Reviews the Supreme Court ruling in VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp, and reflects on Lord Neuberger's argument that piercing the corporate veil is "contrary to high authority". Examines the background to the decision, details the court's treatment of the earlier House of Lords ruling in Woolfson v Strathclyde RC, and analyses the ratio of Woolfson and that of the House of Lords judgment in Salomon v Salomon. Considers the opportunity for the Supreme Court to provide further clarification of the power to pierce the veil in a forthcoming case, and to explain when it should be don
Veil-piercing is an equitable remedy. This simple insight has been lost over time. What started as a...
This paper is an invited comment on Peter Oh\u27s article Veil-Piercing published in the Texas Law...
Veil piercing is a doctrine of corporate law allowing the courts to lift the veil between a company ...
This article examines the veil piercing rule following the Supreme Court decision in Prest v Petrode...
In the course of the 2012/13 legal year, the Supreme Court has had to consider the doctrine of pierc...
This article examines the absence of an express distinction between forward piercing and backward pi...
This article examines the judicial approach to the corporate veil post-Prest v Petrodel Resources Lt...
With the lines between shareholders and corporations blurring over constitutional rights like free e...
The Companies Act 71 of 2008 has introduced into our company law a statutory provision permitting co...
This article examines the common law approach to the doctrine of separate legal personality in UK Co...
This article examines the judicial approach to the corporate veil post-Prest v Petrodel Resources Lt...
This Note addresses the multicircuit split that veil piercing’s “vexing” nature has created. The Fir...
In the typical veil piercing case, the plaintiff seeks to hold the owners of an entity liable for th...
From its inception veil-piercing has been a scourge on corporate law. Exactly when the veil of limit...
Part II.A of this Comment will discuss the history and purpose of the doctrine of piercing the corpo...
Veil-piercing is an equitable remedy. This simple insight has been lost over time. What started as a...
This paper is an invited comment on Peter Oh\u27s article Veil-Piercing published in the Texas Law...
Veil piercing is a doctrine of corporate law allowing the courts to lift the veil between a company ...
This article examines the veil piercing rule following the Supreme Court decision in Prest v Petrode...
In the course of the 2012/13 legal year, the Supreme Court has had to consider the doctrine of pierc...
This article examines the absence of an express distinction between forward piercing and backward pi...
This article examines the judicial approach to the corporate veil post-Prest v Petrodel Resources Lt...
With the lines between shareholders and corporations blurring over constitutional rights like free e...
The Companies Act 71 of 2008 has introduced into our company law a statutory provision permitting co...
This article examines the common law approach to the doctrine of separate legal personality in UK Co...
This article examines the judicial approach to the corporate veil post-Prest v Petrodel Resources Lt...
This Note addresses the multicircuit split that veil piercing’s “vexing” nature has created. The Fir...
In the typical veil piercing case, the plaintiff seeks to hold the owners of an entity liable for th...
From its inception veil-piercing has been a scourge on corporate law. Exactly when the veil of limit...
Part II.A of this Comment will discuss the history and purpose of the doctrine of piercing the corpo...
Veil-piercing is an equitable remedy. This simple insight has been lost over time. What started as a...
This paper is an invited comment on Peter Oh\u27s article Veil-Piercing published in the Texas Law...
Veil piercing is a doctrine of corporate law allowing the courts to lift the veil between a company ...