Chapter 2: A synopsis of the corporate veil principle in Salomon v Salomon, and its development. 2.1 Introduction It is necessary to detail the history and development of the corporate veil principle to better understand how it is to be applied in matrimonial matters. This chapter shall focus on the corporate veil principle from the case of Salomon v. Salomon to the varied and frequently diluted circumstances in which it has been put to use, in regards to family law cases. Focus shall be paid to the theories put forward for instituting the piercing/lifting of the corporate veil, the application of the principle, and the pioneering cases at each stage of its development together with its formulation and application under current law. 2.2 The Corporate Veil: Before and after Salomon. First and foremost, it is critical in the pursuit of a full understanding of the principle of the corporate veil for the reader to appreciate that no strict and clearly defined rule for its application exists. This is evidenced from the manner in which it is employed, in our courts and abroad. Smith and Keenan in recognition of this state of affairs note that it is difficult to presume a specific formula exists. They further hold that the piercing of the veil can be viewed as a “tactic used by the judiciary in a flexible way to counter fraud, sharp practice, oppression and illegality.” The theory was cemented in law in the case of the case of
During my courses, I frequently remind students that most corporate executives, accountants, and auditors are honest and ethical. This case provides a stark and powerful example of one such individual. When I discuss a case such as this in my courses, I try to provide other examples of positive role models among corporate executives. Granted, most of these examples do not involve accounting or auditing matters, but, nevertheless, they help to blunt the impression that students may receive from studying my cases that most corporate executives are “crooks.”
"Factors considered by the court in determining whether to pierce the corporate veil include failure to
This essay will explain the concepts of separate personality and limited liability and their significance in company law. The principle of separate personality is defined in the Companies Act 2006(CA) ; “subscribers to the memorandum, together with such other persons as may from time to time become members of the company are a body corporate by the name contained in memorandum.” This essentially means that a company is a separate legal personality to its members and therefore can itself be sued and enter into contracts. This theory was birthed into company law through the case of Salomon v Salomon and Co LTD 1872. This case involved a company entering liquidation and the unsecured creditors not being able to claim assets to compensate them. The issue in this case was whether Mr Salomon owed the money or the company did. In the end, the House of Lords held that the company was not an agent of Mr Salomon and so the debts were that of the company thus creating the “corporate Veil” .
Yes Potterschmidt has enough evidence to permit a veil piercing. He can prove intermingling of assets of the corporation and manipulation of assets or liabilities to concentrate the assets or liabilities.
One of the most controversial topics concerning Muslim women’s rights is the idea of the veil. It is believed by some Muslims that the veil is an Islamic obligation that all Muslim women must adhere to. But nowadays, the veil can have different meanings that are not necessarily religious. In her article “Reinventing the Veil,” Leila Ahmed addresses some of the different meanings that the veil can have. Marjane Satrapi explores one of those meanings in her animated autobiography Persepolis (2008). In Persepolis, Marjane tells the story of her rebellion against the Iranian Islamist regime that takes over Iran, oppresses women, and forces them to wear the veil. What was interesting to me was seeing Marjane wear the veil without being oppressed, although she does not believe in it, and is being forced to wear it. In Persepolis, Marjane Satrapi escapes being a subject to the Iranian Islamist ideology by establishing her individual identity through transforming the veil from a means of oppression into a means of feminist rebellion.
2. Is it possible to lift or pierce the corporate veil of corporate groups on the basis that:
“We have completed this assignment on our own and have not discussed it with any other individual or used any other unauthorized aids. We acknowledge compliance with the academic requirements (e.g. citation of sources) of the University of Toronto.”
Massachusetts courts have enforced non-compete contractual agreements where necessary to protect trade secrets, confidential data, or the employer’s good will. In doing so, the courts balance the reasonable needs of the former employer against concern for the right of the employee to earn a living. They also take into consideration the public’s interest in not enforcing these agreements if they interfere with ordinary, healthy competition.
The purpose of the textbook, Who Rules America? by G. William Domhoff, is to explain his theory of Class Domination. My essay emphasises the relation of social class to power, the existence of a Corporate community, the relationship of the Corporate community to the upper class, and various methods used by the Corporate community to dominate the U.S Political System. Furthermore, my essay will discuss the potential limits to corporate power in America.
In the Encyclopaedia of White-Collar Crime, co-authors Jurg Gerber and Eric. L Jensen define corporate crime as “violations of federal or state laws that are committed by employees on behalf of the company rather than simply for their own gain.” The definition and classification of what falls under a corporate crime is highly problematic in that corporations can afford defence lawyers that can find loopholes in the legislation in order to avoid charges. Even more perplexing, is that “corporations define the laws under which they live” according to Russell Mokhiber report’s Top 100 Corporate Criminals of the Decade (1996) published in the Corporate Crime Reporter. Mokhiber introduces the example that “the automobile industry... has worked its will on Congress to block legislation that would impose criminal sanctions on knowing and wilful
Brenda Franklin had been serving Allied Tech for the past 8 years. As any other organisations, Brenda used to be a part of the lunch hour conversations with her colleagues. One day when her colleagues were discussing about corruption and politics, something occurred to her. As a result she prepared a list called “Ethically Dubious Conduct” and pasted it on the common notice board. Her colleagues were taken by surprise. Brenda was now anticipating the next lunch where she was expecting her list to be analysed among her colleagues.
This paper provides an in-depth evaluation of Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which is said to be promoted to produce change in the corporate environment, in general, by stressing issues of public accountability and disclosure in the financial operations of business. It explains how this is an Act that represents the government's and the Security and Exchange Commission's concern in promoting ethical standards in terms of financial disclosure in the corporate environment.
The above formula isolates free cash flows to the firm from earnings before interest and tax (EBIT). It can be noted that FCFF are after tax (1-T) but prior to interest expense. This initial overstatement of due tax is by design; the tax deductibility of interest payments will be accounted for when incorporating the after-tax cost of debt in the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) to determine the present value of free cash flows.
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
This doctrine has been seen as a “two- edged sword,” reason being that at a general level while it was seen as a good decision in that by establishing that corporations are separate legal entities, Salomon 's case endowed the company with the entire requisite attributes with which to become the powerhouse of capitalism. At a particular level, however, it was a bad decision. By extending the benefits of incorporation to small private enterprises, Salomon 's case has promoted fraud and the evasion of legal obligations.