One of the attractive early advantages business corporations offered to their investors, compared to earlier business entities like sole proprietorships and joint partnerships, was limited liability.[clarification needed] Limited liability means that a passive shareholder in a corporation will not be personally liable either for contractually agreed obligations of the corporation, or for torts (involuntary harms) committed by the corporation against a third party. Limited liability in a contract is uncontroversial because the parties to the contract could have agreed to it and could agree to waive it by contract. However, limited liability in tort remains controversial because third parties do not agree to waive the right to pursue shareholders. There is significant evidence that limited liability in tort may lead to excessive corporate risk taking and more harm by corporations to third parties.[3][4]
In American English, the word corporation is most often used to describe large business corporations.[7][8] In British English and in the Commonwealth countries, the term company is more widely used to describe the same sort of entity while the word corporation encompasses all incorporated entities.[7] In American English, the word company can include entities such as partnerships that would not be referred to as companies in British English as they are not a separate legal entity. Late in the 19th century, a new form of the company having the limited liability protections of a corporation, and the more favorable tax treatment of either a sole proprietorship or partnership was developed. While not a corporation, this new type of entity became very attractive as an alternative for corporations not needing to issue stock. In Germany, such an organization is known as a Gesellschaft mit beschrnkter Haftung, or GmbH. In the last quarter of the 20th century, this new type form of non-corporate organization became available in the United States and other countries, where it is called a limited liability company, or LLC. Since the GmbH and LLC forms of organization are technically not corporations (even though they have many of the same features), they will not be covered in this article.
Corporate Full Movie Download Hd Mp4
Download Zip 🔥 https://urloso.com/2y0BZv 🔥
Early entities which carried on business and were the subjects of legal rights included the collegium of ancient Rome and the sreni of the Maurya Empire in ancient India.[14] In medieval Europe, churches became incorporated, as did local governments, such as the City of London Corporation. The point was that the incorporation would survive longer than the lives of any particular member, existing in perpetuity. The alleged oldest commercial corporation in the world, the Stora Kopparberg mining community in Falun, Sweden, obtained a charter from King Magnus Eriksson in 1347.
Due to the late 18th century abandonment of mercantilist economic theory and the rise of classical liberalism and laissez-faire economic theory due to a revolution in economics led by Adam Smith and other economists, corporations transitioned from being government or guild affiliated entities to being public and private economic entities free of governmental directions.[19] Smith wrote in his 1776 work The Wealth of Nations that mass corporate activity could not match private entrepreneurship, because people in charge of others' money would not exercise as much care as they would with their own.[20]
The process of incorporation was possible only through a royal charter or a private act and was limited, owing to Parliament's jealous protection of the privileges and advantages thereby granted. As a result, many businesses came to be operated as unincorporated associations with possibly thousands of members. Any consequent litigation had to be carried out in the joint names of all the members and was almost impossibly cumbersome. Though Parliament would sometimes grant a private act to allow an individual to represent the whole in legal proceedings, this was a narrow and necessarily costly expedient, allowed only to established companies.
Then, in 1843, William Gladstone became the chairman of a Parliamentary Committee on Joint Stock Companies, which led to the Joint Stock Companies Act 1844, regarded as the first modern piece of company law.[23] The Act created the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, empowered to register companies by a two-stage process. The first, provisional, stage cost 5 and did not confer corporate status, which arose after completing the second stage for another 5. For the first time in history, it was possible for ordinary people through a simple registration procedure to incorporate.[24] The advantage of establishing a company as a separate legal person was mainly administrative, as a unified entity under which the rights and duties of all investors and managers could be channeled.
In the United States, forming a corporation usually required an act of legislation until the late 19th century. Many private firms, such as Carnegie's steel company and Rockefeller's Standard Oil, avoided the corporate model for this reason (as a trust). State governments began to adopt more permissive corporate laws from the early 19th century, although these were all restrictive in design, often with the intention of preventing corporations from gaining too much wealth and power.[29]
New Jersey was the first state to adopt an "enabling" corporate law, with the goal of attracting more business to the state,[30] in 1896. In 1899, Delaware followed New Jersey's lead with the enactment of an enabling corporate statute, but Delaware only became the leading corporate state after the enabling provisions of the 1896 New Jersey corporate law were repealed in 1913.[29]
The end of the 19th century saw the emergence of holding companies and corporate mergers creating larger corporations with dispersed shareholders. Countries began enacting antitrust laws to prevent anti-competitive practices and corporations were granted more legal rights and protections.The 20th century saw a proliferation of laws allowing for the creation of corporations by registration across the world, which helped to drive economic booms in many countries before and after World War I. Another major post World War I shift was toward the development of conglomerates, in which large corporations purchased smaller corporations to expand their industrial base.
Starting in the 1980s, many countries with large state-owned corporations moved toward privatization, the selling of publicly owned (or 'nationalised') services and enterprises to corporations. Deregulation (reducing the regulation of corporate activity) often accompanied privatization as part of a laissez-faire policy.
Corporations generally have a distinct name. Historically, some corporations were named after the members of their boards of directors: for example, the "President and Fellows of Harvard College" is the name of one of the two governing boards of Harvard University, but it is also the exact name under which Harvard was legally incorporated.[34] Nowadays, corporations in most jurisdictions may have a distinct name that does not need to make reference to the members of their boards. In Canada, this possibility is taken to its logical extreme: many smaller Canadian corporations have no names at all, merely numbers based on a registration number (for example, "12345678 Ontario Limited"), which is assigned by the provincial or territorial government where the corporation incorporates.
In most countries, corporate names include a term or an abbreviation that denotes the corporate status of the entity (for example, "Incorporated" or "Inc." in the United States) or the limited liability of its members (for example, "Limited", "Ltd.", or "LLC").[35] These terms vary by jurisdiction and language. In some jurisdictions, they are mandatory, and in others, such as California, they are not.[36] Their use puts everybody on constructive notice that they are dealing with an entity whose liability is limited: one can only collect from whatever assets the entity still controls when one obtains a judgment against it.
Some jurisdictions do not allow the use of the word "company" alone to denote corporate status, since the word "company" may refer to a partnership or some other form of collective ownership (in the United States it can be used by a sole proprietorship but this is not generally the case elsewhere).[citation needed]
Despite not being human beings, corporations have been ruled legal persons in a few countries, and have many of the same rights as natural persons do. For example, a corporation can own property, and can sue or be sued for as long as it exists. Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state,[37][38] and they can themselves be responsible for human rights violations.[39] Corporations can be "dissolved" either by statutory operation, the order of the court, or voluntary action on the part of shareholders. Insolvency may result in a form of corporate failure, when creditors force the liquidation and dissolution of the corporation under court order,[40] but it most often results in a restructuring of corporate holdings. Corporations can even be convicted of special criminal offenses in the UK, such as fraud and corporate manslaughter. However, corporations are not considered living entities in the way that humans are.[41]
Legal scholars and others, such as Joel Bakan, have observed that a business corporation created as a "legal person" has a psychopathic personality because it is required to elevate its own interests above those of others even when this inflicts major risks and grave harms on the public or on other third-parties. Such critics note that the legal mandate of the corporation to focus exclusively on corporate profits and self interest often victimizes employees, customers, the public at large, and/or the natural resources.[42] The political theorist David Runciman notes that corporate personhood forms a fundamental part of the modern[when?] history of the idea of the state, and believes the idea of the corporation as legal person can help to clarify the role of citizens as political stakeholders, and to break down the sharp conceptual dichotomy between the state and the people or the individual, a distinction that, on his account, is "increasingly unable to meet the demands placed on the state in the modern world".[43] be457b7860
wp7 downloader ver 3.8 for secure and smd
playboy magazine free download in pdf
password 9yo jenny blows dad and dog.3gp [HIGH SPEED LINK]