Corporate Ethics : Corporate Veil And Limited Liability

671 [2d Dept. 2010], internal citations omitted). "Additionally, the corporate veil will be pierced to achieve equity, even absent fraud, [w]hen a corporation has been so dominated by an individual or another corporation and its separate entity so ignored that it primarily transacts the dominator 's business instead of its own and can be called the other 's alter ego '" (Id. at 671-672, internal citations omitted). "[A] party seeking to pierce the corporate veil must establish that (1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and (2) that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in the plaintiff 's injury" (Superior Transcribing Serv., LLC v Paul, 72 AD3d 675, 676 [2d Dept. 2010], internal citations omitted).

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” .

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

Consumers use a variety of products on a daily basis to assist them in accomplishing a task or completing a project and they expect the product to be properly designed and safe to use. However, in the event that a product is defective and causes injury to the person using it, the manufacturer may be liable for the injury and have to compensate the injured person (s). Companies that manufacture products need to be sure they are doing all within their power to assemble products that are free of defects that could accidentally cause harm and cost the company. Product liability is the

As a general rule of thumb, shareholders of US corporations are not personally liable for the debts, taxes, obligations or actions of the corporation in which they are a member. This shield from personally liability is known as the corporate veil. The corporate veil, a cornerstone of American corporate law, derives from the fact that corporations in America are regarded as legal personalities, distinct and separate from their shareholders; a concept that gives a little context to the now infamous “Corporations are people!” “blunder” by former presidential candidate Mitt Romney during the 2012 election cycle. The corporate veil also protects parent companies from the debts, taxes, and obligations of subsidiaries. This protection is hailed by many scholars in the area of corporate law because it is believed to be an encouraging factor in the formation new business, which helps to develop and maintain a healthy economy. While it is true and widely accepted that under certain circumstances corporate entities should be regarded as separate and distinct from their individual shareholders, it is also true and accepted that sometimes this concept of separate and distinct should be disregarded by the courts in the interest of preventing fraud or injustice to third parties.

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.

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.

Although doctrine of separate legal entity has the greatest importance in company law, it contains weaknesses that could be arguable. Professor Kahn-Freund described the doctrine as “calamitous” because it arise many issues, such as “How is it possible to check the one-man company and other abuse of company law?” Separate legal entity is inadequate for complex problems .

Atkinson J said in the if there is an agreement between the parent company and the subsidiary, and this amounts to it being an agent of the parent company when carrying out its business. This will allow the court to lift the corporate veil to show that the parent and subsidiary are the same legal personality.

The concept of a company being a separate legal entity is the most striking illustration in separating the company from its owners. A paramount principle of corporate law is that no shareholder or member of a company is made liable for the obligations incurred by such incorporations A company is different from its members in the eyes of law. In continuations to this the opposite also holds true in the sense that neither can the company be held liable for the acts of its members. It is a fundamental distinction that a company is distinct from its members.

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

Traits associated to a psychopath include irresponsibility, manipulation, grandioseness, lack of empathy, asocial tendencies, inability to feel remorse, refusal to take responsibility for one's actions and superficial relations with others. Modern day corporations display every one of the previously listed characteristics. Is it right that an institution, whose power now rivals that of the State that once created it to seek the better welfare of its citizens, display the psychological traits of a dangerous personality disorder? Many say no: there is a rising discomfort with the corporation and its pervasion into every sphere of human life and it is this uneasiness that has prompted many academics to further study the corporation and its

In a world obsessed with profit and revenue, some companies forgo their morals for financial profit. These companies tend to operate with a lack of “transparency” on numerous levels: externally, in regards to how the business interacts with consumers; and internally, in regards to how management makes decisions and steer the company. In order to display the importance of “transparency,” one must know how “transparency” works / what it is. Once this knowledge is established, incorporation and sustainment of “transparency” become the next the objective. By achieving “transparency,” a company benefit greatly in multiple facets, where they may have suffered before. An ideal way to see these benefits or consequences is to view real-world examples of “transparency” and “non-transparency” in ethical and unethical companies, respectively.

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.

Corporation origin from the Latin word Corpus which means body. It is formed by a group of people and has separate rights and liability from those individual. In any means, corporation exists independently from its owner and this principle is called the doctrine of separate personality. Doctrine of separate personality is the basic and fundamental principle in a Company Law. This principle outline the legal relationship between company and its members. Company’s assets belong to the company not the shareholders as assets are the equity for creditors. Company must use up all its assets to pay off the creditors if it became insolvent. The same applies to the corporation’s debts. For limited liabilities company, the shareholder liability is limited which means that the shareholder is restricted to the number of shares they paid and not personally liable for the corporation’s debts. If the company does not have enough equity to pay off debts, the creditors cannot come after the shareholders. However, limited liability company can be very powerful when in hands who do fraud and on defeating creditors’ claims. Courts then can ignore the doctrine for exception cases and lifting the corporate veil. Lifting the corporate veil is a situation where courts put aside limited liability and hold a corporation’s shareholders or directors personally liable for the corporation’s debts.