The Doctrine Of Separate Corporate Personality

I find it ridiculous that I have to say this: corporations are not people. And yet, the supreme court seems to disagree. In 2010, the supreme court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that grants corporations the rights of citizens. Since then, many people have rightfully asked for the abolition of Corporate Personhood. Corporations are not sentient beings and have no moral code or understanding of the law; therefore, they are not responsible for any legal discretions: people running the corporations are. People can consciously make decisions that are harmful to others but may never have to reconcile for it because they were doing it under the company. Here’s the thing: corporations can't go to jail. The only way to make corporations pay is to literally make them pay fines. Even lawsuits worth millions of dollars can be nothing to large companies with vast amounts of wealth. Corporations will just pay the fines and continue functioning as before.

“A corporation is an artificial person separate and distinct from its owners.” Briefly explain this statement.

It seems understandable that a business should exist as a separate legal personality as it would be impossible for an individual’s motives and goals to be perfectly in line with that of the company as is demonstrated above in Salomon. Following this theory the idea that the rights and duties of a company are not that of its members and shareholders as demonstrated in the case of Lee v Lee Air Farming .

This thinking began the conception of the corporation as a person, albeit for the purposes of protection of the property and contract interests of the entity’s shareholders.

Courts use a legal fiction of treating corporations as artificial persons in order to allow the law to apply to corporations as a whole. This concept actually began with ancient Rome, where a business was considered to be a single, non-human body made up of many people. In the United States, being treated as an artificial person means that corporations have many of the same duties, responsibilities and protections as

“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.”

“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).”

Here, the corporation want the law to acknowledge them as an individual, they want to have legal status and equal protections. Therefore, the corporations should have the same rights as natural persons. If there are any circumstances, they can sued and be sued by other parties in court. The corporations should have the equal protection and justice from the court which also apply to other people. As they also pay their taxes and even have their rules and regulation that should be followed like other people. If they violate the rules they can get penalty and be sued according to the law.

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).

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 .

A Corporation can be defined as a legal creation, however the corporation itself, would only exist on a piece of paper. A corporation will never die a natural death like humans die naturally, and corporations will always outlive the individual who created it. With that said, the corporation itself is never really committed to any employee or committed to any neighbor. However, a corporation can always demand employees, a corporation can always demand taxes that are extremely high, and a corporation can also restrict environmental laws. Corporations hold a great deal of power in today's society.

The documentary starts off with showing the development of the contemporary business corporation, from beginning as a legal entity to then having the entitlement of having most of the legal rights of a person. Since a corporation is said to be a “person”, the documentary then was assessing the corporation as a “personality” and showed viewers everything a corporation was doing wrong in harming a real

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.

The Principle of Separate Corporate Personality The principle of separate corporate personality has been firmly established in the common law since the decision in the case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd[1], whereby a corporation has a separate legal personality, rights and obligations totally distinct from those of its shareholders. Legislation and courts nevertheless sometimes "pierce the corporate veil" so as to hold the shareholders personally liable for the liabilities of the corporation. Courts may also "lift the corporate veil", in the conflict of laws in order to determine who actually controls the corporation, and thus to ascertain the corporation's true contacts, and closest and most real

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.