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. Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilford_Motor_Co_Ltd_v_Horne

    Fraud, lifting the veil Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch 935 is a UK company law case concerning lifting the corporate veil . It gives an example of when courts will treat shareholders and a company as one, in a situation where a company is used as an instrument of fraud.

  4. Jones v Lipman - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_v_Lipman

    Lifting the veil Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 WLR 832 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil . It exemplifies the principal case in which the veil will be lifted, that is, when a company is used as a "mere facade" concealing the "true facts", which essentially means it is formed to avoid a pre-existing obligation.

  5. Re Darby, ex p Brougham - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re_Darby,_ex_p_Brougham

    Fraud, lifting the veil Re Darby, ex parte Brougham [1911] 1 KB 95 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil . It is a clear example of the courts ignoring the veil of incorporation where a company is used to conceal a fraudulent operation.

  6. Wallersteiner v Moir - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallersteiner_v_Moir

    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 .

  7. 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.

  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. Daimler Co Ltd v Continental Tyre and Rubber Co (GB) Ltd

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler_Co_Ltd_v...

    All except one of Continental Tyre and Rubber Co Ltd's shares were held by German residents and all directors were German residents. The secretary was English. Continental Tyre and Rubber Co Ltd supplied tyres to Daimler, but Daimler was concerned that making payment might contravene a common law offence of trading with the enemy as well as a proclamation issued under s 3 (1) Trading with the ...