Corporate liability, as a distinct form of liability, has been little studied in Ukraine to date. It pertains to the consequences of violations of both corporate rights and corporate law in general. Research into this topic should address not only its nature and types, but also the causes of violations in the corporate sphere. This article discusses certain violations related to the establishment of companies and the raising of significant funds from investors. From a historical perspective, it traces the legislature’s responses to “bubbles”, the development, and the current state of application of the ultra vires doctrine in the context of liability. It examines violations by company directors of the principle of good faith in management, as well as violations during privatization and the transfer of funds to offshore zones. Conversely, it highlights actions by directors in the interests of shareholders that nonetheless violate the law, including during the rapid development of the innovation environment as a manifestation of corporate disobedience. Contemporary Ukrainian research lacks such a comprehensive picture of corporate responsibility; consequently, the causes of legal violations and ways to respond to them are either not identified at all or are described only in a fragmentary manner. The aim of this article is to identify the causes of corporate misconduct, thereby enabling the selection of appropriate responses and the application of corresponding legal consequences. It is concluded that purely academic research approaches and internal legal debates are, on their own, insufficient to fully characterize corporate misconduct. To do so, a comprehensive approach must be applied, as this is the only way to address the multidimensional legal phenomena of corporate liability.

Authored books

1. Cooke C A, Corporation, Trust and Company: An Essay in Legal History (Manchester University Press 1950).

2. Galbraith J K, A Short History of Financial Euphoria (Penguin 1994).

3. Hunt B C, The Development of the Business Corporation in England, 1800–1867 (Harvard University Press 1936).

4. Jimpnez Sinchez M A, The Ultra Vires Doctrine in Corporate Law. A Comparative Review (Springer Cham 2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88838-1.

5. Kraakman R R et al., The Anatomy of Corporate Law: A Comparative and Functional Approach (Oxford University Press 2004).

6. Lashinsky A, Wild Ride. Inside Uber’s Quest for World Domination (Penguin Books 2022).

7. Michalakea T. When Corporate Accountability Meets Transitional Justice: International Law and National Practice (Cambridge University Press 2025) https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009676847.

8. Schauer F, The Force of Law (Harvard University Press 2015).

9. Kibenko O, Pendakh Sarbakh A, Pravo tovarystv (company law): porivnialno-pravovyi analiz acquis Yevropeiskoho Soiuzu ta zakonodavstva Ukrainy (Iustinian 2006) (in Ukrainian).

Edited books

10. Berle A A, Warren W C (eds), Cases and materials on the law of business organization (corporations) (Foundation Press 1948) 45, 36.

11. Gialdroni S, ‘Incorporation and Limited Liability in Seventeenth-Century England: The Case of the East India Company’, In The Company in Law and Practice: Did Size Matter? (Middle Ages–Nineteenth Century) (Brill 2017) https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004351868_008.

12. Perrott D, ‘Changes in Attitude to Limited Liability – the European Experience’, in Tony Orhnial, (ed), Limited Liability and the Corporation (Croom Helm 1982) 81.

Journal articles

13. Baxt R, ‘Is the Doctrine of Ultra Vires Dead?’ [1971] 20(2) International and Comparative Law Quarterly 306 https://doi.org/10.1093/iclqaj/20.2.301.

14. Carpenter C, ‘Should the doctrine of ultra vires be discarded?’ [1923] 33(1) Yale Law Journal 49 https://doi.org/10.2307/788458.

15. Coffee J C, ‘Litigation and Corporate Governance: An Essay on Steering Between Schylla and Charybdis’ [1984] 52 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 789, 794.

16. Djelic M-L, ‘When Limited Liability was (Still) an Issue: Mobilization and Politics of Signification in 19th-Century England’ [2013] 34(5-6) Organization Studies 595–621 https:// doi.org/10.1177/0170840613479223.

17. Easterbrook F H, Fischel D R, ‘Antitrust Suits by Targets of Tender Offers’ [1982] 80(6) Michigan Law Review 1155, 1168 https://doi.org/10.2307/1288576.

18. Fischel D R, Sykes A O, ‘Corporate Crime’ [1996] 25(2) The Journal of Legal Studies 319, 324 https://doi.org/10.1086/467980.

19. Gordon R W, ‘The Citizen-Lawyer – A Brief Informal History of a Myth with Some Basis in Reality’ [2009] 50 Wm. & Mary L. Rev 1169.

20. Knights M, ‘London’s ‘Monster’ Petition of 1680’ [1993] 36(1) The Historical Journal 39–67.

21. Law R, ‘The Royal African Company of England’s West African Correspondence, 1681– 1699’ [1993] 20 History in Africa 173–184 https://doi.org/10.2307/3171971.

22. Pollman E, ‘Corporate Disobedience’ [2019] 68 Duke Law Journal 709–765.

23. Pollman E, Barry J M, ‘Regulatory Entrepreneurship’ [2017] 90 Southern California law review 383, 392.

24. Stout L A, ‘Are Stock Markets Costly Casinos? Disagreement, Market Failure, and Securities Regulation’ [1995] 81(3) Cornell Law Faculty Publications 751.

25. Strine L E, ‘Securing Our Nation’s Economic Future: A Sensible, Nonpartisan Agenda to Increase Long-Term Investment and Job Creation in the United States’ [2016] 71(4) The Business Lawyer 1081–1112.

26. Turner J D, ‘The development of English company law before 1990’ [2017] 1 QUCEH Working Paper Series 8.

27. Velasco J, ‘How Many Fiduciary Duties Are There in Corporate Law?’ [2010] 83(6) Southern California Law Review 1231.

28. Williams C A, ‘Corporate Compliance with the Laws in the Era of Efficiency’ [1998] 76 North Carolina Law Review 1265, 1265.

29. Ryzhkova A, Vinnichuk M, Boiko O, Rol ofshoriv u systemi lehalizatsii (vidmyvannia) dokhodiv, oderzhanykh zlochynnym shliakhom [2021] 4(14) Sotsialno-pravovi studii https://doi.org/10.32518/2617-4162-2021-4-148-154 (in Ukrainian).

30. Sardak S, Sytnik A, Vplyv ofshornykh zon na ekonomiku derzhavy (na prykladi Ukrainy) [2018] 25 Infrastruktura rynku 52–57 (in Ukrainian).

31. Spasybo-Fatyeyeva I, Deiaki problemy, poviazani z uchastiu derzhavy Ukraina v tsyvilno- pravovykh vidnosynakh [2006] 4 Visnyk Akademii pravovykh nauk Ukrainy 96–107 (in Ukrainian).

32. Spasybo-Fatyeyeva I, Suchasni problemy peretvorennia derzhavnoi vlasnosti i korporatyvnykh prav derzhavy [2002] 4 Visnyk Akademii pravovykh nauk 94–105 (in Ukrainian).

33. Stoliarov V, Ostrovetskyi V, Stanovlennia ta rozvytok ofshornoi diialnosti rezydentiv Ukrainy (v konteksti analizu svitovoho dosvidu antyofshornoho rehuliuvannia) [2016] 1(43) Ekonomichnyi visnyk Donbasu 68–82 (in Ukrainian).

Newspaper articles

34. Damodaran A, ‘A Disruptive Cab Ride to Riches: The Uber Payoff’ (Forbes, June 10, 2014) (accessed 27.04.2026).

35. Koch R, ‘How Uber Used a Simplified Business Model to Disrupt the Taxi Industry’ (Entrepreneur, Jan. 3, 2017) (accessed 27.04.2026). Websites

36. Ukraine: Global Outrage Over Russian Invasion Leads to Sanctions, Demands for Businesses to Divest (Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, 7 March 2022) (accessed 27.04.2026).

37. Watson S, ‘The duty of good faith: An origin story’ (26 Feb 2024) (accessed 27.04.2026).