The concept of suboptimal subsidiary management (coded as SSM) includes 5 subcategories: ● SSM-ULA: suboptimal subsidiary management because of unbalanced level of autonomy; Birkinshaw et al. (2000) recognize the issues that arise from the gaps in perception of subsidiaries roles by the subsidiary managers and the headquarters managers: subsidiaries overestimate their strategic importance and desire greater level of autonomy while headquarters seek control. These perception gaps have strong implications
transfer from MNC parent to China subsidiary Pien Wanga,*, Tony W. Tongb, Chun Peng Kohc a School of Business, National University of Singapore, 1 Business Link, Singapore 117592, Singapore b Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University, Newark, OH, USA c International Enterprise Singapore, Singapore Abstract Based on an empirical study of 62 firms, this paper develops a two-stage model describing knowledge transfer from MNCs to their China subsidiaries. In the first stage, the model proposes
Laidlaw Transportation, Inc. and Subsidiaries v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Facts Laidlaw Transportation, Inc., a holding company for school and passenger transportation businesses, was wholly owned by Laidlaw Transportation Ltd. They also owned other subsidiaries of Laidlaw Transportation, Inc., including Laidlaw Industries, Inc. and Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. The president and chairman of Laidlaw Transportation Ltd. was Michael DeGroote from the time of formation. He believed that the
The analysis undertaken in this essay will explain the significance of limited liability in respect to the holding company and its subsidiaries and how creditors are affected by limited liability when suffered by losses due to unrecoverable debts unless able to prove that the holding company knew of the subsidiary insolvency. As well we will look at how s588V allows creditors to be able to recover some of their losses if the courts are able to justify the piercing of the corporate veil of the holding
Project-Corporate Law-I Relationship Between holding Companies and subsidiaries and the concept of piercing the corporate veil in the light of recent Vodafone 's decision and Finance Act 2012 Submitted to- Dr Kiran Kori Faculty-Corporate Law Submitted by-Prarthna Baranwal Semester-V Section-A Roll No.-92 HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, RAIPUR CHHATTISGARH 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to our respected faculty Kiran Kori Ma’am for giving
among large scale business organizations to structure their operations through the form of corporate groups, with many domestic and international subsidiaries, wholly owned or otherwise, with the corporate veil ensuring that each of these enjoy separate corporate legal personality and limited liability. The existence of these ‘corporate groups’, with subsidiary companies being heavily controlled by their parent companies, have necessitated interpretations and applications of existing corporate legal principles
as a subsidiary to CGW to emphasize the growing importance of Corning’s overseas business. The management felt that the creation of CIC as a
definitely an available option. The company should be structured as a parent-subsidiary controlled group. The restructuring should be performed in conformance to any and all tax-saving codes and provisions. Law and Analysis With a divisive reorganization, BackBone can split off its Willow office as a new subsidiary corporation that is controlled by BackBone. By placing Charlie in charge of the newly formed subsidiary, Charlie
epidemic that have not been taken into account. These variables include the retailers, middlemen, and corrupt distributors who most likely made a profit from selling the glue to the children on the streets. In addition, there was management among the subsidiary companies who helped produce this product that must have been aware of this pertinent issue. Who is to say that management never tried to resolve anything, or even bring up the issue? They probably did, but nothing drastic as cancellation of their
that Third Avenue, the parent company of Forty-second Street Company, which operated a rail line upon which the Plaintiff was injured, was not liable for the torts of the subsidiary. Even though the defendant owned all the stock of the subsidiary and controlled its Board of Directors, the degree of domination over the subsidiary was not considered