We tried to adopt the forward approach of conceptual genealogy focusing on the contextualized meanings and dominant contemporary features; we focused on the fundamental patterns, events and mechanism that give the explanation of conceptual qualitative change. We likewise took the deliberate of exploring the impact of moral-hazard.
Limited liability can be looked as the modern corporation capitalism in the most challenging economic world. This research is seeking to understand how high-risk behavior and limited liability affects the functioning of corporation and looking into the conceptual connection or the really connection between them, we are trying to experience or conclude the structural relations between limited liability and high-risk behavior in corporation, and to understand the important factors of the systemic instability of contemporary capitalism and the challenges and impacts to the economy and societies.
One of the Main ideals behind history is that, Learning history can improve the condition of the future but yet, the same history that had negative impact to the global economic is still taking place with the same negative impact or worse even with advance technologies. The relative incidence that occurred in 1929 are still occurring in the modern world precisely the stock market crashed and Great Depression of 1929-1939, this incidence caused the suffering of millions of people in the world. The Enron scandal of 2001, the 2008 financial crisis and Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
We perceive that limited liability was used by the executives of Enron Corporation to evade taxes and to
This research is arguing the ideal that corporations must take higher risks to innovate and create value so as to reach their ultimate goals and to be able to compete in global markets with the complex global economy, it is out of professionalism because before working on all projects the first thing is to assess and analyze the risks by professionals, if the company can work or deal with the risks associated with the projects then the project can commence, but the boundaries of dangerous risks should be outline and respected by corporate executives.
We argued that bankruptcy of corporations is the failure of professionalism and that limited liability is the principal influence. We argued that professionalism is when professionals use their skills, status, methods, character or standards of a professional or of a professional organization to analyse risks which should be sufficient to safeguard the corporation not bankrupt or endanger the corporation.
We argued that corporate executives take very high and dangerous risks only when the corporation is facing difficulties because of failed projects caused by lack of professionalism or when carrying on fraudulent activities and the rules of limited liability are seek at these difficult or fraudulent moments.
Despite all the theoretical expressions, with the state of having a plentiful supply of research materials of empirical evidence that have more visible or prominent positive of correlation between the use of alternatives in payment and various measures of risks, for instance stock-return volatility. These expressions are the work of Agrawal and
Common grounds for seeking the variation of the terms of a Freezing Order include the following:
The Order is oppressive and the Respondent is unable to pay living, legal or business expenses.
A Respondent is always entitled to have sufficient money to pay reasonable living costs and legal or business expenses. It is common for a Respondent to seek an increase in the allowance given in the Order for either living expenses or legal costs.
Commonly, a sum of £500 a week is provided for in the terms of a Freezing Order in respect of living expenses. However, the Respondent will need to assess whether this amount is appropriate for his/her reasonable living expenses and whether or not an increase should be sought. In order to seek a variation of the living allowances figure, it will be necessary to show what the Respondent’s normal expenditure is, by reference to bank statements and / or facility / loan documents etc. Of course, there may be a number of reasons why a Respondent would not want an Applicant having access to such information.
However, it is not uncommon for the Respondent to have to provide full details of his/her financial position in accordance with the provision of information sections contained within the usual Freezing Order itself.
Furthermore, if the Freezing Order does not support a proprietary claim to the frozen assets (i.e. specifically targeting the assets – see our booklet titled “Freezing Orders – A Practical Guide” then the Court will normally allow a Respondent to use