1200:, the only true "veil piercing" may take place when a company is set up for fraudulent purposes, or where it is established to avoid an existing obligation. However, cases were rare and their justification in light of the Salomon principle remained doubtful. In VTB Capital, Lord Neuberger sympathised with rejecting the doctrine altogether, but left the issue undecided because it did not matter for the outcome. Soon afterwards, in Prest v Petrodel, a divorce case where the matrimonial home was not held by the husband but by his company, the Supreme Court confirmed the existence of the doctrine in English law, but narrowed it down to practical irrelevance. The "fraud exception" was dismissed. According to the leading judgement by Lord Sumption, piercing the veil is a subsidiary remedy of last resort that only covers the avoidance of existing obligations ("evasion principle", as opposed to the cases of the "concealment principle" that does not give rise to a claim). On closer analysis, this was said obiter because the Court reached the desired outcome (attribution of the family home to the assets of the husband) by applying trust law. Nevertheless, Prest v Petrodel is generally assumed to state the current law in the UK, even though the restriction of "abuse" to evasion only can be questioned and there were statements in Prest v Petrodel that supported a broader approach. It is noteworthy that under English law, piercing the veil can never be used to make shareholders pay for contractual debts of the company because they have not been party to that contract. In the past, the veil was sometimes ignored in the process of interpreting a statute, and as a matter of tort law it is open as a matter of authority that a direct duty of care may be owed by the managers of a parent company to accident victims of a subsidiary.
830:
general doctrine of piercing the veil for abuse of the legal personality of the company has never really taken hold in
Germany. It was advocated in the fundamental work of Rolf Serick, but rejected by the prevailing "Normanwendungslehre". After a few early cases, the German judiciary did not go down the route of establishing shareholder liability via piercing the veil. In particular, it rejected piercing the veil on grounds of material undercapitalization several times. Today, the only remaining case of shareholder liability via piercing of the corporate veil is the inextricable commingling of the assets of the company and the shareholder ("Vermögensvermischung"). But shareholders can be held liable in tort (§ 826 BGB) in the case of an interference destroying the corporation ("existenzvernichtender Eingriff"). The corporation must not be stripped, without compensation, of funds that are required to meet its foreseeable future obligations. If these are taken away by the shareholder the corporation may claim compensation, even in an insolvency proceeding. The concept adds a solvency test element to the balance-sheet based rules of capital maintenance under §§ 30, 31 GmbHG and §§ 57, 62 AktG.
1413:
rights and liabilities that are separate from its shareholders. A court can pierce the limited liability of the corporate entity and look at what lies behind it only in certain circumstances. It cannot do so simply because it considers it might be just to do so. Each of these circumstances involves impropriety and dishonesty. The court will then be entitled to look for the legal substance, not the just the form. In the context of criminal cases the courts have identified at least three situations when the corporate veil can be pierced. First if an offender attempts to shelter behind a corporate façade, or veil to hide his crime and his benefits from it. Secondly, where an offender does acts in the name of a company which (with the necessary
3149:
1360:, the tentative suggestion was made that the corporate veil was being lifted where the company was the "alter ego" of the defendant. In truth, as Lord Cooke (1997) has noted extrajudicially, it is because of the separate identity of the company concerned and not despite it that equity intervened in all of these cases. They are not instances of the corporate veil being pierced but instead involve the application of other rules of law. Finally, the "fraud exception" was rejected in
1227:
direct liability in tort for the parent company if it had interfered in the subsidiary's affairs. The High Court before it had held that liability would exist if the parent exercised control, all applying ordinary principles of tort law about liability of a third party for the actions of a tortfeasor. The restrictions on lifting the veil, found in contractual cases made no difference. This jursidction has been settled to play an important role in the human rights cases and.
838:
1249:. The effect of this rule is that the individual subsidiaries within a conglomerate will be treated as separate entities and the parent cannot be made liable for the subsidiaries' debts on insolvency. Furthermore, it can create subsidiaries with inadequate capitalisation and secure loans to the subsidiaries with fixed charges over their assets, despite the fact that this is "not necessarily the most honest way of trading". The rule also applies in Scotland.
53:
1322:: the corporate veil cannot be lifted merely because justice requires it. Despite the rejection of the "justice of the case" test, it is observed from judicial reasoning in veil piercing cases that the courts employ "equitable discretion" guided by general principles such as mala fides to test whether the corporate structure has been used as a mere device.
1709:, ch 7, 344, n 2 for a list of terms the court uses. They are, mere adjunct, agent, alias, alter ego, alter idem, arm, blind, branch, buffer, cloak, coat, corporate double, cover, creature, curious reminiscence, delusion, department, dry shell, dummy, fiction, form, formality, fraud on the law, instrumentality, mouthpiece, name,
1436:
In the United States, corporate veil piercing is the most litigated issue in corporate law. Although courts are reluctant to hold an active shareholder liable for actions that are legally the responsibility of the corporation, even if the corporation has a single shareholder, they will often do so if
1401:
monies received by a company can, depending upon the particular facts of the case as found by the court, be regarded as having been 'obtained' by an individual (who is usually, but not always, a director of the company). In consequence those monies may become an element in the individual's 'benefit'
1226:
in the Court of Appeal held that if the parent had interfered in the operations of the subsidiary in any way, such as over trading issues, then it would be attached with responsibility for health and safety issues. Arden LJ emphasised that piercing the corporate veil was not necessary. There would be
829:
German corporate law developed a number of theories in the early 1920s for lifting the corporate veil on the basis of "domination" by a parent company over a subsidiary. These cases have led to an encompassing codification of group law provisions in the AktG 1965 (§§ 291 - 319 AktG). By contrast, a
1543:
Not all of these factors need to be met in order for the court to pierce the corporate veil. Further, some courts might find that one factor is so compelling in a particular case that it will find the shareholders personally liable. For example, many large corporations do not pay dividends, without
1412:
There was no major disagreement between counsel on the legal principles by reference to which a court is entitled to "pierce" or "rend" or "remove" the corporate veil. As a matter of law, a duly formed and registered company is a separate legal entity from those who are its shareholders and it has
810:
Piercing the corporate veil typically is most effective with smaller privately held business entities (close corporations) in which the corporation has a small number of shareholders, limited assets, and recognition of separateness of the corporation from its shareholders would promote fraud or an
771:
to not compete with the company they have just left for a period of time. If they set up a company which competed with their former company, technically it would be the company and not the person competing. But it is likely a court would say that the new company was just a "sham" or a "cover" and
1484:
make doing so more difficult. Thus, the owner(s) of a corporation operating in
California would be subject to different potential for the corporation's veil to be pierced if the corporation was to be sued, depending on whether the corporation was a California domestic corporation or was a Nevada
779:
emanates from the view that a corporation is a separate legal entity, the reality is that the entity status of corporations has almost nothing to do with shareholder limited liability. For example, English law conferred entity status on corporations long before shareholders were afforded limited
1492:
in the context of a duly authorized corporate meeting. This is quite often the case when a corporation facing legal liability transfers its assets and business to another corporation with the same management and shareholders. It also happens with single person corporations that are managed in a
1193:
The corporate veil in UK company law is pierced very rarely. After a series of attempts by the Court of Appeal during the late 1960s and early 1970s to establish a theory of economic reality, and a doctrine of control for lifting the veil, the House of Lords reasserted an orthodox approach.
1654:
Reverse veil piercing is when the debt of a shareholder is imputed onto the corporation. Throughout the United States, the general rule is that reverse veil piercing is not allowed. However the
California Court of Appeals has allowed reverse veil piercing against a
1646:(FLPs) illustrate the IRS's use of veil-piercing arguments. Since owners of U.S. business entities created for asset protection and estate purposes often fail to maintain proper corporate compliance, the IRS has achieved multiple high-profile court victories.
1276:
held that it was a decision to be confined to its facts (the question in DHN had been whether the subsidiary of the plaintiff, the former owning the premises on which the parent carried out its business, could receive compensation for loss of business under a
1380:
is an example of that. Mr
Macaura was the sole owner of a company he had set up to grow timber. The trees were destroyed by fire but the insurer refused to pay since the policy was with Macaura (not the company) and he was not the owner of the trees. The
1459:
However, the theories failed to articulate a real-world approach which courts could directly apply to their cases. Thus, courts struggle with the proof of each prong and rather analyze all given factors. This is known as "totality of circumstances".
1444:
exists and the ruling is based on common law precedents. In the United States, different theories, most important "alter ego" or "instrumentality rule", attempted to create a piercing standard. Mostly, they rest upon three basic prongs—namely:
1603:, 939 F.2d 209 (4th Cir. 1991). The veil was pierced where its enforcement would not have matched the purpose of limited liability. Here a corporation was undercapitalized and was only used to shield a shareholder's other company from debts.
1421:, paragraph 16. Thirdly, where the transaction or business structures constitute a "device", "cloak" or "sham", i.e. an attempt to disguise the true nature of the transaction or structure so as to deceive third parties or the courts.
814:
There is no record of a successful piercing of the corporate veil for a publicly traded corporation because of the large number of shareholders and the extensive mandatory filings entailed in qualifying for listing on an exchange.
1570:
974 F.2d 545 (4th Cir. 1992). The Fourth
Circuit held that no piercing could take place merely to prevent "unfairness" or "injustice", where a corporation in a real estate building partnership could not pay its share of a lawsuit
1252:
While the secondary literature refers to different means of "lifting" or "piercing" the veil (see
Ottolenghi (1959)), judicial dicta supporting the view that the rule in Salomon is subject to exceptions are thin on the ground.
1810:
Jan Lieder, "Liability because of existence-destroying interventions", in: Andrea Vicari/Alexander Schall (eds.), Company Laws of the EU, 2020, Part 2: Germany, Chapter 7: Groups of
Companies, pp. 397 - 401, at paras. 647 -
1467:
the corporation is incorporated in if the corporation is authorized to do business in more than one state. All corporations have one specific state (their "home" state) to which they are incorporated as a
784:
confers entity status on partnerships, but also provides that partners are individually liable for all partnership obligations. Therefore, this shareholder limited liability emanates mainly from statute.
1218:. In this case, the claimant was an employee of Cape plc's wholly owned subsidiary, which had gone insolvent. He successfully brought a claim in tort against Cape plc for causing him an asbestos disease,
1402:
obtained from criminal conduct (and hence subject to confiscation from him). The position regarding 'piercing the veil' in
English criminal law was given in the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of
2499:
1350:, where an injunction was granted against a trader setting up a business which was merely as a vehicle allowing him to circumvent a covenant in restraint of trade are often said to create a "
1595:
held: "The equitable owners of a corporation, for example, are personally liable...when they provide inadequate capitalization and actively participate in the conduct of corporate affairs."
1488:
Generally, the plaintiff has to prove that the incorporation was merely a formality and that the corporation neglected corporate formalities and protocols, such as voting to approve major
772:
that, as the new company is completely owned and controlled by one person, the former employee is deliberately choosing to compete, placing them in breach of that non-competing contract.
1476:. In determining whether or not the corporate veil may be pierced, the courts are required to use the laws of the corporation's home state. This issue can be significant; for example,
1566:
1374:
There have been cases in which it is to the advantage of the shareholder to have the corporate structure ignored. Courts have been reluctant to agree to this. The often cited case
1304:
held that cases where the rule in
Salomon had been circumvented were merely instances where they did not know what to do. The view expressed at first instance by HHJ Southwell QC in
807:
or sole proprietorship in which the owner could be held responsible for all the debts of the company, a corporation traditionally limited the personal liability of the shareholders.
1023:
1659:(LLC) based largely on the difference in remedies available to creditors when it comes to attaching assets of a debtors' LLC as compared to attaching assets of a corporation.
1397:
In
English criminal law there have been cases in which the courts have been prepared to pierce the veil of incorporation. For example, in confiscation proceedings under the
2136:
1900:
1417:) constitute a criminal offence which leads to the offender's conviction, then "the veil of incorporation is not so much pierced as rudely torn away": per Lord Bingham in
1822:
1257:
outlined the theory of the "single economic unit" - wherein the court examined the overall business operation as an economic unit, rather than strict legal form - in
1579:, 68 F.3d 1451 (2d Cir. 1995), finding insufficient that a parent company so dominated the operations of a subsidiary that the corporate veil should be disregarded.
2610:
1964:
1239:, "undertakings" (which may encompass one or more legal persons) might be held liable for relevant infringements. By contrast, it is an axiomatic principle of
1544:
any suggestion of corporate impropriety, but particularly for a small or close corporation the failure to pay dividends may suggest financial impropriety.
1243:
that a company is an entity separate and distinct from its members, who are liable only to the extent that they have contributed to the company's capital:
1530:
Significant undercapitalization of the business entity (capitalization requirements vary based on industry, location, and specific company circumstances);
1583:
1455:"proximate cause": as a reasonably foreseeable result of the wrongful action, harm was caused to the party that is seeking to pierce the corporate veil.
1437:
the corporation was markedly noncompliant with corporate formalities, to prevent fraud, or to achieve equity in certain cases of undercapitalization.
2908:
1906:
2879:
2720:
602:
1493:
haphazard manner. As such, the veil can be pierced in both civil cases and where regulatory proceedings are taken against a shell corporation.
2672:
Alting, C. (1994–1995). "Piercing the corporate veil in German and American law - Liability of individuals and entities: a comparative view".
1310:, that English law "definitely" recognised the principle that the corporate veil could be lifted, was described as a heresy by Hobhouse LJ in
1133:
318:
560:
1404:
1332:
894:
2313:
2525:
1382:
1281:
notwithstanding that under the rule in Salomon, it was the parent and not the subsidiary that had lost the business). Likewise, in
2468:
2282:
515:
2555:
2215:
1035:
724:
2133:
1613:
1587:, 56 Cal.2d 576 (1961). Mr. Minton's daughter drowned in the public swimming pool owned by Mr. Cavaney. Then-Associate Justice
2184:
2901:
1259:
419:
228:
1188:
407:
351:
310:
1796:
3201:
1376:
999:
937:
289:
2729:
77:
1501:
Factors that a court may consider when determining whether or not to pierce the corporate veil include the following:
3165:
3059:
2984:
2655:
2109:
356:
2894:
433:
334:
1798:
Piercing the Corporate Veil in American and German Law - Liability of Individuals and Entities: A Comparative View
849:
3160:
3069:
1932:
See further, E McGaughey, 'Donoghue v Salomon in the High Court' (2011) 4 Journal of Personal Injury Law 249, on
1623:
1622:(IRS) in the United States has made use of corporate veil piercing arguments and logic as a means of recapturing
1162:
1147:
923:
887:
781:
1472:, and if they operate in other states, they would apply for authority to do business in those other states as a
1449:"unity of interest and ownership": the separate personalities of the shareholder and corporation cease to exist,
3170:
1735:
1702:
1554:
1362:
1291:, held that the legal conception of the corporate structure was entirely distinct from the economic realities.
1119:
961:
17:
1091:
259:
193:
3024:
1346:
949:
911:
443:
3119:
1592:
1196:
756:, which is solely responsible for the debts it incurs and the sole beneficiary of the credit it is owed.
717:
107:
3044:
1643:
1627:
1599:
1398:
1318:
880:
326:
102:
87:
2645:
1263:. However this has largely been repudiated and has been treated with caution in subsequent judgments.
3175:
1656:
1278:
1268:
675:
610:
399:
269:
97:
2413:
2363:
3155:
3084:
2974:
2585:
2388:
2339:"Perpetual Real Estate Services, Inc. v. Michaelson Properties, Inc., 974 F.2d 545 (4th Cir. 1992)"
2338:
1619:
1209:
767:
A simple example would be where a businessperson has left their job as a director and has signed a
570:
437:
112:
72:
2959:
2944:
2934:
1296:
1049:
279:
200:
3196:
3114:
3064:
1575:
1283:
1077:
710:
592:
366:
239:
153:
118:
82:
36:
2060:
1859:
1480:
law is more liberal in allowing a corporate veil to be pierced, while the laws of neighboring
1039:
2999:
2994:
2939:
2873:
2714:
1969:
1769:
BGHZ 31, 258; BGHZ 68, 312; BGHZ 176, 204, pointing to tort liability under § 826 BGB instead
535:
67:
2819:
Hansmann, Henry; Kraakman, Reinier; Squire, Richard (2006). "Law and the Rise of the Firm".
2216:"Finding Order in the Morass: The Three Real Justifications for Piercing the Corporate Veil"
3039:
3019:
2989:
1469:
1306:
1011:
987:
753:
660:
597:
2152:
8:
2979:
1473:
1214:
1105:
804:
635:
389:
361:
215:
188:
183:
173:
1858:
see Alexander Schall, The New Law of Piercing the Veil in the UK, ECFR 2016, 549 - 574;
1109:
1081:
1053:
965:
3099:
3074:
3054:
3049:
3034:
3014:
2969:
2859:
2842:
2828:
2807:
2772:
2702:
1158:
1095:
824:
555:
475:
448:
128:
123:
92:
2787:
3109:
3089:
3079:
2651:
2105:
2056:
1731:
1698:
1386:
1301:
1245:
794:
776:
615:
485:
373:
248:
210:
205:
3004:
2851:
2799:
2764:
2755:
2741:
2694:
2586:"Curci Investments, LLC v. Baldwin, Cal. Ct. App. Case No. G052764 (Aug. 10, 2017)"
2438:
2245:
1920:
1710:
1668:
1588:
1559:
1489:
1441:
1431:
1418:
1123:
1067:
1063:
693:
680:
625:
525:
2556:"Reverse Piercing the Corporate Veil: Should Corporation Owners Have It Both Ways"
1137:
927:
3134:
3124:
3104:
3009:
2964:
2949:
2929:
2140:
1635:
1312:
1254:
1236:
665:
620:
343:
168:
1514:
Failure to observe corporate formalities in terms of behavior and documentation;
3029:
2164:
Thompson, Robert B. (1991), "Piercing the Corporate Veil: An Empirical Study",
1828:
1673:
1639:
1524:
Manipulation of assets or liabilities to concentrate the assets or liabilities;
1356:
1273:
1184:
1173:
975:
2753:
Dewey, John (1926). "The Historic Background of Corporate Legal Personality".
2745:
2047:
Capuano, Angelo (2009), "The Realist's Guide to Piercing the Corporate Veil",
872:
3190:
3094:
1208:
Tort victims and employees, who did not contract with a company or have very
775:
Despite the terminology used which makes it appear as though a shareholder's
427:
394:
44:
1713:, phrase, puppet, screen, sham, simulacrum, snare, stooge, subterfuge, tool.
803:
from personal liability for the debts or actions of a corporation. Unlike a
545:
1562:
decided there was no right to pierce the veil for a personal injury victim.
1539:
Use of the corporation as a façade for personal dealings (alter ego theory)
1464:
800:
764:, but in exceptional situations may "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil.
505:
495:
2886:
2918:
2318:
Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation
1240:
749:
745:
641:
178:
163:
158:
837:
2864:
2832:
2706:
1536:
Treatment by an individual of the assets of corporation as his/her own;
1477:
1219:
1212:, have been held to be exempted from the rules of limited liability in
761:
757:
698:
464:
414:
2811:
2777:
1801:
in: Tulsa Journal of Comparative and International Law, from 3-1-1995
2954:
1511:
Failure to maintain arm's length relationships with related entities;
1294:
The "single economic unit" theory was likewise rejected by the CA in
2855:
2698:
1933:
2803:
2768:
1634:
revenue, particularly from business entities created primarily for
1631:
1567:
Perpetual Real Estate Services, Inc. v. Michaelson Properties, Inc.
1414:
1223:
768:
670:
2730:"'Lifting the Veil' in the Company Laws of the European Continent"
1728:
Corporations and Other Business Organizations, Cases and Materials
1452:"wrongful conduct": wrongful action taken by the corporation, and
1354:" exception to the separate corporate personality. Similarly, in
148:
2685:
Berle, Adolf A., Jr. (1947). "The Theory of Enterprise Entity".
2500:"For U.S. tax cheats, Panama Papers reveal a perilous new world"
1751:
Rolf Serick, Rechtsform und Realität juristischer Personen, 1955
1518:
1481:
1337:
2185:"Piercing the Corporate Veil - The Undercapitalization Factor"
311:
Charitable incorporated organisation (England and Wales)
1351:
1341:
2788:"Toward unlimited shareholder liability for corporate torts"
1533:
Siphoning of corporate funds by the dominant shareholder(s);
799:
Corporations exist in part to shield the personal assets of
2414:"Kinney Shoe Corp. v. Polan, 939 F. 2d 209 (4th Cir. 1991)"
1889:
VTB Capital v Nutritek para 132 - 148 (per Lord Neuberger)
1860:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3538410
2314:"The Three Justifications for Piercing the Corporate Veil"
1230:
52:
2840:
Machen, Arthur W., Jr. (1910). "Corporate Personality".
2099:
744:
is a legal decision to treat the rights or duties of a
2818:
2364:"Fletcher v. Atex, Inc., 68 F. 3d 1451 (2d Cir. 1995)"
1760:
Wolfram MĂĽller-Freienfels, AcP 156 (1958), pp. 522-543
2469:"Family Limited Partnership Formation: Dueling Dicta"
1982:
MacLeod, Ceit-Anna (January 2014). "Case Commentary:
1527:
Non-functioning corporate officers and/or directors;
760:
countries usually uphold this principle of separate
2467:Gans, Mitchell M.; Blattmachr, Jonathan G. (2006).
1840:
VTB Capital v Nutritek UKSC 5, at paras. 121 - 130
2674:Tulsa Journal Comparative & International Law
2134:"Confiscation: lifting the veil of incorporation"
1496:
1194:According to a 1990 case at the Court of Appeal,
3188:
2785:
1880:Lady Hale, at para. 92; Lord Mance, at para. 100
1316:, and these doubts were shared by Moritt V-C in
1287:, Lord Goff, who had concurred in the result in
2734:The International and Comparative Law Quarterly
2524:Blank, Joshua D.; Staudt, Nancy C. (May 2012).
902:
2533:NYU Center for Law, Economics and Organization
2466:
788:
319:Scottish charitable incorporated organisation
2902:
1692:
1485:foreign corporation operating in California.
1203:
888:
718:
2878:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
2719:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
2643:
2100:Lindgren, Kevin E.; R. B. Vermeesch (1995),
1778:BGHZ 165, 85; BGH NZG 2008, 187, at para. 16
1721:
1719:
1508:Concealment or misrepresentation of members;
27:Temporary rescission of corporate personhood
2916:
2786:Hansmann, Henry; Kraakman, Reinier (1991).
2727:
2671:
2647:Corporations and Other Business Enterprises
2523:
2448:. Internal Revenue Service. 2 December 2011
1693:Henn, Harry G.; Alexander, John R. (1983).
1607:
1505:Absence or inaccuracy of corporate records;
2909:
2895:
2389:"Minton v. Cavaney, 56 Cal. 2d 576 (1961)"
2213:
1521:of the corporation and of the shareholder;
1385:upheld that refusal based on the separate
895:
881:
725:
711:
2863:
2776:
1725:
1716:
780:liability. Similarly, the United States'
2553:
2246:"Domination of a Subsidiary by a Parent"
2163:
1871:eg. Trustor v Smallbone (No 2) WLR 1177
752:. Usually a corporation is treated as a
2214:Macey, Jonathan; Mitts, Joshua (2014).
2046:
1981:
1975:
1953:King Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell UKSC 3
1036:Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council
14:
3189:
2839:
2497:
2276:
2274:
2003:
2001:
1614:United States Internal Revenue Service
1408:in which the court said (at para 76):
420:Limited liability limited partnership
335:Industrial and provident society
2890:
2752:
2684:
2644:Hazen, T. L.; Markham, J. W. (2003).
2311:
2243:
1994:(2). Edinburgh: Blacket Avenue Press.
1649:
1558:, 244 N.Y. 602, 155 N.E. 914 (1927).
1325:
1260:DHN Food Distributors v Tower Hamlets
876:
517:Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung
2312:Macey, Jonathan R. (27 March 2014).
2182:
1944:Vedanta Resources v Lungowe UKSC 20
1189:Corporate veil in the United Kingdom
832:
748:as the rights or liabilities of its
2535:. New York University School of Law
2271:
2049:Australian Journal of Corporate Law
1998:
1849:Prest v Petrodel Resources UKSC 34
1377:Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd
1369:
1344:the creditors of the defendant and
1134:VTB Capital plc v Nutritek Int Corp
1000:Littlewoods Mail Order Stores v IRC
938:Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd
24:
2650:. Thomson/West. pp. 124–144.
2280:
25:
3213:
2728:Cohn, E. J.; Simitis, C. (1963).
1463:There is also the matter of what
868:
3148:
3147:
1730:(9 ed.). Foundation Press.
1425:
1336:, where a company was used as a
924:Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd
836:
562:Société à responsabilité limitée
51:
2603:
2578:
2547:
2517:
2491:
2460:
2431:
2406:
2381:
2356:
2331:
2305:
2237:
2207:
2176:
2157:
2146:
2126:
2117:
2093:
2084:
2078:
2072:
2066:
2040:
2034:
2028:
2022:
2016:
2007:
1956:
1947:
1938:
1926:
1912:
1892:
1883:
1874:
1865:
1852:
1843:
1834:
1814:
1392:
1148:Lungowe v Vedanta Resources plc
782:Revised Uniform Partnership Act
2498:Higham, Scott (8 April 2016).
2183:Gelb, Harvey (December 1982).
1804:
1790:
1781:
1772:
1763:
1754:
1745:
1685:
1555:Berkey v. Third Avenue Railway
1497:Factors for courts to consider
1363:Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd
1120:Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd
13:
1:
2632:
2473:Capital University Law Review
2283:"Piercing the Corporate Veil"
1988:Scottish Parliamentary Review
1726:Eisenberg, Melvin A. (2005).
1591:(later Chief Justice) of the
1231:"Single economic unit" theory
1092:Trustor AB v Smallbone (No 2)
1347:Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne
950:Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne
444:Massachusetts business trust
7:
2560:William and Mary Law Review
1662:
1644:Family Limited Partnerships
1593:Supreme Court of California
1547:
1197:Adams v Cape Industries plc
1024:DHN Ltd v Tower Hamlets LBC
962:Lee v Lee's Air Farming Ltd
903:Corporate personality cases
789:Basis for limited liability
738:Piercing the corporate veil
631:Piercing the corporate veil
327:Community interest company
302:UK / Ireland / Commonwealth
290:Economic interest grouping
10:
3218:
3202:United Kingdom company law
2244:Rands, William J. (1998).
1901:Daimler v Continental Tyre
1697:(3 ed.). West Group.
1611:
1600:Kinney Shoe Corp. v. Polan
1440:In most jurisdictions, no
1429:
1399:Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
1319:Trustor v Smallbone (No 2)
1204:Tort victims and employees
1182:
822:
818:
792:
742:lifting the corporate veil
400:Limited liability company
3143:
2925:
2102:Business Law of Australia
2090:Prest v Petrodel UKSC 34
1823:Gilford Motor Ltd v Horne
1657:limited liability company
1279:compulsory purchase order
1269:Woolfson v Strathclyde BC
1170:
1156:
1144:
1130:
1116:
1102:
1088:
1074:
1060:
1046:
1032:
1020:
1008:
996:
984:
972:
958:
946:
934:
920:
912:Case of Sutton's Hospital
908:
611:Internal affairs doctrine
606:and estoppel corporations
3166:Aspects of organizations
1679:
1620:Internal Revenue Service
1608:Internal Revenue Service
1210:unequal bargaining power
35:This article is part of
3060:Social entrepreneurship
2746:10.1093/iclqaj/12.1.189
2615:ProfessorBainbridge.com
2554:Gaertner, M.J. (1988).
2446:Office of Chief Counsel
2189:Chicago Kent Law Review
1297:Adams v Cape Industries
1050:Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd
281:Societas unius personae
143:General corporate forms
3161:Aspects of occupations
1638:purposes. A number of
1576:Fletcher v. Atex, Inc.
1470:"domestic" corporation
1423:
1284:Bank of Tokyo v Karoon
1235:Within the context of
1078:Gencor ACP Ltd v Dalby
593:Business judgment rule
3171:Aspects of workplaces
3070:Social responsibility
2287:Willamette Law Review
1965:The Coral Rose (No 1)
1618:In recent years, the
1474:"foreign" corporation
1410:
754:separate legal person
537:Naamloze vennootschap
527:Kabushiki gaisha
344:Limited company
2611:"Stephen Bainbridge"
2439:"Notice CC-2012-002"
1340:(per Russell J.) to
1307:Creasey v Breachwood
1012:Wallersteiner v Moir
988:Tunstall v Steigmann
811:inequitable result.
661:Beneficial ownership
598:Corporate governance
434:Delaware corporation
261:Societas cooperativa
2687:Columbia Law Review
1695:Law of Corporations
1241:English company law
1215:Chandler v Cape plc
1106:Chandler v Cape plc
805:general partnership
676:Corporate registers
636:Rochdale Principles
390:Benefit corporation
216:Sole proprietorship
3152:See also templates
2843:Harvard Law Review
2821:Harvard Law Review
2253:Indiana Law Review
2220:Cornell Law Review
2166:Cornell Law Review
2139:2013-07-04 at the
1326:Perfect obligation
1165:arts 1(2)(d) and 4
1159:Rome II Regulation
848:. You can help by
825:German company law
477:Aktiengesellschaft
449:Nevada corporation
3184:
3183:
2526:"Corporate Shams"
2281:Barber, David H.
1584:Minton v. Cavaney
1517:Intermingling of
1490:corporate actions
1387:legal personality
1246:Salomon v Salomon
1180:
1179:
866:
865:
795:Limited liability
777:limited liability
735:
734:
616:Limited liability
578:
577:
487:Ansvarlig selskap
374:Unlimited company
211:Shelf corporation
206:Shell corporation
194:Limited liability
16:(Redirected from
3209:
3176:Corporate titles
3151:
3150:
2985:Machiavellianism
2911:
2904:
2897:
2888:
2887:
2883:
2877:
2869:
2867:
2836:
2827:(5): 1333–1403.
2815:
2798:(7): 1879–1934.
2792:Yale Law Journal
2782:
2780:
2756:Yale Law Journal
2749:
2724:
2718:
2710:
2681:
2661:
2627:
2626:
2624:
2622:
2617:. 12 August 2017
2607:
2601:
2600:
2598:
2596:
2582:
2576:
2575:
2573:
2571:
2551:
2545:
2544:
2542:
2540:
2530:
2521:
2515:
2514:
2512:
2510:
2495:
2489:
2488:
2486:
2484:
2464:
2458:
2457:
2455:
2453:
2443:
2435:
2429:
2428:
2426:
2424:
2410:
2404:
2403:
2401:
2399:
2385:
2379:
2378:
2376:
2374:
2360:
2354:
2353:
2351:
2349:
2335:
2329:
2328:
2326:
2324:
2309:
2303:
2302:
2300:
2298:
2278:
2269:
2268:
2266:
2264:
2250:
2241:
2235:
2234:
2232:
2230:
2211:
2205:
2204:
2202:
2200:
2180:
2174:
2173:
2161:
2155:
2150:
2144:
2130:
2124:
2121:
2115:
2114:
2104:, Butterworths,
2097:
2091:
2088:
2082:
2076:
2070:
2064:
2063:
2044:
2038:
2032:
2026:
2020:
2014:
2011:
2005:
1996:
1995:
1984:Prest v Petrodel
1979:
1973:
1960:
1954:
1951:
1945:
1942:
1936:
1930:
1924:
1921:Lubbe v Cape Plc
1916:
1910:
1896:
1890:
1887:
1881:
1878:
1872:
1869:
1863:
1856:
1850:
1847:
1841:
1838:
1832:
1818:
1812:
1808:
1802:
1794:
1788:
1785:
1779:
1776:
1770:
1767:
1761:
1758:
1752:
1749:
1743:
1741:
1723:
1714:
1711:nominal identity
1708:
1689:
1669:US corporate law
1650:Reverse piercing
1642:cases involving
1589:Roger J. Traynor
1560:Benjamin Cardozo
1442:bright-line rule
1432:US corporate law
1389:of the company.
1370:Reverse piercing
1064:Lubbe v Cape Plc
915:(1612) 77 ER 960
897:
890:
883:
874:
873:
861:
858:
840:
833:
727:
720:
713:
681:Registered agent
626:Drag-along right
566:
551:
541:
531:
521:
511:
501:
491:
481:
471:
440:
423:
403:
347:
338:
330:
322:
314:
303:
293:
285:
275:
271:Societas privata
265:
255:
236:
235:
55:
32:
31:
21:
3217:
3216:
3212:
3211:
3210:
3208:
3207:
3206:
3187:
3186:
3185:
3180:
3156:Aspects of jobs
3139:
2921:
2915:
2871:
2870:
2856:10.2307/1324056
2712:
2711:
2699:10.2307/1118398
2658:
2635:
2630:
2620:
2618:
2609:
2608:
2604:
2594:
2592:
2584:
2583:
2579:
2569:
2567:
2552:
2548:
2538:
2536:
2528:
2522:
2518:
2508:
2506:
2504:Washington Post
2496:
2492:
2482:
2480:
2465:
2461:
2451:
2449:
2441:
2437:
2436:
2432:
2422:
2420:
2412:
2411:
2407:
2397:
2395:
2387:
2386:
2382:
2372:
2370:
2362:
2361:
2357:
2347:
2345:
2337:
2336:
2332:
2322:
2320:
2310:
2306:
2296:
2294:
2279:
2272:
2262:
2260:
2248:
2242:
2238:
2228:
2226:
2212:
2208:
2198:
2196:
2181:
2177:
2162:
2158:
2151:
2147:
2141:Wayback Machine
2131:
2127:
2122:
2118:
2112:
2098:
2094:
2089:
2085:
2079:
2073:
2067:
2045:
2041:
2035:
2029:
2023:
2017:
2012:
2008:
1999:
1980:
1976:
1961:
1957:
1952:
1948:
1943:
1939:
1931:
1927:
1917:
1913:
1907:Re FG Films Ltd
1897:
1893:
1888:
1884:
1879:
1875:
1870:
1866:
1857:
1853:
1848:
1844:
1839:
1835:
1819:
1815:
1809:
1805:
1795:
1791:
1786:
1782:
1777:
1773:
1768:
1764:
1759:
1755:
1750:
1746:
1738:
1724:
1717:
1705:
1690:
1686:
1682:
1665:
1652:
1636:estate planning
1616:
1610:
1550:
1499:
1434:
1428:
1395:
1372:
1328:
1313:Ord v Bellhaven
1255:Lord Denning MR
1237:competition law
1233:
1206:
1191:
1181:
1176:
1166:
1152:
1140:
1126:
1112:
1098:
1084:
1070:
1056:
1042:
1028:
1016:
1004:
992:
980:
968:
954:
942:
930:
916:
904:
901:
871:
862:
856:
853:
846:needs expansion
827:
821:
797:
791:
731:
686:
685:
666:Civil procedure
656:
648:
647:
621:Tag-along right
588:
580:
579:
564:
549:
539:
529:
519:
509:
499:
489:
479:
469:
438:statutory trust
432:
421:
401:
345:
342:
336:
328:
320:
312:
301:
291:
283:
273:
263:
253:
233:
231:by jurisdiction
230:
229:Corporate forms
221:
220:
201:Private limited
169:Holding company
144:
136:
135:
117:
63:
62:By jurisdiction
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
3215:
3205:
3204:
3199:
3182:
3181:
3179:
3178:
3173:
3168:
3163:
3158:
3153:
3144:
3141:
3140:
3138:
3137:
3132:
3127:
3122:
3117:
3112:
3107:
3102:
3097:
3092:
3087:
3085:Sustainability
3082:
3077:
3072:
3067:
3062:
3057:
3052:
3047:
3042:
3037:
3032:
3027:
3022:
3017:
3012:
3007:
3002:
2997:
2992:
2987:
2982:
2977:
2972:
2967:
2962:
2957:
2952:
2947:
2942:
2937:
2932:
2926:
2923:
2922:
2914:
2913:
2906:
2899:
2891:
2885:
2884:
2850:(4): 253–267.
2837:
2816:
2804:10.2307/796812
2783:
2769:10.2307/788782
2763:(6): 655–673.
2750:
2740:(1): 189–225.
2725:
2693:(3): 343–358.
2682:
2668:
2667:
2663:
2662:
2656:
2640:
2639:
2634:
2631:
2629:
2628:
2602:
2590:Google Scholar
2577:
2546:
2516:
2490:
2459:
2430:
2418:Google Scholar
2405:
2393:Google Scholar
2380:
2368:Google Scholar
2355:
2343:Google Scholar
2330:
2304:
2270:
2236:
2206:
2175:
2156:
2153:EWCA Crim 1303
2145:
2125:
2116:
2110:
2092:
2083:
2077:
2071:
2065:
2039:
2033:
2027:
2021:
2015:
2006:
1997:
1974:
1955:
1946:
1937:
1925:
1911:
1891:
1882:
1873:
1864:
1851:
1842:
1833:
1829:Jones v Lipman
1813:
1803:
1789:
1780:
1771:
1762:
1753:
1744:
1736:
1715:
1703:
1683:
1681:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1674:UK company law
1671:
1664:
1661:
1651:
1648:
1640:U.S. Tax Court
1609:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1596:
1580:
1572:
1563:
1549:
1546:
1541:
1540:
1537:
1534:
1531:
1528:
1525:
1522:
1515:
1512:
1509:
1506:
1498:
1495:
1457:
1456:
1453:
1450:
1427:
1424:
1419:Jennings v CPS
1394:
1391:
1383:House of Lords
1371:
1368:
1357:Gencor v Dalby
1327:
1324:
1274:House of Lords
1232:
1229:
1205:
1202:
1185:UK company law
1178:
1177:
1174:UK company law
1171:
1168:
1167:
1157:
1154:
1153:
1145:
1142:
1141:
1131:
1128:
1127:
1117:
1114:
1113:
1103:
1100:
1099:
1089:
1086:
1085:
1082:EWHC 1560 (Ch)
1075:
1072:
1071:
1061:
1058:
1057:
1047:
1044:
1043:
1033:
1030:
1029:
1021:
1018:
1017:
1009:
1006:
1005:
997:
994:
993:
985:
982:
981:
976:Jones v Lipman
973:
970:
969:
959:
956:
955:
947:
944:
943:
935:
932:
931:
921:
918:
917:
909:
906:
905:
900:
899:
892:
885:
877:
870:
869:United Kingdom
867:
864:
863:
843:
841:
820:
817:
790:
787:
733:
732:
730:
729:
722:
715:
707:
704:
703:
702:
701:
696:
694:Company portal
688:
687:
684:
683:
678:
673:
668:
663:
657:
654:
653:
650:
649:
646:
645:
638:
633:
628:
623:
618:
613:
608:
600:
595:
589:
586:
585:
582:
581:
576:
575:
574:
573:
568:
558:
553:
543:
533:
523:
513:
503:
493:
483:
473:
459:
458:
454:
453:
452:
451:
446:
441:
430:
425:
417:
412:
411:
410:
408:Low-profit LLC
397:
392:
384:
383:
379:
378:
377:
376:
371:
370:
369:
364:
359:
354:
340:
332:
324:
316:
305:
304:
298:
297:
296:
295:
287:
277:
267:
257:
243:
242:
240:European Union
234:
227:
226:
223:
222:
219:
218:
213:
208:
203:
198:
197:
196:
191:
186:
176:
171:
166:
161:
156:
151:
145:
142:
141:
138:
137:
134:
133:
132:
131:
126:
119:European Union
115:
110:
105:
100:
95:
90:
88:Cayman Islands
85:
80:
75:
70:
64:
61:
60:
57:
56:
48:
47:
41:
40:
26:
18:Corporate veil
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3214:
3203:
3200:
3198:
3197:Corporate law
3195:
3194:
3192:
3177:
3174:
3172:
3169:
3167:
3164:
3162:
3159:
3157:
3154:
3146:
3145:
3142:
3136:
3133:
3131:
3128:
3126:
3123:
3121:
3118:
3116:
3113:
3111:
3108:
3106:
3103:
3101:
3098:
3096:
3093:
3091:
3088:
3086:
3083:
3081:
3078:
3076:
3073:
3071:
3068:
3066:
3063:
3061:
3058:
3056:
3053:
3051:
3048:
3046:
3043:
3041:
3038:
3036:
3033:
3031:
3028:
3026:
3023:
3021:
3018:
3016:
3013:
3011:
3008:
3006:
3003:
3001:
2998:
2996:
2993:
2991:
2988:
2986:
2983:
2981:
2978:
2976:
2973:
2971:
2968:
2966:
2963:
2961:
2960:Entertainment
2958:
2956:
2953:
2951:
2948:
2946:
2945:Communication
2943:
2941:
2938:
2936:
2935:Appointeeship
2933:
2931:
2928:
2927:
2924:
2920:
2912:
2907:
2905:
2900:
2898:
2893:
2892:
2889:
2881:
2875:
2866:
2861:
2857:
2853:
2849:
2845:
2844:
2838:
2834:
2830:
2826:
2822:
2817:
2813:
2809:
2805:
2801:
2797:
2793:
2789:
2784:
2779:
2774:
2770:
2766:
2762:
2758:
2757:
2751:
2747:
2743:
2739:
2735:
2731:
2726:
2722:
2716:
2708:
2704:
2700:
2696:
2692:
2688:
2683:
2679:
2675:
2670:
2669:
2665:
2664:
2659:
2657:0-314-26476-0
2653:
2649:
2648:
2642:
2641:
2637:
2636:
2616:
2612:
2606:
2591:
2587:
2581:
2565:
2561:
2557:
2550:
2534:
2527:
2520:
2505:
2501:
2494:
2478:
2474:
2470:
2463:
2447:
2440:
2434:
2419:
2415:
2409:
2394:
2390:
2384:
2369:
2365:
2359:
2344:
2340:
2334:
2319:
2315:
2308:
2292:
2288:
2284:
2277:
2275:
2258:
2254:
2247:
2240:
2225:
2221:
2217:
2210:
2194:
2190:
2186:
2179:
2171:
2167:
2160:
2154:
2149:
2142:
2138:
2135:
2132:David Winch,
2129:
2120:
2113:
2111:0-409-30675-4
2107:
2103:
2096:
2087:
2081:
2075:
2069:
2062:
2058:
2054:
2050:
2043:
2037:
2031:
2025:
2019:
2010:
2004:
2002:
1993:
1989:
1985:
1978:
1971:
1967:
1966:
1959:
1950:
1941:
1935:
1929:
1923:
1922:
1915:
1909:
1908:
1903:
1902:
1895:
1886:
1877:
1868:
1861:
1855:
1846:
1837:
1831:
1830:
1825:
1824:
1817:
1807:
1800:
1799:
1793:
1787:BGHZ 173, 246
1784:
1775:
1766:
1757:
1748:
1739:
1733:
1729:
1722:
1720:
1712:
1706:
1700:
1696:
1688:
1684:
1675:
1672:
1670:
1667:
1666:
1660:
1658:
1647:
1645:
1641:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1625:
1621:
1615:
1602:
1601:
1597:
1594:
1590:
1586:
1585:
1581:
1578:
1577:
1573:
1569:
1568:
1564:
1561:
1557:
1556:
1552:
1551:
1545:
1538:
1535:
1532:
1529:
1526:
1523:
1520:
1516:
1513:
1510:
1507:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1494:
1491:
1486:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1466:
1461:
1454:
1451:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1443:
1438:
1433:
1426:United States
1422:
1420:
1416:
1409:
1407:
1406:
1400:
1390:
1388:
1384:
1379:
1378:
1367:
1365:
1364:
1359:
1358:
1353:
1349:
1348:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1334:
1330:The cases of
1323:
1321:
1320:
1315:
1314:
1309:
1308:
1303:
1299:
1298:
1292:
1290:
1286:
1285:
1280:
1275:
1271:
1270:
1264:
1262:
1261:
1256:
1250:
1248:
1247:
1242:
1238:
1228:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1216:
1211:
1201:
1199:
1198:
1190:
1186:
1175:
1169:
1164:
1160:
1155:
1150:
1149:
1143:
1139:
1136:
1135:
1129:
1125:
1122:
1121:
1115:
1111:
1108:
1107:
1101:
1097:
1096:EWHC 703 (Ch)
1094:
1093:
1087:
1083:
1080:
1079:
1073:
1069:
1066:
1065:
1059:
1055:
1052:
1051:
1045:
1041:
1038:
1037:
1031:
1026:
1025:
1019:
1014:
1013:
1007:
1002:
1001:
995:
990:
989:
983:
978:
977:
971:
967:
964:
963:
957:
952:
951:
945:
940:
939:
933:
929:
926:
925:
919:
914:
913:
907:
898:
893:
891:
886:
884:
879:
878:
875:
860:
851:
847:
844:This section
842:
839:
835:
834:
831:
826:
816:
812:
808:
806:
802:
796:
786:
783:
778:
773:
770:
765:
763:
759:
755:
751:
747:
743:
739:
728:
723:
721:
716:
714:
709:
708:
706:
705:
700:
697:
695:
692:
691:
690:
689:
682:
679:
677:
674:
672:
669:
667:
664:
662:
659:
658:
655:Related areas
652:
651:
644:
643:
639:
637:
634:
632:
629:
627:
624:
622:
619:
617:
614:
612:
609:
607:
605:
601:
599:
596:
594:
591:
590:
584:
583:
572:
569:
567:
563:
559:
557:
554:
552:
548:
544:
542:
538:
534:
532:
528:
524:
522:
518:
514:
512:
508:
504:
502:
498:
494:
492:
488:
484:
482:
478:
474:
472:
467:
463:
462:
461:
460:
456:
455:
450:
447:
445:
442:
439:
435:
431:
429:
428:S corporation
426:
424:
418:
416:
413:
409:
406:
405:
404:
398:
396:
395:C corporation
393:
391:
388:
387:
386:
385:
382:United States
381:
380:
375:
372:
368:
365:
363:
360:
358:
355:
353:
350:
349:
348:
341:
339:
333:
331:
325:
323:
317:
315:
309:
308:
307:
306:
300:
299:
294:
288:
286:
282:
278:
276:
272:
268:
266:
262:
258:
256:
251:
247:
246:
245:
244:
241:
238:
237:
232:
225:
224:
217:
214:
212:
209:
207:
204:
202:
199:
195:
192:
190:
187:
185:
182:
181:
180:
177:
175:
172:
170:
167:
165:
162:
160:
157:
155:
152:
150:
147:
146:
140:
139:
130:
127:
125:
122:
121:
120:
116:
114:
111:
109:
108:United States
106:
104:
101:
99:
96:
94:
91:
89:
86:
84:
81:
79:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
65:
59:
58:
54:
50:
49:
46:
45:Corporate law
43:
42:
38:
34:
33:
30:
19:
3129:
3115:Transparency
3065:Social media
2919:corporations
2874:cite journal
2847:
2841:
2824:
2820:
2795:
2791:
2760:
2754:
2737:
2733:
2715:cite journal
2690:
2686:
2677:
2673:
2646:
2619:. Retrieved
2614:
2605:
2593:. Retrieved
2589:
2580:
2568:. Retrieved
2563:
2559:
2549:
2537:. Retrieved
2532:
2519:
2507:. Retrieved
2503:
2493:
2481:. Retrieved
2476:
2472:
2462:
2450:. Retrieved
2445:
2433:
2421:. Retrieved
2417:
2408:
2396:. Retrieved
2392:
2383:
2371:. Retrieved
2367:
2358:
2346:. Retrieved
2342:
2333:
2321:. Retrieved
2317:
2307:
2295:. Retrieved
2290:
2286:
2261:. Retrieved
2256:
2252:
2239:
2227:. Retrieved
2223:
2219:
2209:
2197:. Retrieved
2192:
2188:
2178:
2169:
2165:
2159:
2148:
2128:
2119:
2101:
2095:
2086:
2080:
2074:
2068:
2055:(1): 56–94,
2052:
2048:
2042:
2036:
2030:
2024:
2018:
2009:
1991:
1987:
1983:
1977:
1970:Staughton LJ
1963:
1958:
1949:
1940:
1928:
1919:
1914:
1905:
1899:
1894:
1885:
1876:
1867:
1854:
1845:
1836:
1827:
1821:
1816:
1806:
1797:
1792:
1783:
1774:
1765:
1756:
1747:
1727:
1694:
1687:
1653:
1617:
1598:
1582:
1574:
1565:
1553:
1542:
1500:
1487:
1465:jurisdiction
1462:
1458:
1439:
1435:
1411:
1403:
1396:
1393:Criminal law
1375:
1373:
1361:
1355:
1345:
1331:
1329:
1317:
1311:
1305:
1295:
1293:
1288:
1282:
1267:
1265:
1258:
1251:
1244:
1234:
1213:
1207:
1195:
1192:
1146:
1132:
1118:
1110:EWCA Civ 525
1104:
1090:
1076:
1062:
1054:EWCA Civ 243
1048:
1034:
1022:
1010:
998:
986:
974:
960:
948:
936:
922:
910:
854:
850:adding to it
845:
828:
813:
809:
801:shareholders
798:
774:
766:
750:shareholders
741:
737:
736:
640:
630:
603:
561:
546:
536:
526:
516:
507:Aksjeselskap
506:
497:Aktieselskab
496:
486:
476:
465:
352:by guarantee
280:
270:
260:
249:
154:Conglomerate
98:South Africa
29:
3025:Psychopathy
3000:Opportunity
2995:Nationalism
2940:Citizenship
2917:Aspects of
2621:9 September
2595:9 September
2570:9 September
2539:9 September
2509:9 September
2483:9 September
2452:9 September
2423:9 September
2398:9 September
2373:9 September
2348:9 September
2323:9 September
2297:9 September
2263:9 September
2229:9 September
2199:9 September
2172:: 1036–1074
1742:, ch 4, 171
1691:See, e.g.,
746:corporation
642:Ultra vires
362:proprietary
179:Partnership
174:Joint-stock
164:Corporation
159:Cooperative
3191:Categories
3040:Resolution
3020:Propaganda
2990:Narcissism
2975:Interlocks
2633:References
1737:1587788799
1704:0314092293
1612:See also:
1478:California
1430:See also:
1405:R v Seager
1220:asbestosis
1183:See also:
1003:1 WLR 1214
823:See also:
793:See also:
762:personhood
758:Common law
699:Law portal
547:Osakeyhtiö
466:Aktiebolag
415:Series LLC
2980:Liability
2955:Despotism
1333:Tan v Lim
1027:1 WLR 852
1015:1 WLR 991
979:1 WLR 832
857:July 2010
587:Doctrines
357:by shares
73:Australia
3100:Taxonomy
3075:Sourcing
3055:Services
3050:Security
3045:Scandals
3035:Recovery
3015:Promoter
2970:Identity
2666:Articles
2137:Archived
1663:See also
1632:gift tax
1548:Examples
1415:mens rea
1338:"façade"
1302:Slade LJ
1300:, where
1224:Arden LJ
1163:864/2007
1161:(EC) No
991:2 QB 593
769:contract
671:Contract
604:De facto
436: /
250:Societas
68:Anguilla
37:a series
3110:Trainer
3090:Synergy
3080:Statism
2865:1324056
2833:4093574
2707:1118398
2061:1369110
1342:defraud
1151:UKSC 20
1124:UKSC 34
1068:UKHL 41
966:UKPC 33
819:Germany
571:more...
189:Limited
184:General
149:Company
129:Germany
113:Vietnam
3120:Travel
3005:Pathos
2965:Ethics
2862:
2831:
2812:796812
2810:
2778:788782
2775:
2705:
2680:: 187.
2654:
2143:(2013)
2123:AC 619
2108:
2059:
1968:, per
1734:
1701:
1628:estate
1624:income
1519:assets
1482:Nevada
1272:, the
1138:UKSC 5
1040:UKHL 5
953:Ch 935
941:AC 619
928:UKHL 1
565:(SARL)
540:(N.V.)
530:(K.K.)
520:(GmbH)
468:
457:Others
422:(LLLP)
367:public
346:(Ltd.)
321:(SCIO)
292:(EEIG)
252:
124:France
83:Canada
3135:Video
3125:Trust
3105:Title
3010:Power
2950:Crime
2930:Abuse
2860:JSTOR
2829:JSTOR
2808:JSTOR
2773:JSTOR
2703:JSTOR
2638:Books
2566:: 667
2529:(PDF)
2442:(PDF)
2293:: 371
2259:: 421
2249:(PDF)
1918:e.g.
1898:e.g.
1820:e.g.
1680:Notes
1630:, or
1352:fraud
500:(A/S)
490:(ANS)
402:(LLC)
337:(IPS)
329:(CIC)
313:(CIO)
284:(SUP)
274:(SPE)
264:(SCE)
93:India
3130:Veil
3030:Raid
2880:link
2721:link
2652:ISBN
2623:2017
2597:2017
2572:2017
2541:2017
2511:2017
2485:2017
2454:2017
2425:2017
2400:2017
2375:2017
2350:2017
2325:2017
2299:2017
2265:2017
2231:2017
2201:2017
2106:ISBN
2057:SSRN
2013:(PC)
1962:see
1934:SSRN
1904:and
1826:and
1811:661.
1732:ISBN
1699:ISBN
1571:bill
1187:and
1172:see
556:S.A.
550:(Oy)
510:(AS)
480:(AG)
470:(AB)
254:(SE)
3095:Tax
2852:doi
2825:119
2800:doi
2796:100
2765:doi
2742:doi
2695:doi
2479:: 1
2224:100
2195:(1)
1986:".
1289:DHN
1266:In
852:.
740:or
78:BVI
3193::
2876:}}
2872:{{
2858:.
2848:24
2846:.
2823:.
2806:.
2794:.
2790:.
2771:.
2761:35
2759:.
2738:12
2736:.
2732:.
2717:}}
2713:{{
2701:.
2691:47
2689:.
2676:.
2613:.
2588:.
2564:30
2562:.
2558:.
2531:.
2502:.
2477:35
2475:.
2471:.
2444:.
2416:.
2391:.
2366:.
2341:.
2316:.
2291:17
2289:.
2285:.
2273:^
2257:32
2255:.
2251:.
2222:.
2218:.
2193:59
2191:.
2187:.
2170:76
2168:,
2053:23
2051:,
2000:^
1990:.
1718:^
1626:,
1366:.
1222:.
103:UK
39:on
2910:e
2903:t
2896:v
2882:)
2868:.
2854::
2835:.
2814:.
2802::
2781:.
2767::
2748:.
2744::
2723:)
2709:.
2697::
2678:2
2660:.
2625:.
2599:.
2574:.
2543:.
2513:.
2487:.
2456:.
2427:.
2402:.
2377:.
2352:.
2327:.
2301:.
2267:.
2233:.
2203:.
1992:I
1972:.
1862:)
1740:.
1707:.
896:e
889:t
882:v
859:)
855:(
726:e
719:t
712:v
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
