enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Piercing the corporate veil - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil

    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.

  3. Jones v Lipman - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_v_Lipman

    Lifting the veil 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.

  4. Wallersteiner v Moir - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallersteiner_v_Moir

    Fraud, lifting the veil Wallersteiner v Moir [1974] 1 WLR 991 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil . This case was followed by a connected decision, Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) , [ 1 ] that concerned the principles behind a derivative claim .

  5. Kosmopoulos v Constitution Insurance Co of Canada - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmopoulos_v_Constitution...

    To reach this conclusion the Court examined the requirements to "lift the veil". Wilson J. explained: The law on when a court may disregard this principle by "lifting the corporate veil" and regarding the company as a mere "agent" or a "puppet" of its controlling shareholder or a parent corporation follows no consistent principle.

  6. Littlewoods Mail Order Stores Ltd v IRC - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littlewoods_Mail_Order...

    The legislature has shown the way with group accounts and the rest. And the courts should follow suit. I think that we should look at the Fork Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and see it as it really is — the wholly owned subsidiary of Littlewoods. It is the creature, the puppet, of Littlewoods, in point of fact: and it should be so regarded in point ...

  7. Perpetual Real Estate Services, Inc. v. Michaelson Properties ...

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Real_Estate...

    Aronson v. Price 644, N.E.2d 864 (Ind. 1964) a plaintiff brought his car for repair to "Corbett's Body Shop" which did not indicate its corporate status. Interocean Shipping Co. v. National Shipping & Trading Corp., 523 F.2d 527 (2d Cir. 1975), conduct akin to fraud required to pierce the veil in contract cases

  8. Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilford_Motor_Co_Ltd_v_Horne

    Fraud, lifting the veil Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch 935 is a UK company law case concerning lifting the corporate veil . It gives an example of when courts will treat shareholders and a company as one, in a situation where a company is used as an instrument of fraud.

  9. Walkovszky v. Carlton - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkovszky_v._Carlton

    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 ...