The Corporate Veil

"Factors considered by the court in determining whether to pierce the corporate veil include failure to

Your honors and may it please the court, I alongside co-counsel,represent small businesswoman Paula Keene. I will explain why it is important to uphold West Virginia Statute 31d-6-622 to maintain the corporate veil and to show that Ms. Keene is not personally responsible for corporate debts accrued by Main Event. My co-counsel will explain why punitive damages should not be awarded against Ms. Keene. Your honor, I respectfully request 2 minutes for rebuttal.

Woodward, S., Bird, H. & Sievers, S. (2005). Corporations Law in Principle 7th ed. Pyrmont, NSW: Lawbook Co.

This paper will seek to identify any breaches of Common Law, Equitable principles, sections 180-184 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), and any other breaches of the aforementioned Act specifically dealing with Takeovers, whilst describing any appropriate remedies that may be available for said breaches.

“In spite of the obvious economic connection between companies within the same group, English company law has steadfastly maintained its policy of treating such companies as distinct legal entities.”

The legal decision to treat the rights or duties of a corporation as the rights or liabilities of its directors is called piercing the corporate veil or lifting the corporate veil. A corporation is treated as a separate legal person for the sole responsible of debts incurred. Corporations are

What is slavery and where does it stem from. The Webster’s dictionary definition of slavery means “the condition of a slave; the state of entire subjection of one person to the will of another”. The African slave trade started way back in the 1400’s from the west coast of Africa1stAfrica entered into a unique relationship with Europe that led to the devastation and depopulation of Africa, but contributed to the wealth and development of Europe. From then until the end of the 19th century, Europeans began to establish a trade for African captives. Why would people do such a thing what were they to gain from such wickedness? Timothy 6:10”For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.

This paper describes the impact of the decision made in the case of Tesco Stores Ltd v Brent LBC on the law and its effects on the corporate world, and the comparison between the doctrine of vicarious liability that it outlines and the doctrine of identification that was used earlier to determine the liability of corporations in cooperate crime.

When one is operating a large corporation, things can go wrong. Many times even large business can fall into bankruptcies or have other legal suits thrown against them. Sometimes a business must also take risks that don’t always turnout in their favor. One would never want a failed business endeavor to hinder them and possibly their family. This is why, it is always nice to have a policy in place that can protect you from the liability of business debts and other obligations that can arise from operating the corporation. This protection is known throughout the business as the corporate veil. The corporate veil exists, mainly to protect the owners of a corporation from unfortunate circumstances. However, there are those who try to take advantage

This is not an easy burden to meet. In determining whether or not a third party has met this burden, a court will consider several factors, including: the absence of business records, undercapitalization of the business, failure to observe mandatory formalities, fraudulent representation by shareholders and/or directors, the promotion of fraud or illegal activity, payment of personal obligations by the corporation, commingling of assets, conduct that manipulated or ignored the corporate form, or is otherwise found to be an “alter ego” of the corporate mangers or shareholders. It is not necessary that the third party make a showing of the existence of all those factors in order to support a finding that the corporate veil should be pierced. Once pierced, or lifted, courts can look beyond the independent personality of a corporation and hold individual shareholders, board members, or employees liable for the obligations of the corporation. In deciding whether the burden has been met, courts will weigh two competing interests. The first being fairness, or the desire to reach an equitable outcome, and the second being societies interests in upholding the principle of limited liability.

Then Comes the case Caparo Industries plc v Dickman: F Company, manufacturers of electrical equipments, was the target of a takeover by Caparo Industries plc. F was not doing well. At this Point Caparo was buying shares of F company the accounts was checked by Dickman. Caparo reached a shareholding of 29.9% of the company, at which point it made a general offer for the remaining shares, as the City Code's rules on takeovers required. But once it had control, Caparo found that F's accounts were in an even worse state than had been revealed by the directors or the auditors. It sued Dickman for negligence in preparing the accounts and sought to recover its losses. This was the

Choosing a Corporation/Company Structure - the business structure of a company/ corporation is highly recommended, it has the flexibility to gain more capital, or credit capability and assets used as security. Based on the Corporation Act 2001 (Cth) AC 22, a corporation is another legal entity with their own legal rights, duties and responsibilities separate to the individual or owner of the company (Harris, Hargovan & Adams, 2013, pp 229). The risk and consequences are one of the principal considerations of choosing a company structure (Harris, Hargovan & Adams, pp 50). Based on the “Corporate Veil” Liability is owned by a separate legal entity and not to the extent of the owner, for instance, the debt of the company is not a personal liability, but the company. This is further explained in the case below.

There is no clear framework of the rules that would cover the contingencies of a ruling to pierce the corporate veil Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd. The corporate Veil usually protects owners and shareholders from being held liable for corporate duties. Yet again a decision made by the court to lift that veil and would place the liability on shareholders, owners, administrators, executives and officers of the company without ownership interest. The purpose of this essay is to conduct an analysis on the concept of lifting the corporate veil and to review the different views on its fairness and equitability to present a better understanding of the notion, the methods used was throughout researching the numerous scholars views on the subject, case law and statutes examples, and the evidence provided by the empirical study of Ramsay & Noakes. When we discuss the lifting the corporate veil the first case that pops out is the case of Salomon V A. Salomon & Co Ltd, since the decisions of applying the corporate veil were first formed as a consequence of this case. The idea covers all of company law and distinguishes that a company is a separate legal entity from its members and directors. Furthermore, spencer (2012); have indicated that one of the core principles that followed the decision in Salomon v Salomon was the wide acceptance one man company’s. However In order to form a

The 'veil of incorporation' can be described as being the separation between a company and its members. Due to the separate legal status of a company from its members this is usually very strictly maintained. However, there are certain circumstances when the courts will deny the people who run the company the advantage of hiding behind the corporate veil. In these instances the veil of incorporation is said to be 'pierced' or 'lifted', i.e. the barrier between a company and its members is removed so there is no legal separation between them.

The thesis deals with the above concepts and discusses how the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the Act) modified the law, particularly, by extending the legal capacity of a company and extinguishing or modifying the above rules which had previously restricted a company's ability