Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Lifting the Corporate Veil; Would the Case of Carte Blanche (Singapore) PTE Ltd v Diners Club International Inc. had a Different Result If Heard in the UK Rather than the US. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 4 page paper looks at a well known US case where the corporate veil was lifted on appeal due to the finding that the parent company controlled and dominated the subsidiary. The paper looks at how this case may have ended if heard in the UK where there are similar principles in terms of reluctance to lift the corporate veil, but with different applications. The bibliography cites 7 sources.
Page Count:
4 pages (~225 words per page)
File: TS14_TEcorpveilus.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
veil separating companies with in the same group has been established in law. However, the interpretation and application of condition under which the corporate veil may be lifted vary
between countries. One well known case in the US is that of Carte Blanche (Singapore) PTE Ltd v Diners Club International Inc 2 F. 3d 24 (1993). This was a
case where Carte Blanche (Singapore) sought to have the corporate veil lifted so they could claim an award that was given to them against a subsidiary company of Diners Club
International Inc that had gone out of business. This was an interesting case as it was only on appeal that the court decided to life the cooperate veil. This
case was won on appeal but the case may be been different if heard in the UK. In the US cases such as Gartner v. Snyder, 607 F.2d 582, 586
(2d Cir. 1979) , Gorrill v. Icelandair/Flugleidir, 761 F.2d 847, 853 (2d Cir. 1985) and Kirno Hill Corp. v. Holt, 618 F.2d 982, 985 (2d Cir. 1980) have all indicated
a reluctance to pierce the veil showing that there are only two circumstances under which the courts will piece the veil. This is where there has to prevent fraud or
where there is a parent company that controls and dominates their subsidiary company. It was under this latter exception that the case was based. The court put aside the corporate
structure and looked at how the company was run. The case looked at a range of practicalities, including but not limited to aspects such as office space, the sources of
funds, under capitalisation, the overlap of directors and whether there were dealing at arms length. To consider how this may have been dealt with we need to look at
...