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.
Aronson v. Price 644, N.E.2d 864 (Ind. 1964) a plaintiff brought his car for repair to "Corbett's Body Shop" which did not indicate its corporate status. Interocean Shipping Co. v. National Shipping & Trading Corp., 523 F.2d 527 (2d Cir. 1975), conduct akin to fraud required to pierce the veil in contract cases
However, different states had different corporate laws. To increase revenue from corporate tax , individual states had an incentive to lower their standards in a " race to the bottom " to attract corporations to set up their headquarters in the state, particularly where directors controlled the decision to incorporate.
While most states (39 of the 50) use the term "capitol" for their state's seat of government, Indiana and Ohio use the term "Statehouse" and eight states use "State House": Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Vermont. Delaware has a "Legislative Hall".
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 ...
(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 to the U.S ...
The law was created "to combat illicit activity including tax fraud, money laundering and financing for terrorism by capturing more ownership information for specific U.S. businesses operating in ...
To reach this conclusion the Court examined the requirements to "lift the veil". Wilson J. explained: The law on when a court may disregard this principle by "lifting the corporate veil" and regarding the company as a mere "agent" or a "puppet" of its controlling shareholder or a parent corporation follows no consistent principle.