Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Lee v Lee's Air Farming Ltd [1960] UKPC 33 is a company law case from New Zealand, also important for UK company law and Indian Companies Act 2013, concerning the corporate veil and separate legal personality.
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.
Piercing the corporate veil, resulting trust, bare trust, Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34 , [2013] 2 AC 415 is a leading UK company law decision of the UK Supreme Court concerning the nature of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil , resulting trusts and equitable proprietary remedies in the ...
VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5, [2013] 2 AC 337 is an English company law case, concerning piercing the corporate veil for fraud.. Together with the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court later the same year in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34 the Supreme Court substantially restated the English company law position in relation to piercing of the ...
The Companies Act 2013 (No. 18 of 2013) is an Act of the Parliament of India which forms the primary source of Indian company law. It received presidential assent on 29 August 2013, and largely superseded the Companies Act 1956 .
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) is a tribunal which was formed by the Central Government of India under Section 410 of the Companies Act, 2013.The NCLAT was formed as a body with an appellate jurisdiction at the same time when NCLT was established as a major reform as per powers granted to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs in India.
By Nate Raymond (Reuters) -A U.S. appeals court has halted enforcement of an anti-money laundering law that requires corporate entities to disclose the identities of their real beneficial owners ...
Without lifting the veil there remains, however, no personal liability for directors or employees acting in the course of employment, for corporate manslaughter or otherwise. [43] The quality of a company's accountability to a broader public and the conscientiousness of its behaviour must rely also, in great measure, on its governance.