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. Perpetual Real Estate Services, Inc. v. Michaelson Properties ...

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Real_Estate...

    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 ]

  4. United States corporate law - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_corporate_law

    The Supreme Court has also acknowledged that one state's laws will govern the "internal affairs" of a corporation, to prevent conflicts among state laws. [22] So on the present law, regardless of where a corporation operates in the 50 states, the rules of the state of incorporation (subject to federal law) will govern its operation. [ 23 ]

  5. 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 ...

  6. Kosmopoulos v Constitution Insurance Co of Canada - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmopoulos_v_Constitution...

    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.

  7. US appeals court halts enforcement of anti-money laundering law

    www.aol.com/news/us-appeals-court-halts...

    (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 ...

  8. 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 ...

  9. Small business owners must report by end of the year to avoid ...

    www.aol.com/small-business-owners-must-report...

    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 ...