Piercing the Corporate Veil

Most equity carve-outs are not large enough to require shareholder approval; if the parent sells less than a majority stake and retains control over the subsidiary, there is a strong argument against needing to obtain shareholder approval. If the parent sells between 50% and 100% of its subsidiary shares, on the other hand, and the subsidiary’s business is important to the parent, there is a strong argument in support of needing shareholder approval. The requirement for shareholder approval is significant because proxy materials must be mailed, a shareholder meeting must be organized and approval must be obtained before the transaction can be completed. If the parent’s shares are registered under the Exchange Act, proxy materials must comply with Regulation 14A and meet disclosure requirements. While proxy materials should disclose the material terms of the offering, details such as final price and size of the offering are typically not determined until the registration statement is effective, which creates a risk that the parent will not be able to meet its disclosure obligations.

Corporations Law can be described as the interaction between directors, employees, financier, consumers and the community. Corporations law can be implied to this case as Water Corporations, a government owned company had a responsibility upon entering into a contract with Norvik Industries to provide an attention to skill when connecting the water line. To provide fully trained employees to undertake this job. This involved double checking there work.

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” .

In R v. Redfern & Dunlop Ltd. (Aircraft Division) , the Court held that where the employees who were not in the decision making level could not be identifiable with the company and therefore were not deemed to be the controlling mind of the company. The question that comes up is that if a person at a lower level commits a crime in the name of the company, the company cannot be held liable for the same. This may pose to be a problem in the sense that the company may make a division between the senior management and the employees to avoid criminal proceedings against them

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

The amount of control the firm has over its subsidiary will be the determining factor in deciding when to consolidate financial statements annually. If the firm acquires another company, the firm must own fifty percent or more of the subsidiary’s outstanding voting stock in order for the two to consolidate. With this ownership level, the firm will be able to persuade the subsidiary into making decisions that would not only benefit the subsidiary, but also benefit the firm (parent) as well. “When majority of voting stock is held, investor-investee relationship is so closely connected that the two corporations are viewed as a single entity for financial reporting” (Hoyle, n.d.). Thus with this control in place both companies will combine their

The Corporate personhood, a universal legal model, grants corporations genuine rights and responsibilities similar to those of individual citizens. This concept proved useful in American jurisprudence in that it simplified one’s interactions with huge conglomerates. Citing the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution, the term corporate personhood served to consider corporations similar to individuals. In that vane, corporate entities like individuals could join contracts as a single unit, corporate entities like individuals could be named in civil lawsuits as a single group and corporate entities like individuals could make decisions that would hold the enterprise responsible as a single entity even though the decisions were

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 .

The law clearly stipulates that the mere fact that a parent corporation owns all the stock of the subordinate corporation or that the same individuals own all the stock in both corporations does not make them the same concern in law. In some cases however, the parent company is held liable for the actions of the subordinate company. These cases arise when there is proof of additional interest to the subordinate corporation than mere unity and ownership. Like in our case Lindenwood Pharmaceuticals had taken over the whole control of Lindenwood Chemicals to a point of even having officials transferred from the Pharmaceutical Company to the Chemicals Company (Martschalk 2007-2012). Under normal circumstances

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

The ‘Salomon V Salomon& Co Ltd’ was a very important case in company law because it established that every company has a separate legal personality which can also be referred to as the ‘veil of incorporation.

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.

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.