Preview

lifting the corporate veil

Satisfactory Essays
Open Document
Open Document
511 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
lifting the corporate veil
“LIFTING THE CORPORATE VEIL”

The recognition that a company is a separate legal entity distinct from its shareholders is often expressed as the “veil of incorporation”. General principle, once a company is incorporated, the courts usually do not look behind the veil to inquire why the company was or who really controls it.

However in certain situations, the court will ignore the separate legal personality of a company and look to the members/controllers of the company is “lifting the veil”. This would involve treating the right or liabilities or activities of the company as the rights or liabilities or activities of its shareholders, for example treating the business od a company as that of its principal shareholder.

Lifting the corporate veil is something expressly authorised by statute (statutory exceptions) and something it is adopted by the courts (judicial exception).

STATUTORY EXCEPTIONS

-When members become less than 2:
Section 36 Companies Act 1956 states that “if at any remaining member has 6 months to find another member, after which the court will lift the corporate veil and hold the sole member liable for all debts of the company”

Exceptions in this case:
(a) If the sole member was not aware that he was the only remaining member; or
(b) The sole member is a holding company owning the entire shares of the company concerned (a wholly owned company).

-If an officer of a company signs or issue or authorises the signing or issuance of certain instruments on behalf of the company, on which the company’s name does not appear properly -Section 121(2) Companies Act 1956 states that “such officer will be personally liable”

The name of the company must appear in letters on all bill of exchange, promissory notes, cheques, negotiable instrument, endorsements and orders. If the name of the company is not properly mentioned on any of these documents, the person who signed or issued the document is liable to the holder of the document for

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    HCC 40, PC 3: Court Case

    • 745 Words
    • 3 Pages

    . Issue : Can the court pierce the corporate veil to reach Carlton individually ?…

    • 745 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    It depend upon the approach of the legal duties of the administrators which were framework in the Corporation Act. The court has noticed that the appellant provide the legal duties approaching the suer and the duties which were performed was not for the benefit of himself although it was not for the benefit of other partner too. It was only for the benefit of the company. It was noticed by the court that there has been contravention of legal duties performed by the offender discarding the prosecutor out of the building for profit and loss account and also regarding the goodwill of the company.The court held that the offender has to paid a premium for the losses which has been incurred. Although the court told them that in order for compensation they can buy shares from offender for their losses incurred.…

    • 504 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Cross 9e TBB Ch02

    • 2690 Words
    • 13 Pages

    Because corporations are not considered legal persons, courts use different principles to determine whether it is fair to exercise jurisdiction over a corporation.…

    • 2690 Words
    • 13 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Per The Model Business Corporation Acr, or MBCA, which is followed in thirty two states and is a set of laws that set the standard for the definition of corporations, the most common factors that courts consider in determining whether to pierce the corporate veil are: (1) the existence of fraud; (2) failure to adhere to corporate formalities; (3) inadequate capitalization; and (4) abuse of the corporate entity so as to amount to complete domination. Some corporations may be especially vulnerable to violating the above factors inadvertently, simply because of their size and business practices.…

    • 262 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    Business Law Case Summary

    • 2465 Words
    • 10 Pages

    by its agents on the behalf of the firm if the agent has been given express, implied or…

    • 2465 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    In addition, “the trial court 's analysis was based upon its assumption that the doctrine of "piercing the corporate veil" was applicable to limited liability corporations, and the court therefore considered the three-part test for piercing the corporate veil as set forth by the Ohio Supreme Court in Belvedere, supra.” (Siva v. 1138 L.L.C., 2007) Furthermore, the legal rationale used by the Court when deciding the case were based upon testing the witnesses credibility by observing “their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, and use these observations in weighing the credibility of the…

    • 580 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Claw2201 Study Notes

    • 476 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Corporate Veil: legal concept that distinguishes between a companies personality and that of its shareholders. It protects shareholders from being personally liable for debts and other obligations incurred by the company.…

    • 476 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Best Essays

    Case Study

    • 2525 Words
    • 11 Pages

    [ 6 ]. Professor Robert Baxt AO, Law Book Co, Thomson Reuters, 2011, Corporation Legislation…

    • 2525 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Business Law

    • 964 Words
    • 4 Pages

    This is a New York Court of Appeals decision in 1926 adjudicated by the legendary Justice Cardozo. In this seminal case on ‘piercing the corporate veil’, the Court of Appeals finds in favor of the Defendant, Third Avenue Railway Company. The Court holds 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 sufficient enough for Forty-second to be deemed an ‘alter ego’ of the parent, Third Avenue.…

    • 964 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Case App1

    • 734 Words
    • 3 Pages

    _The corporation generally has fewer or less comprehensive reporting requirements for transparency, via annual reports, etc. than do publicly traded companies.…

    • 734 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Legal Assignment

    • 1776 Words
    • 8 Pages

    1. The Salomon case establishes that an incorporated company is a separate legal entity from its participants, namely founders, shareholders, directors, employees and agents. Consequently, a company could enter into contracts in its own rights and possess assets and liabilities distinct from its members. In legal terminology, this rule is referred to as the ‘corporate veil’.…

    • 1776 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Ian M Ramsay Harold Ford Professor of Commercial Law and Director, Centre for Corporate Law and Securities Regulation The University of Melbourne David B Noakes Solicitor, Allen Allen & Hemsley, Sydney, and Research Associate, Centre for Corporate Law and Securities Regulation The University of Melbourne There is a significant amount of literature by commentators discussing the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil. However, there has not been a comprehensive empirical study of the Australian cases relating to this doctrine. In this article, the authors present the results of the first such study. Some of the findings are (i) there has been a substantial increase in the number of piercing cases heard by courts over time; (ii) courts are more prepared to pierce the corporate veil of a proprietary company than a public company; (iii) piercing rates decline as the number of shareholders in companies increases; (iv) courts pierce the corporate veil less frequently when piercing is sought against a parent company than when piercing is sought against one or more individual shareholders; and (v) courts pierce more frequently in a contract context than in a tort context. ____________________________________________________________…

    • 15226 Words
    • 61 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Salomon V Salomon

    • 534 Words
    • 3 Pages

    However, in certain circumstances, a court may ignore the separate legal entity of a company (lifting the corporate veil) and look at the members of the company and make them liable.…

    • 534 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The Uk Tax System.

    • 1571 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Ellis, Jason; Business and company legislation 2009/10 (CLP Legal practice guide); companies act (2006) p31-559…

    • 1571 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    2. When will the corporate veil be lifted (ie. shareholders held to BE the corporation)?…

    • 1334 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays