Corporate Veil And Corporate Law

“The idea that a corporation is a legal person with constitutional rights is, of course, a controversial one. Some commentators argue that it's bad policy. In my view, however, it is a well-settled principle of US constitutional law and justifiably so. The legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment suggests that Congress substituted the word ''person'' for the word ''citizen'' precisely so that the provisions so affected would protect not just natural persons but also legal persons, such as corporations, from oppressive legislation.”

Should Corporations be Considered People? The recent uproar over whether corporations are people comes from the Citizens United decision. Although we often hear about how this case allows an influx of corporate funds, it is safe to assume that very few people have actually read the opinion. And though the direct and indirect impact on the lives and liberties of the people will forever be affected by allowing corporate influence on their own governing, most go about their daily consumption with barely a thought to the immense impact this has on the land of the free.

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” .

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 the corporation was markedly noncompliant, or if holding only the corporation liable would be singularly unfair to the plaintiff. The ruling is based on common law precedents. In the US, different theories, most important "alter ego" or "instrumentality rule", attempted to create a piercing standard. 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 corporate actions 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 haphazard manner. As such, the veil can be pierced in both civil cases and where regulatory proceedings are taken against a shell corporation.

2. Is it possible to lift or pierce the corporate veil of corporate groups on the basis that:

The ideas that corporations are viewed as people in the eyes of the law seems like a farfetched idea. However, with closer examination one cannot help but wonder if this is truly becoming the case. Since the 1950’s the rights of corporations have been expanding through multiple court cases that have charted the way for more recent cases like Citizens United v. FEC and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores . To better understand the notion that corporations are sometimes viewed as people it is important to understand the definition of a corporation. In the dictionary, a corporation is defined as a number of persons united in one body for a purpose . Even though it is hard for many to view a corporation as a “person”, it is undeniable that corporations

“Corporations are said to be “creatures of statute;” they exist because state laws allow human beings to organize themselves into entities that separate ownership and management functions as the outline above delineates. The business rule is there a presumption that making a business decision, the offices act in good faith with the belief that their actions is what is best for the company (Halbert/Ingulli, 2012 pg. 31).”

This research report documents the findings of an empirical study of judicial findings (of superior courts) relating to the duty to prevent insolvent trading. The duty to prevent insolvent trading is the most controversial of the duties imposed upon company directors.

Ever since the outset of the industrial revolution, corporations have been an inherent constituent in American society. However, due to this heavy influence, corporations have ever since created a struggle with individuals for social, political, and economic power. At present, this issue is only being addressed at the economic level. Presidential candidates such as Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are putting a considerable amount of attention towards corporate taxes but are neglecting the legal aspects of corporate personhood. The main issue besetting the United States as a whole, is legal reform among corporations because it is affecting the political values, freedoms, and security of the American people.

This was a very interesting article, in my opinion it brings to mind the derived phrase, which came first the chicken or the egg. Meaning, is corporate governance an attempt to control the results of unethical practices of corporations or is it meant to deter them. In reading this article, it is clear that certain corporations practiced unethical business behaviors for self-interest, but the questions this author have are: 1. Should corporate governance be regulated by the legislature as well as the organization and to what degree, 2. Is corporate governance, there to protect the shareholder or the stakeholder, 3. How effective is corporate governance on a global level. The need for a governance system is based on the assumption that the separation between the owners of a company and its management provides self-interest executives the opportunity to take actions that benefit themselves, with the cost of these actions borne by the owners (Larcker & Tayan, 2008).

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

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

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.