Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Piercing the corporate veil or lifting the corporate veil is a legal decision to treat the rights or duties of a corporation as the rights or liabilities of its shareholders. Usually a corporation is treated as a separate legal person , which is solely responsible for the debts it incurs and the sole beneficiary of the credit it is owed.
Aaron Michaelson (Aaron) formed Michaelson Properties, Inc. (Properties) in 1981 as a business to invest in real estate joint ventures. Aaron was the sole shareholder and the corporation's president. Properties entered a joint venture with Perpetual Real Estates (Perpetual), forming a partnership called "Arlington Apartment Associates" (AAA) to ...
This is referred to as piercing the corporate veil, and is subject to the rules of the home state where the corporation is a domestic corporation. In the case of corporations domesticated in Nevada, for example, as of 2007 [update] , over the last twenty years, only twice has the corporate veil been pierced, and in both cases the corporation's ...
The corporate veil in the United Kingdom is a metaphorical reference used in UK company law for the concept that the rights and duties of a corporation are, as a general principle, the responsibility of that company alone. Just as a natural person cannot be held legally accountable for the conduct or obligations of another person, unless they ...
Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 WLR 832 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil.It exemplifies the principal case in which the veil will be lifted, that is, when a company is used as a "mere facade" concealing the "true facts", which essentially means it is formed to avoid a pre-existing obligation.
Piercing the corporate veil. 16. I should first of all draw attention to the limited sense in which this issue arises at all. "Piercing the corporate veil" is an expression rather indiscriminately used to describe a number of different things. Properly speaking, it means disregarding the separate personality of the company.
The idea of enterprise liability was supported by the Court of Appeal in DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council, a case on piercing the corporate veil. [5] More generally in the law of tort, the principle has been argued to have been recognised, albeit indirectly, by cases such as Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd. [6]
Walkovszky v. Carlton, 223 N.E.2d 6 (N.Y. 1966), [1] is a United States corporate law decision on the conditions under which Courts may pierce the corporate veil. A cab company had shielded itself from liability by incorporating each cab as its own corporation. The New York Court of Appeals refused to pierce the veil on account of ...