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.
This is referred to as piercing the corporate veil, and is subject to the rules of the home state where the corporation is a domestic corporation. In the case of corporations domesticated in Nevada, for example, as of 2007 [update] , over the last twenty years, only twice has the corporate veil been pierced, and in both cases the corporation's ...
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
For example, because the provisions on "piercing the corporate veil" are corporate governance matters, if a corporation is chartered in California, for example, (which has much more creditor friendly provisions permitting this) is sued anywhere, California law applies, but a corporation chartered in Nevada, which operates only in California, is ...
Generally, the internal affairs doctrine provides that a corporation's internal affairs are governed by the jurisdiction in which it is incorporated. However, many jurisdictions apply local law to foreign corporations in certain determinations such as piercing the corporate veil. [1]
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 ...
There is an exception to this rule, however, which allows a claimant to litigate against the owner(s) of a limited liability business, if the owner(s) have engaged in conduct that justifies the claimant's recovery from the owner(s): This exception is called "piercing the corporate veil." Courts generally try not to utilize this exception unless ...
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 ...