V Solomon Essay

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.

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

In many misfeasance cases against directors, those breaches maybe relatively uncontroversial. This draws into focus the question of whether the director has any common law or statutory defence, including the Duomatic principle and ratification by shareholders (CA 2006 S.239), available to a claim against him for restitution to the company. S.239(6)(a) preserves the Duomatic rule that if an informal unanimous consent is reached among voting shareholders, it is unnecessary to pass such ratification resolution through general meeting or written resolution. The first part will examine the scope and requirements of this rule to illustrate the validity of such assent. S.239(7) leaves the door open for rules of law, which refers to common law principles, to continue guiding ratification. It will be assessed how these rules impose limitations on the general ratification power conferred by s.239.

While they have arrangement and discharging control over the directors of the enterprise, shareholders in expansive organizations, for example, the criminogenic Shell, Exxon, Occidental Petroleum, Union Carbide, Dow Chemical, Ford Motors, La Roche-Hoffman, BHP, A.H. Robins, General Electric, Johns-Manville, James Hardie, all enterprises whose disregard and willful dismissal of surely understood norms of conduct has brought about shocking mischief, have minimal impetus to guarantee that these supervisors carry on legitimately. This happens because financial specialists who don't lawfully own the property of the company used to do any harm, they have no individual legitimate obligation regarding any such damages brought about by the misapplication of that property. The rich shareholders who are continually telling the riches less and poor people to be responsible and in charge of the route, in which they act and live, are, in law, unreliable for the (regularly detestable) behavior of their companies. It deteriorates the

This is a New York Court of Appeals decision in 1926 adjudicated by the legendary Justice Cardozo. In this seminal case on ‘piercing the corporate veil’, the Court of Appeals finds in favor of the Defendant, Third Avenue Railway Company. The Court holds that Third Avenue, the parent company of Forty-second Street Company, which operated a rail line upon which the Plaintiff was injured, was not liable for the torts of the subsidiary. Even though the defendant owned all the stock of the subsidiary and controlled its Board of Directors, the degree of domination over the subsidiary was not considered

The legal decision to treat the rights or duties of a corporation as the rights or liabilities of its directors is called piercing the corporate veil or lifting the corporate veil. A corporation is treated as a separate legal person for the sole responsible of debts incurred. Corporations are

Unlike the United States, other countries differ in their opinion as to the level of accountability corporate entities need to be held to. Whereas the corporate entities that exist in the United States are broadly entitled, the law fails to restrict corporations as much as it does their individual counterparts. Our system is so overreaching to the extent that in a landmark Supreme Court ruling, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, the rights of corporate entities have been protected so that the corporate personhood has been essentially granted the first amendment right of freedom of speech. In that decision the court granted these personhoods the unrestricted allowance to fund political organizations thus leaving the individual helpless. These allowances therefore spawn situations where corporate entities have advantages over individuals. In other cases the law limits corporate influences and basic rights, and most importantly their structure. This frequently creates a leeway for employees to break the law and only receive a minimal punishment. Lastly, in the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, the court allowed for very wealthy companies to significantly sway political

Let’s begin with a definition of common law which is applied to all corporations. “Common law is made and

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 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 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

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.