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.
The Constitution of the Philippines (Filipino: Saligang Batas ng Pilipinas or Konstitusyon ng Pilipinas) is the supreme law of the Philippines. Its final draft was completed by the Constitutional Commission on October 12, 1986, and ratified by a nationwide plebiscite on February 2, 1987. The Constitution remains unamended to this day.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lift_the_corporate_veil&oldid=457548729"
lifting the veil DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [1976] 1 WLR 852 is a UK company law case where, on the basis that a company should be compensated for loss of its business under a compulsory acquisition order, a group was recognised as a single economic entity .
Among the proposed changes in the constitution included a shift to a senatorial system and the lifting of term limits of public officials. Ramos argued that the changes will bring more accountability, continuity, and responsibility to the "gridlock"-prone Philippine version of presidential bicameral system. Some politically active religious ...
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 .
The Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the People's Initiative method of amending the constitution is "fatally defective", or inoperable. Another ruling in 2006 on another attempt at a People's Initiative was ruled unconstitutional by the court [15] This only leaves the Constituent Assembly and the Constitutional Convention as the valid ways to amend the constitution.