw and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)