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.
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 ...
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
Piercing the corporate veil. 16. I should first of all draw attention to the limited sense in which this issue arises at all. "Piercing the corporate veil" is an expression rather indiscriminately used to describe a number of different things. Properly speaking, it means disregarding the separate personality of the company.
Nevada law provides extremely strong protection against piercing the corporate veil, where a corporation's owners can be held responsible for the actions of a corporation. For instance, from 1987 to 2007, there was only one case that successfully pierced the corporate veil of a Nevada corporation, and in this case the veil was pierced due to ...
The incorporators will also have to adopt "bylaws" which identify many more details such as the number of directors, the arrangement of the board, requirements for corporate meetings, duties of officer holders and so on. The certificate of incorporation will have identified whether the directors or the shareholders, or both have the competence ...
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 grounds for the decision were (1) that since D.H.N. was in a position to control its subsidiaries in every respect, it was proper to pierce the corporate veil and treat the group as a single economic entity for the purpose of awarding compensation for disturbance; (2) that if the companies were to be treated as separate entities, there was ...