7675121
Descripción
Mapa Mental por Sharanjit Pal, actualizado hace más de 1 año
|
Creado por Sharanjit Pal
hace más de 7 años
|
|
Corporate veil - circumstances where this
may be "pierced"
- Corporate veil is only lifted in exceptional
circumstances where all other remedies have proved
to have "no assistance" (Prest v Petrodel Resources
Ltd (2013))
- In cases where there is fraud or deliberate breaches of
trust e.g. where company was used to carry out fraud -
Re Darby, ex Brougham (1911)
- The Supreme Court has held, that even where fraud
may exist, it will not pierce veil in order to hold a
person controlling a company liable as a joint
contracting party for a contract which the company,
and not the controller, has entered into (VTB Capital
plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5).
- ** s 399 of the CA 2006 requires certain parent companies
to prepare accounts for their groups of companies as if
they were single companies, one aim being to ensure that
shareholders of the parent company get to see the true
financial state of their company
- **s 214 of the IA 1986, a director of a company can
be made personally liable to contribute money to
the company’s assets where the company has gone
into insolvent liquidation and before that
happened the director knew, or ought to have
concluded, that there was no reasonable prospect
of avoiding insolvent liquidation
- **s 214 of the IA 1986, a director of a company can
be made personally liable to contribute money to
the company’s assets where the company has gone
into insolvent liquidation and before that
happened the director knew, or ought to have
concluded, that there was no reasonable prospect
of avoiding insolvent liquidation
- ** s 399 of the CA 2006 requires certain parent companies
to prepare accounts for their groups of companies as if
they were single companies, one aim being to ensure that
shareholders of the parent company get to see the true
financial state of their company
- The Supreme Court has held, that even where fraud
may exist, it will not pierce veil in order to hold a
person controlling a company liable as a joint
contracting party for a contract which the company,
and not the controller, has entered into (VTB Capital
plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5).
- E.g. or to avoid existing obligations -
Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne (1933
- In cases where there is fraud or deliberate breaches of
trust e.g. where company was used to carry out fraud -
Re Darby, ex Brougham (1911)
¿Quieres crear tus propios Mapas Mentales gratis con GoConqr? Más información.