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. To put the house out of reach of Jones, he bought a company
"off the shelf" and conveyed the house to it. In an action against
Lipman and the company, the court granted the specific performance and
ruled that "the defendant company is the creature of the first
defendant, a device and ...
Sam Dillion wrote “What Corporate America Can’t Build: A Sentence” for an audience of college students, employees and corporate people. In his article, Sam points out that companies are spending a lot of money annually on remedial training. According to Sam, the writing problem appears in e-mails, reports and texts. He is informing his audience to brush up on writing skills before entering the corporate world, in order to avoid remedial training. Companies like to hire employees with excellent writing skills but many of employees and applicants fall short of that standard.
At first glance, it seems implausible the word democracy isn't written in the United States Constitution, or in the Preamble of the Constitution, or even in the Declaration of Independence. One would assume a concept so paramount to modern American culture would surely be derived from one of its oldest and most endeared documents. Alas, it is not. The Constitution only specifically mentions two entities, the government and “We the People”. Defining government is an easy enough task, but who are “We the People”? Originally consisting of only white male property owners, eventually adding in other races, income classes, women, and astonishingly, corporations, the definition of “We the People” has evolved numerous times. Corporation is another key term the architects of our government failed to define for us, perhaps that is why it found its way into the phrase “We the People”. A grave dilemma lies in this fallible defining of terms. Granting corporations person-hood legislatively shifts the power of democracy from human interests to corporate interests. This corrosion of human interest can clearly be noted when examining the battle over corporate power highlighted in the court cases of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and United States v. Sourapas and Crest Beverage Company.
According to Mallor, Barnes, Bowers, & Langvardt (2010) “modern corporation law emerged only in the last 200 years, ancestors of the modern corporation existed in the times of Hammurabi, ancient Greece, and the Roman Empire. As early as 1248 in France, privileges of incorporation were given to mercantile ventures to encourage investment for the benefit of society. In England, the corporate form was used extensively before the 16th century. In the late 18th century, general incorporation statutes emerged in the United States” (p. 1009).
Today, it is generally perceived by the public that the single and sole objective of corporations is to maximize profits (Bartlett, 2015), reflected in President Bill Clinton’s radio address in 1996 during which he stated “the most fundamental responsibility for any business is to make a profit”. This belief could be substantiated by the statistic that the profit margins of American corporations have risen from the 1980s to 2008 (Blodget, 2012), shown by the increase in nominal GDP of the United States over the period (Yardeni, Johnson, 2016). Given the above, it could be deduced that most businesses do indeed have a single objective of profit maximization and therefore tend to pursue short-term gains at the expense of all other considerations.
Wall Street’s takeover of the Obama cabinet is now complete. Officially it started on Jan. 32, 2010, on that day the Supreme Court ruled that the government may not ban corporations from political spending on elections. Thus opening the floodgates allowing for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate officials into doing their bidding.
evidence to show that the company was in fact acting as an agent in a
In company law, registered companies are complicated with the concepts of separate legal personality as the courts do not have a definite rule on when to lift the corporate veil. The concept of ‘Separate legal personality’ is created under the Companies Act 1862 and the significance of this concept is being recognized in the Companies Act 2006 nowadays. In order to avoid personal liability, it assures that individuals are sanctioned to incorporate companies to separate their business and personal affairs. The ‘separate legal personality’ principle was further reaffirmed in the courts through the decision of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd. , and it sets the rock in which our company law rests which stated that the legal entity distinct from its
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 Enron Corporation was an American energy company that provided natural gas, electricity, and communications to its customers both wholesale and retail globally and in the northwestern United States (Ferrell, et al, 2013). Top executives, prestigious law firms, trusted accounting firms, the largest banks in the finance industry, the board of directors, and other high powered people, all played a part in the biggest most popular scandal that shook the faith of the American people in big business and the stock market with the demise of one of the top Fortune 500 companies that made billions of dollars through illegal and unethical gains (Ferrell, et al, 2013). Many shareholders, employees, and investors lost their entire life savings, investments,
Similar things happened in the case Hendon vs. Adelman[6] where signatory directors were held personally liable for stating company’s name on a signed cheque as “L R Agencies Ltd” while the original name was “L & R Agencies Ltd.”
According to Corporation Act 2001 s124(1), it illustrates that ‘’A company has the legal capacity and powers of an individual both in and outside the jurisdiction” . As it were, company as a legal individual must be freely with all its capital contribution shall embrace liability for its legal actions and obligations of the company’s shareholders is limited to its investment to the company. This ‘separate legal entity’ principle was established in the case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1987] as company was held to have conducted the business as a legal person and separate from its members. It demonstrated that the debt of company is belonged to the company but not to the shareholders. Shareholders have only right to participate in managing but not in sharing the company property. Besides ,the Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd [1925] demonstrates that the distinction between the shareholders and company assets. It means that even Mr Macaura owned almost all the shares in the company, he had no insurable interest in the company’s asset. The other recent case is the Lee v Lee’s Air Farming Ltd [1961] which illustrates that the distinct legal entities between employee ad director allows Mr.Lee function in dual capacities. It resulted that the corporation can contract with the controlling member of the corporation.
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.
The XYZ Corporation was established in 2004 and their main office is located in Vancouver, BC. The company’s main objective is to create new innovating technology for media devices, computers, and digital music players. They deal with the design, manufacturing and marketing of the products. XYZ Corporation has been providing Canadians with groundbreaking technology throughout the years and continues to create new technology to provide others with top-level technology. Although, recently their success rate has appeared to drop rapidly due to a number of factors that will be explored throughout this case study. Their main objective is to target the problems so that they can work towards having the issues resolved as quickly as possible. If they do not take any course of action, the state of the company may be in extreme danger. This case study is designed to explore the areas of the company and discover the problems blocking the XYZ Corporation from success.
Corporate law is an area of law that directly relates to dealings with corporations within our legal system. “In Ontario, law compromises of statutes, regulations and cases. This means that to understand the law in any area, you must familiarize yourself with the statute or statutes that relate to that area, check related regulations where required, and read cases that show you how the courts have applied those statutes and regulations in real life situations” (Corporate Law for Ontario Businesses, 2012, pg. 2). In this paper I will be doing just that. I am going to be looking at a particular case that happened and examine how the courts applied legal regulations to a real life situation. I will also be examining what it means for a corporation to be a separate legal entity, as well as the level of importance a shareholder has within a company. All of these topics directly relate to the case I will be examining and are important to knowing in order to understand why the court made the decision that they did. Lastly, I will be discussing my own personal opinions on the case and the decision made by the courts.
In this section of the report, I will be discussing the meaning of corporate citizenship. I will be explaining how companies can be considered good corporate citizens and taking into thought Corporate Accountability, Corporate Governance and the 3 Pillars of Sustainability, and why companies would need to change the audit model.