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. Trustor AB v Smallbone (No 2) - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustor_AB_v_Smallbone_(No_2)

    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 ...

  4. Creasey v Breachwood Motors Ltd - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creasey_v_Breachwood...

    Mr Richard Southwell lifted the corporate veil to enforce Mr Creasey's wrongful dismissal claim. He held that the directors of Breachwood Motors Ltd, who had also been directors of Breachwood Welwyn Ltd, had themselves deliberately ignored the separate legal personality of the companies by transferring assets between the companies without regard to their duties as directors and shareholders.

  5. Limited liability - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability

    [1] [2] A shareholder in a corporation or limited liability company is not personally liable for any of the debts of the company, other than for the amount already invested in the company and for any unpaid amount on the shares in the company, if any—except under special and rare circumstances that permit "piercing the corporate veil."

  6. 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 ...

  7. De facto corporation and corporation by estoppel - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto_corporation_and...

    De facto corporation and corporation by estoppel are both terms that are used by courts in most common law jurisdictions to describe circumstances in which a business organization that has failed to become a de jure corporation (a corporation by law) will nonetheless be treated as a corporation, thereby shielding shareholders from liability. [1]

  8. Ohio Revised Code - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Revised_Code

    The Ohio Revised Code (ORC) contains all current statutes of the Ohio General Assembly of a permanent and general nature, consolidated into provisions, titles, chapters and sections. [1] However, the only official publication of the enactments of the General Assembly is the Laws of Ohio; the Ohio Revised Code is only a reference. [2]

  9. Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ord_v_Belhaven_Pubs_Ltd

    This page was last edited on 3 November 2024, at 05:09 (UTC).; Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License; additional terms may apply.