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 argued that Properties was a separate legal person, and it was inappropriate to pierce the corporate veil in this circumstance. However, the jury ruled that it could be pierced and that Aaron should pay. [2] Aaron appealed.
Piercing the corporate veil Littlewoods Mail Order Stores v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1969] 1 WLR 1241 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil . Facts
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 ...
In reviewing the law as it relates to piercing the corporate veil, he noted the following principles: [5] Ownership and control were not in themselves sufficient to pierce the corporate veil. Even where there was no unconnected third party interest the veil could not be pierced only because it is necessary in the interests of justice.
Corporate veil piercing removes the possibility of a large developer allowing a defunct entity to absorb a judgment without payment. Corporate veil piercing removes the possibility of a large ...
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.
Sir Andrew Morritt VC held that there was enough evidence to lift the veil on the basis that it was a "mere facade". He noted the tension between Adams v Cape Industries plc and later cases and stated that impropriety is not enough to pierce the veil, but the court is entitled to do so where a company is used ‘as a device or façade to conceal the true facts and the liability of the ...