Law Commons^™

Madison Investment, Property And Advisory Company Limited V Peter Kanyinji [2018] Zmsc 348 (Scz Selected Judgement No. 48 Of 2018), Ntemena Mwanamwambwa

SAIPAR Case Review

The case at hand brings to the fore, a number of important matters relating to the treatment of a company which has a controlling shareholding in another while at the same time belonging to the same group of companies as the latter.

The case is particularly important to the jurisprudence of Zambian Company law as it endorses the sacredness of the veil over group structures in maintaining investor confidence and preventing the economic liabilities that would unsuspectingly befall local as well as multinational companies operating within a group structure.

Madison Investment, Property And Advisory Company Limited V. Peter Kanyinji Scz Selected Judgment No. 48 Of 2018, Chanda Chungu

SAIPAR Case Review

The Managing Director of Perfect Milling Company was entitled to 25% gratuity of his basic salary at the end of his term as Managing director. However, when he launched a claim against Perfect Milling Company, the company was in bankruptcy and unable to pay. He then sued Madison Investment, claiming that they operated as a single economic unit under the Madison Group of Companies.

The High Court in a judgment delivered by Banda-Bobo J (as she was then) held that notwithstanding the principle that companies have a separate legal identity, the court is empowered to pierce it in certain circumstances …

The New York Llc Act At Twenty: Is Piercing Still “Enveloped In The Midst Of Metaphor”?, Miriam R. Albert

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Shale In Sale—Adaptive Resolution Of Mineral Rights Disputes Through Warranty Law And Veil-Piercing Remedies, Martha Thibaut

Louisiana Law Review

The article focuses on the adaptive resolution of mineral rights disputes through warranty law and veil-piercing remedies. Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal cases include Tealwood Properties LLC v. Succession of Graves, Coleman v. Burgundy Oaks LLC and Spillman v. Gasco Inc. Other topics include the seller's obligation to warrant the buyer against eviction and significance of the Second Circuit Split.

Direct Liability As An Arranger Under Cercla #107(A)(3): The Efficacy Of Adhering To The Tenets Of Traditional Corporate Law, Lance A. Lawson

Notre Dame Law Review

No abstract provided.

Finding Order In The Morass: The Three Real Justifications For Piercing The Corporate Veil, Jonathan Macey, Joshua Mitts

Faculty Scholarship

Few doctrines are more shrouded in mystery or litigated more often than piercing the corporate veil. We develop a new theoretical framework that posits that veil piercing is done to achieve three discrete public policy goals, each of which is consistent with economic efficiency: (1) achieving the purpose of an existing statute or regulation; (2) preventing shareholders from obtaining credit by misrepresentation; and (3) promoting the bankruptcy values of achieving the orderly, efficient resolution of a bankrupt's estate. We analyze the facts of veil-piercing cases to show how the outcomes are explained by our taxonomy. We demonstrate that a supposed …

Elementary Pleading, Charles B. Campbell

Louisiana Law Review

No abstract provided.

Piercing The Corporate Veil, Financial Responsibility, And The Limits Of Limited Liability, David K. Millon

David K. Millon

Veil-piercing is the most heavily litigated issue in corporate law, yet legal doctrine in this area is notoriously incoherent. In this article, I argue that the only way to make sense of veil-piercing is through an accurate understanding of the policy underlying limited liability. Once that is appreciated it then becomes possible to make sense of the appropriate limits on limited liability. Piercing the corporate veil can then serve the useful function of distinguishing legitimate from illegitimate reliance on statutory limited liability. After surveying efficiency rationales for limited liability and finding them unpersuasive, I propose that the best way to …

Piercing The Corporate Veil, Financial Responsibility, And The Limits Of Limited Liability, David K. Millon

David K. Millon

Veil-piercing is the most heavily litigated issue in corporate law, yet legal doctrine in this area is notoriously incoherent. In this article, I argue that the only way to make sense of veil-piercing is through an accurate understanding of the policy underlying limited liability. Once that is appreciated it then becomes possible to make sense of the appropriate limits on limited liability. Piercing the corporate veil can then serve the useful function of distinguishing legitimate from illegitimate reliance on statutory limited liability. After surveying efficiency rationales for limited liability and finding them unpersuasive, I propose that the best way to …

Piercing The Corporate Veil In International Arbitration, Yaraslau Kryvoi Ph.D.

Global Business Law Review

This article examines the application of the piercing the corporate veil concept in international arbitration. Interpretation of this concept is inconsistent even within one domestic legal system, and it is even less predictable in international arbitration when several legal systems come into play. Piercing the corporate veil may help to give a concrete practical meaning to the purpose of an arbitration agreement or a bilateral investment treaty. However, there are downsides of such piercing because it negates many of the benefits which the corporate form offers. Domestic courts are likely not to recognize and enforce an arbitration award piercing the …

Piercing The Corporate Veil In Ohio: The Need For A New Standard Following Dombroski V. Wellpoint, Inc., Case Comment, Margaret A. Sweeney

Cleveland State Law Review

Part II.A of this Comment will discuss the history and purpose of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil. Part II.B will describe the evolution of this doctrine within Ohio from the development of the Belvedere three-part test, through the conflict among the courts of appeals that gave rise to the Supreme Court of Ohio's latest attempt at clarification. Part III will discuss the facts and procedural history of Dombroski v. WellPoint, Inc. Part IV.A will show how the Supreme Court of Ohio's modification of the Belvedere test will inevitably cause another conflict among the courts of appeals. Part IV.B …

Piercing The Corporate Veil, Financial Responsibility, And The Limits Of Limited Liability, David K. Millon

Scholarly Articles

Veil-piercing is the most heavily litigated issue in corporate law, yet legal doctrine in this area is notoriously incoherent. In this article, I argue that the only way to make sense of veil-piercing is through an accurate understanding of the policy underlying limited liability. Once that is appreciated it then becomes possible to make sense of the appropriate limits on limited liability. Piercing the corporate veil can then serve the useful function of distinguishing legitimate from illegitimate reliance on statutory limited liability.

After surveying efficiency rationales for limited liability and finding them unpersuasive, I propose that the best way to …

Corporate Form And Substantive Consolidation, William H. Widen

Articles

No abstract provided.

Piercing The Veil In California Llcs: Adding Surprise To The Venture Capitalist Equation, Eric W. Shu

Santa Clara Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Limits Of Business Limited Liability: Entity Veil Piercing And Successor Liability Doctrines, John H. Matheson

William Mitchell Law Review

The quest for limited liability in business enterprises and transactions has been a driving force in the development of business organization law for centuries. The historical development of corporations and limited partnerships evidences this primary goal. The recent development of the modern forms of limited liability partnerships and limited liability companies proves that this quest continues unabated. In addition, parties to significant business transfer transactions have long sought by construct and contract to apportion and limit their respective legal responsibilities and liabilities. Counterbalancing this inexorable trend toward limited liability has been the penchant of common law jurisprudence to define its …

To Know A Veil, Douglas C. Michael

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Lawyers, judges, law students, and law professors have a love-hate relationship with the doctrine of “piercing the corporate veil”—the idea that shareholders might sometimes be personally liable for the debts of the corporation. It is the subject covered more than all others in courses on corporation law. It is widely litigated, being the subject of thousands of opinions. Yet, for all this attention, it is routinely vilified by the experts. Most commentators recognize that it is jurisprudence without substance.

This Article is an attempt to form a basis for rigorous analysis of virtually every veil-piercing case and to rid the …

Conflicts Problems When Representing Members Of Corporate Families, Ronald D. Rotunda

Notre Dame Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Impact Of United States V. Bestfoods On "Owner Or Operator" Liability Under Cercla, Layna Cook

Louisiana Law Review

No abstract provided.

Liability Of Parent Corporations Under Cercla: Ambiguity And The Need For A Federal Common Law Standard, Steve T. Voigt

University of Miami Business Law Review

No abstract provided.

Enforcing Arbitration With A Nonsignatory: Equitable Estoppel And Defense Piercing Of The Corporate Veil - Sunkist Soft Drinks, Inc. V. Sunkist Growers, Inc., Scott M. Mckinnis

Journal of Dispute Resolution

Since Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act,2 courts have liberally enforced a strong national policy favoring arbitration of commercial disputes In furtherance of this goal, courts have refused to stay arbitration proceedings simply because they may involve parties who are nonsignatories to an arbitration agreement.4 Courts have accomplished this objective through the doctrine of equitable estoppel; Sunkist exemplifies that trend. However, Sunkist also represents a corporate scenario in which the emerging legal theory of "defensive piercing"' could be established as another avenue from which to compel commercial arbitration.

European Community Competition Law: Is The Corporate Veil Lifted Too Often, Eran Aharon Lev

Florida State University Journal of Transnational Law & Policy

No abstract provided.

Piercing The Corporate Veil In Louisiana, Glenn G. Morris

Louisiana Law Review

No abstract provided.

Shareholders' Liability And Workers' Rights: Piercing The Corporate Veil Under Federal Laborlaw, Wilson Mcleod

Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Piercing The Corporate Veil In Louisiana Absent Fraud Or Deceit, Kent Bickham Payne

Louisiana Law Review

No abstract provided.

Actions By A Sole Stockholder Of A Corporation, Julius E. Kovacs

Cleveland State Law Review

The law regarding sole shareholders' actions appears to be very clear. In most cases the corporate wrong can only be redressed by the corporation itself and in the corporate name. The few exceptions appear to have been allowed in good conscience by courts of equity, with each case being decided on its own merits. While other areas of the law are constantly changing, the law with respect to sole shareholders' actions has remained stable, with no indications that any changes will take place in the immediate future.