A registered company, as an artificial person is separate from its members and exists only by virtue of the Companies Act under which it is incorporated. When a business is incorporated, it becomes a separate legal entity and, therefore, can be sued and sue without affecting the shareholders personal assets. This was established in “Salomon v A Salomon Co.Ltd”. Separate legal personality is known as the veil of Incorporation. This protects the shareholder and places the responsibility of the company onto the directors. These duties are outlined in the Companies act 2014.
Ireland argues that the “corporate form was, and in large part is, a political construct developed to accommodate and protect the rentier investor and which institutionalises
…show more content…
The concept of limited liability promotes recklessness and irresponsible risk taking. The argument for the return of unlimited liability is also an argument for separate legal personality to be taken less seriously. It is believed that, should it happen, would “eradicate the problem of corporate irresponsibility and unaccountability by identifying corporations more closely with their shareholders, encouraging a shift towards the older concept of ‘the company’ as an aggregation of …show more content…
He goes on to explain how they are treated as completely separate from the companies in which they hold shares and receive dividends yet they are not responsible for the company’s debts or liabilities. Furthermore, the companies in which the hold shares must be run in their best interests. Therefore, the interests of the company, which is a separate legal entity, is directly linked with those of the shareholders. “The law treats separate legal personality very seriously in some contexts (shareholders liabilities) while ignoring it in others (shareholder primacy, shareholder control rights).
“Corporate form was, and in large part is, a political construct developed to accommodate and protect the rentier investor and which institutionalises irresponsibility”. From Irelands arguments, I agree with this statement. Rentier Investors, are protected legally by having no legal obligations through limited liability whilst also having the company run in their best
The size of the company has a fluctuating impact on the ramifications of the law administering the inconvenience of risk on companies. The thought of forcing the liability is unique in relation to the worry of distinguishing the tenet, which will be connected to the case. In specific cases, it might be an improper law to carry out cases, which lacks the foundation of criminal liability of the company involved within the case. Big companies have a convoluted chain of command, which has multilevel frameworks inside the
This means that those who invest capital cannot be found liable for more than they have ventured; should the company fail or be sued. This also means that corporations can be afforded similar rights and obligations as those enjoyed by groups of persons. These include ability to contract and enforce contracts, to own property, to sue and be sued under both criminal and civil laws. And further that corporations can be continued in perpetuity with shares and control transferred accordingly. Ultimately corporations are provided rights and given respect similar to persons. As such, it is completely reasonable in my view for employees to feel loyalty and respect for the organization and place of their daily work; in addition to the loyalty they feel toward their fellow coworkers. This is the natural basis of the collective sense of loyalty. And why I must agree with James Roche of General Motors, and view whistle-blowers as disloyal and detrimental to work place cohesion and
...oration to exist there must be individuals who are running it. Therefore any offence that is committed by a corporation, in actually is being committed by individual/s in the course of their occupation.
Piercing the Corporate Veil Since the establishment in Salomon v Salomon, the separate legal personality has been long recognised in English law for centuries, that is to say, a limited liability company has its own legal identity distinct from its shareholders or directors. However, in certain circumstances the courts may be prepared to look behind the company at the actions of the directors and shareholders. This is known as "piercing the corporate veil". There are numerous cases concerning the "piercing the corporate veil", among which, Jones v Lipman[1] was a typical case. Lipman sold land to Jones by a written contract but refused to complete the sale because of another good deal, instead he offered damages for breach of contract.
In contrast , the shareholder theory organisations or organisation's decision-makers only have the responsibility to their shareholders by increasing the organisation profits and should only make the decisions to increase as much as possib...
...A.; Giblin, Thomas; McHugh, Deirdre, The Economic Development of Ireland in the Twentieth century, Routledge, London, 1988.
As a consequence of the separate legal entity and limited liability doctrines within the UK’s unitary based system, company law had to develop responses to the ‘agency costs’ that arose. The central response is directors’ duties; these are owed by the directors to the company and operate as a counterbalance to the vast scope of powers given to the board. The benefit of the unitary board system is reflected in the efficiency gains it brings, however the disadvantage is clear, the directors may act to further their own interests to the detriment of the company. It is evident within executive remuneration that directors are placed in a stark conflict of interest position in that they may disproportionately reward themselves. The counterbalance to this concern is S175 Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) this acts to prevent certain conflicts arising and punishes directors who find themselves in this position. Furthermore, there are specific provisions within the CA 2006 that empower third parties such as shareholders to influence directors’ remuneration.
Salomon v Salomon was and still is a landmark case. By confirming the legitimacy of Mr Salomon's company the House of Lords put forward the concept of separate corporate personality and limited liability. Inextricably linked with this ratio is an acknowledgement of the importance of certainty within the law, thus separate corporate personality becomes a concrete principle to which the law must adhere. Salomon v Salomon is followed in subsequent cases, notably Macaura v Northern Assurance Co.[3] and Lee v Lee's Air Farming Ltd[4]. These cases highlight the reality of the separate corporate identity and take it a step further in stressing the distinction between a company's identity and that of its shareholders.
The veil of incorporation means that separate legal personality of company operates as a shield which is the courts will not normally look beyond the façade of the company to the shareholders who incorporate it. The screen depart the company from its individual shareholders and directors is commonly referred to as ‘the veil of incorporation’.
Bibliography: Turnbull, S. (1997). Corporate governance: its scope, concerns and theories. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 5 (4), pp. 180--205.
As previously established, companies are legal entities. As such, they may be criminally responsible for offences requiring mens rea by application of the identification principle. The identification principle, or doctrine, is where the “acts and state of mind” whom represent the “controlling mind” of the company will be imputed to the company itself (R v Lennards Carrying Co and Asiatic Petroleum (1915); R v Bolton Engineering Co v Graham (1957); (R v Andrews Weatherfoil and others (1972)). These cases were prosecuted under the common law.
Lynn Harsh (Nov. 2002). ‘Capitalism – A Deal with the Devil?’. Retrieved on Mar. 23 from:
A spate of shattering corporate collapses, particularly among large listed companies despite their annual reports and accounts have raised numerous issues in corporate governance. The corporate meteoric rise and fall was associated with serious deficiencies in its corporate governance, including weaknesses in internal control, financial reporting, audit quality, board’s scrutiny of management. The collapse of a number of businesses have several important lessons on the role of corporate governance in preventing corporate collapse with the subject of increasing regulatory measure. Considering this, on 30 June 2010, a revised version of corporate governance principles and recommendations with 2010 amendments was issued to provide guidance to companies & investors on best practice of corporate governance and to increase the transparency of a listed company. These principles are not strictly binding “hybrid regulation” but generally entail some form of sanction if they are not followed the approach of the ASX is an ‘if not, why not’ approach where companies are asked to (1) detail whether they comply with each best practice recommendation and (2) explain why they do not comply if this is the case.
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 connection. Throughout the course of this assignment I will begin by explaining the concept of legal personality and describe the veil of incorporation. I will give examples of when the veil of incorporation can be lifted by the courts and statuary provisions such as s.24 CA 1985 and incorporate the varying views of judges as to when the veil can be lifted.
The Role of the Directors in a Company is of a paramount importance in the discourse of the proper running of the company. Directors are the spirit of the company .The company is merely a legal entity, governed by its directors. These directors have certain duties and responsibilities. These are mainly governed by the Corporation Act, 2001. Section 198A (1) of The Corporations Act, 2001(The Corporations Act 2001 s 198A (1)), clearly states that, ‘The business of a company is to be managed by or under the direction of the directors’.