Preview

Corporation

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
7965 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Corporation
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
1.1 Background
One of the primary benefits of creating a corporate entity is to limit the liability of the shareholders. However, under certain circumstances the corporate entity may be disregarded. This is also known as piercing the corporate veil and is the most frequent method for holding the shareholders liable for the acts of a corporation.
Corporate officers, directors and controlling shareholders have a general fiduciary duty of loyalty and care which should govern all their corporate conduct. Unless they breach that duty by gross negligence or acts in bad faith, they usually will have no personal liability to third parties. In order to pierce the corporate veil, third parties have to show personal wrongful conduct on the part of a company official or director to hold them personally responsible for extra-corporate actions.
Under the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil, the courts may decide not observe the separation of the corporate entity from its stockholders, and it may deem the corporation 's acts to be those of the persons or organizations actually controlling the corporation. This is based upon a finding by the court that the corporate form is used to perpetuate a fraud, circumvent a statute, or accomplish some other wrongful or inequitable purpose. A court may pierce through the veil of liability protection if the corporation does not follow proper corporate formalities, if it is undercapitalized, or if it can be shown that it is a sham that was set up to defraud.
If the corporate formalities are not followed, the corporation may be deemed to not be functioning as a corporation, but rather, as the alter ego of the owners. To prevent the corporate veil from being pierced, it is important to keep minutes of the board meetings and to not co-mingle bank accounts. These measures help to ensure that the corporation will be treated as a separate entity.
1.2 Research Problem
The major question to be addressed is:
What

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    Gahsa Rjewrj Wv

    • 833 Words
    • 4 Pages

    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.…

    • 833 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Selected Answer: One advantage of forming a corporation is that equity investors are usually exposed to less liability than in a regular partnership.…

    • 1806 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    AU Section 317 Case Study

    • 960 Words
    • 4 Pages

    The government has well intentioned regulations enacted to protect individuals and organizations from an action or an omission that violates or influences the material reliability of a financial statement or audit. Illegal acts committed by clients must segregate activities that do not include the entity that is having their financial statements audited. Equally, illegal acts also include the acts of management or individuals that act in the interest of the aforementioned entity.…

    • 960 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    FIN515 Week 4 Midterm

    • 773 Words
    • 4 Pages

    One advantage of forming a corporation is that equity investors are usually exposed to less liability than in a regular partnership.…

    • 773 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Legt 2741 Assignment

    • 1787 Words
    • 8 Pages

    However, the precedent in the Saloman Case is not gospel and the ‘corporate veil’ can be lifted in certain circumstances . If the company is used:…

    • 1787 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good 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
  • Good Essays

    Bhm443 Mod 4 Case (Tu()

    • 1002 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Corporations, by legal charter, are not a single entity and do not have a central owner; however, this does not keep corporations from being liable for criminal actions or criminal liability. Corporate criminal liability in law determines to what extent a corporation, basically a fictitious entity, can be held liable for acts and omissions of actual people that the corporation employs. In 1909, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a corporation “could be held criminally liable for the acts, omissions, or failures of an agent acting within the scope of his employment” (Carrasco & Dupee, 1999). Corporations themselves cannot do actions and so criminal liability falls to the employees of the corporation and two elements comprise criminal violations by corporate employees; intent and the guilty act. Carrasco and Dupee (1999), state, “For a corporation to be liable, the employee committing the illicit act must be acting within the scope of her employment”. This requirement is generally met if the employee has actual or apparent authority to engage in the particular act in question and the corporation can give either direct authority or authority through perceived authority (Carrasco & Dupee, 1999). Under federal law, a corporation is criminally responsible for the actions of any of its employees taken within the scope of their employment for the benefit of the corporation. It makes no difference whether the employees’ conduct violates corporate policy or contravenes explicit instructions not to engage in the conduct (Hasnas, 2006). Under this presumption and law of corporate criminal responsibility “there is nothing a corporation can do to ensure that it is not guilty of a criminal offense. Corporate managers know that no matter how good their firm’s internal controls, they cannot guarantee that there will be no intentional or inadvertent violations of law by its employees” (Hasnas, 2006). If an employee is…

    • 1002 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Easy Corp Case

    • 1216 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Easy Corp was awarded a five year contract to provide program office support to a government agency. In the first year of the contract, the enterprise has raised concern with the contracting officer’s representative (COR). Easy Corp has habitually submitted erroneous and often late invoices, as well as late and incomplete management reports. Moreover, both the COR and Easy Corp employees rarely see the program manager for the contract. The purpose of this paper is to identify the ramifications for both the government and contractor from such negligence, as well as make recommendations concerning Easy Corp to the contracting officer.…

    • 1216 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    finance 340 exam study guide

    • 2722 Words
    • 11 Pages

    In the corporate form of ownership, the shareholders are the owners of the firm. The shareholders elect the directors of the corporation, who in turn appoint the firm’s management. This separation of ownership from control in the corporate form of organization is what causes agency problems to exist. Management may act in its own or someone else’s best interests, rather than those of the shareholders. If such events occur, they may contradict the goal of maximizing the share price of the equity of the firm.…

    • 2722 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Cross 9e TBB Ch07

    • 2373 Words
    • 13 Pages

    Corporate officers and directors may be held criminally liable for the actions of employees under their supervision.…

    • 2373 Words
    • 13 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Section 8 Study Questions

    • 316 Words
    • 2 Pages

    can be held personally accountable for the financial debts and illegal actions of the company.…

    • 316 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    In regard to the benefits of commercial entities shielding their shareholders from liability, Israt states that if the legal maneuver of shielding investors was not available, many investors would simply not take the risk of losing more than their invested capital. The shareholders who are not involved in the active management of the company would not want to take responsibility for those who are (CompaniesIncorporated, 2013).…

    • 817 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Case Study-James Hardie

    • 435 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Piercing the corporate veil is not the only means by which a director or officer of a corporation can be held liable for the actions of the corporation. Liability can be established through conventional theories of contract, agency, or tort law. For example, in situations where a director or officer acting on behalf of a corporation personally commits a tort, he and the corporation are jointly liable and it is unnecessary to discuss the issue of piercing the corporate veil. The doctrine is often used in cases where liability is found, but the corporation is insolvent.…

    • 435 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good 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

    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

Related Topics