LIABILITY OF MEMBERS FOR COMPANY OBLIGATIONS IN CASE ABUSES OF THE PRIVILEGE OF LIMITED LIABILITY
The principle of limited liability - limited liability for the company’s obligations represents the fundamentals of the operations of modern capital companies. Nevertheless, in circumstances where globalization of the market of goods and services gets more and more important, there is room for the circumvention of the law, especially in the area of abuse of the principle of limited liability for company’s obligations. The issue of piercing the corporate veil is an exception to the principle that the members of the company are not liable to the companyʼs obligations, i.e. to respond only to the amount of the amount entered into the company. The purpose and goal of establishing this institute is primarily to prevent various forms of abuse in the business of companies. Piercing the corporate veil exists in all those cases when the limited partner, a member of a limited liability company and a shareholder, as well as the legal representative of that person if he is a legally incapable natural person, abuses the rule on limited liability for the companyʼs obligations. Мisuse of the right exists when the following persons: 1) use the company to achieve a goal that is otherwise prohibited to them; 2) use the companyʼs property or dispose of it as if it were their personal property; 3) use the company or its property in order to harm the company's creditors and 4) in order to gain benefits for themselves or third parties reduce the companyʼs property, even though they knew or had to know that the company will not be able to perform its obligations. The author will investigate the extent to which the institution of piercing the corporate veil and criminal liability of individual persons is normatively regulated within the national framework and the scope of case law.
2. Bakst S. D. (1996). Piercing the Corporate Veil for Environmental Torts in the United States and the European Union: The Case for the Proposed Civil Liability Directive, Boston College International & Comparative Law Review, Vol.19. Iss.2, Art. 4, 323-351.
3. Barbić, J. (2008). Pravo društava, knjiga prva- opći dio, Zagreb.
4. Brnabić, R. (2010). Proboj pravne osobnosti i odgovornost za obveze, doktorska disertacija, Zagreb.
5. Company Law (CL), Art. 18, Para., 1, Para. 2, Para. 3, Para. 4, Official Gazette of RS, nos. 36/2011, 99/2011, 83/2014 – other law, 5/2015 and 44/2018.
6. Company Law, Art.15, Official Gazette of RS, 125/04.
7. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Recommendation no. (88) 18, of the Committee of Ministers to member states, Concerning Liability of Enterprises having Legal Personality for Offences Committed in the Exercise of their activities (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 October 1988 at the 420th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies).
8. Davies, L. P. (2012). Principles of Modern Company Law, Sweet, ed. 9, London.
9. Dodd, M. E. (1948). The Evolution of Limited Liability in American Industry: Massachusetts, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 61, No. 8, 1351-1379.
10. Easterbrook, F. H. & Fischel, D. R. (1985). Limited Liability and the Corporation, University of Chicago Law Review: Vol. 52: Iss.1, Article 3, 89-117.
11. Economic Offences Act (EOA), Art. 6, Para.1, Official Gazette of SFRY nos. 4/77, 36/77 - cor., 14/85, 10/86 (edited text), 74/87, 57/89 and 3/90 and Official Gazette of FRY, nos. 27/92, 16/93, 31/93, 41/93, 50/93, 24/94, 28/96 and 64/2001 and Official Gazette of RS, 101/2005 – other law.
12. Hackney, P. W. & Benson, G. T. (1982). Shareholder Liability for Inadequate Capital, University of Pittsburgh Law Review, Vol. 43, Iss. 4, 837-902.
13. Ilić, G. (2010). Marginalije uz Zakon o odgovornosti pravnih lica za krivična dela, CRIMEN (I) 2, 246–256.
14. Joвановић, Н. (1997). Побијање правног субјективитета компанија, Правни живот, бр. 10, 865-890.
15. Kempin, G. F. (1960). Limited Liability in Historical Perspective, American Business Law Association Bulletin, Vol. 4, No. 1, 11-34.
16. Kessler, А. R., (1967). With Limited Liability For All: Why Not a Partnership Corporation?, Fordham Law Review, Vol. 36, 235-306.
17. Lattin, N. (1971). The Law of Corporations, 2ed, N.Y.
18. Law on Amendment to Company Law (LACL), Art. 140a, Official Gazette of SFRY, 40/89.
19. Law on Misdemenaours (LM), Art. 27, Official Gazette of the RS, nos. 65/2013 and 13/2016.
20. Law on the Liability of Legal Entities for Criminal Offences (LLLECO), Art. 5, Para. 2, Official Gazette of the RS, 97/2008.
21. Macey, J. R. & Miller, G. P. (1992). Double Liability of Bank Shareholders: History and Implications, Wake Forest Law Review, Vol. 27, Iss. 1, 31-62.
22. Mendelson, N. (2002). A Control-Based Approach to Shareholder Liability for Corporate Torts, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 102, 1203-1303.
23. Micklethwait, J. & Wooldridge, A. (2003). The Company: A Short History of a Revolutionary Idea, U.S.A: Modern Library.
24. Navarro, L. M. J. (2013). The piercing of the corporate veil in Latin American jurisprudence; with specific emphasis on Panama, City, University of London.
25. Oh, B. P. (2010). Veil-Piercing, Texas Law Review, Vol. 89, 81-145.
26. Ramsey М. I. & Noakes B. D. (2001). Piercing the Corporate Veil in Australia, Company and Securities Law Journal, 250-271.
27. Сlark, R. (1986). Corporate Law, Aspen.
28. Schall, A. (2016). The New Law of Piercing the Corporate Veil in the UK, ECFR, 549–574.
29. Thompson, B. R. (1991). Piercing the Corporate Veil: An Empirical Study, Cornell Law Review, Vol. 76, Iss. 5, 1036-1074
30. Васиљевић, M. (2011). Компанијско право – право привредних друштава, Београд.
31. Васиљевић, M. (2004). Пословно право, Београд.
32. Вотсон, A. (2000). Правни транспланти, Београд.
33. Wormser, I. M. (1912). Piercing the Veil of Corporate Entity, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 12, No. 6, 496-518.
34. Wormser, I. M. (1927). The Disregard of the Corporate Fiction and Allied Corporate Problems, N. Y.
35. Đurđević, Z. (2005). Komentar Zakona o odgovornosti pravnih osoba za kaznena djela, Narodne novine, Zagreb.
1. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & Ors  UKSC 34 - https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0004-judgment.pdf
2. VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and others  UKSC 5 - https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2012-0167.html
3. Perpetual Real Estate Servs. Inc. v. Michaelson Props., Inc. - 974 F.2d 545 (4th Cir. 1992) - https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-perpetual-real-estate-servs-inc-v-michaelson-props-inc
4. Berkey v. Third Avenue R. Co., 244 N.Y. 84, 155 N.E. 58 (1926) - https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3625415/berkey-v-third-avenue-railway-co/authorities/?
5. Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd  UKHL 1 (16 November 1896) - https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1896/1.html
6. Booth v. Bunce, 33 N.Y. 139 (1865) - https://cite.case.law/ny/33/139/