piercing the corporate veil

The doctrine of "piercing the corporate veil" is applied under those circumstances.

The challenge for human rights defenders is best summed up in one phrase: piercing the corporate veil.

Of course," he added, still grinning, "you'll have to stay here under house arrest until they're through piercing the corporate veil."

However, many jurisdictions apply local law to foreign corporations in certain determinations such as piercing the corporate veil.

It also provides extremely strong protection against piercing the corporate veil, where a corporation's owners can be held responsible for the actions of a corporation.

That issue included articles on the use of televisions in courtrooms and piercing the corporate veil among other topics.

Arden LJ emphasised that piercing the corporate veil was not necessary.

That's known as 'piercing the corporate veil', and is only allowed very rarely, because the alternative (i.e. making it easy) would be catastrophic.

An example of a jurisdictional shortcoming in the United States is the difficulty of piercing the corporate veil.

Members of an LLC can be held held personally liable without piercing the corporate veil.

Piercing the corporate veil doesn't refer to privacy rights, but to the dismantling of a corporations legal protections and its very existence as a separate entity.

This is referred to as piercing the corporate veil, and is subject to the rules of the home state where the corporation is a domestic corporation.

Creasey v Breachwood Motors Ltd [1993] BCLC 480 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil.

Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil.

Piercing the corporate veil or lifting the corporate veil is a legal decision to treat the rights or duties of a corporation as the rights or liabilities of its shareholders.

Pure Fishing also acquired and asserted in another counterclaim (piercing the corporate veil and continuation of business theories) the unsatisfied 1998 sanction judgment that had been awarded to Centra 2000 against Stoller's S Industries, Inc.

Commingling is also evidence that may be used in "piercing the corporate veil" of a sham corporation, where a person shields himself from personal liability through "incorporation", yet fails to observe strict separation of corporate and personal property or accounts, among other improprieties.

Piercing the corporate veil typically is most effective with smaller privately held business entities (close corporations) in which the corporation has a small number of shareholders, limited assets, and recognition of separateness of the corporation from its shareholders would promote fraud or an inequitable result.

On the issue of "piercing the corporate veil," Nevada law applies (which is much more supportive of the corporation's interest), even if the corporation only operates in California and has never had any other contact with Nevada and is simply chartered there as a "flag of convenience."

Arden LJ dismissed any suggestion that the case involved piercing the corporate veil, but the outcome has an equivalent effect in that (through the application of tortious principles) it imposes liability upon a parent company despite the fact that the parent company is a legal entity separate from that of its subsidiary.

In re Tyson, 433 B.R. 68 (S.D.N.Y. 2010): Cote, reviewing a bankruptcy court's decision following trial in an adversary proceeding involving the bankruptcy estate of Mike Tyson, discussed the concept of piercing the corporate veil under English law and distilled its doctrinal principles.

"Piercing the corporate veil" refers to looking at the individual natural persons acting as agents involved in a corporate action or decision; this may result in a legal decision in which the rights or duties of a corporation are treated as the rights or liabilities of that corporation's shareholders or directors.