This question only makes sense with respect to corporations, within the scope of limited liability laws and state of play in the game of governance of social cost accounting/externalities.

Leveraged risk-taking, when it does not work out, can destroy wealth and/or pass on costs to the rest of society. But the specific nature of that risk-taking determines how you check-and-balance that tendency. Limits to leverage are a pretty blunt instrument.

A company may cut corners around safety and environmental issues while pursuing aggressively leveraged risk-taking. That's best handled by modeling externalities and social costs better, through regulation, and exposing executives and board-members to liability for criminal actions.

But if a company sinks a billion highly leveraged dollars into a risky new drug and fails, limited liability is enough to do the trick. People who participated in that risk knew what they were getting into, and there don't seem to be externalities involved there (I could be wrong).

I actually cannot think of a situation where an explicit limit to leverage is a better instrument than the ones available, but economists could probably think of a few. Whatever those are, I think the limits would be set as functions of the type of risk, not in general ways.