Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Lifting the Corporate Veil. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 7 page paper considers the way in which the cooperate veil may be lifted by way of a judicial decisions. The way in which agency may be implied or the companies may be seen as a single economic unit are discussed before a conclusion is reached in the way the law is developing in this area. The paper is written with reference to English law. The bibliography cites 12 sources.
Page Count:
7 pages (~225 words per page)
File: TS14_TEcorpvl.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
Ottolenghi and Slade LJ, that give contrary views on the position of a subsidiary company in terms of lifting the veil. To discuss these different approaches, that of former quote
which argues for attributing a wholly owned subsidiary as having constructive agency relationship and therefore having grounds to life the veil or as the later argues, that there is no
right to lift the veil simply due to the way corporate structure has been used. These are the views on the judicial interpretation rather than the statutory exceptions. Therefore, to
consider these statements as is this are of law that must be considered with the examination of how agencies and groups of companies are interpreted. It is also worth noting
that the position of the UK is very different to that of other countries, such as the US where it is much simpler to lift the veil (Grossman, 2001). The
development of English company law has developed slowly and not kept up wit the needs of the environment with the newer more complex company structures (Davies, 2001). Indeed, it was
only under the Compnaies Act 1989 that there was any legal separation of the terms parent and holding company (Davies, 2001). This was the first time there was a real
definition of the relationship between a parent company and its subsidiaries. This may clarify the relationship. However it does not tackle the issue of when and when not to
life the view. AS a general rule, unless there has been fraudulent or improper formation of the subsidiary company, as outlined in cases such as Gilford Motor Co Ltd v
Horne [1933] Ch 935, [1933] AER 109, Re Bugle Press [1961] Ch 270, [1960] 3 AER 791 and Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 AER 442 then the ability top life
...