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.
Perpetual Real Estate Services, Inc. v. Michaelson Properties, Inc. 974 F.2d 545 (4th Cir. 1992), [1] is a US corporate law case, concerning piercing the corporate veil. Facts [ edit ]
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.
CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION Pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Certificate Rule 7.1, the Conservation Law Foundation (“CLF”) states that it is a charitable corporation, organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and Chapter 180 of the Massachusetts General
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lifting_the_corporate_veil&oldid=17305361"
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 ...
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
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 .