Lifting the Veil: Imagination and the Kingdom of God

Product Information

See, e.g., Henn, Harry G.; Alexander, John R. (1983). Law of Corporations (3ed.). West Group. ISBN 0314092293. , ch 7, 344, n 2 for a list of terms the court uses. They are, mere adjunct, agent, alias, alter ego, alter idem, arm, blind, branch, buffer, cloak, coat, corporate double, cover, creature, curious reminiscence, delusion, department, dry shell, dummy, fiction, form, formality, fraud on the law, instrumentality, mouthpiece, name, nominal identity, phrase, puppet, screen, sham, simulacrum, snare, stooge, subterfuge, tool. The Court may, on the facts of a case, treat a subsidiary as merely a branch or department of one large undertaking owned by the holding company. Helena Blavatsky's 1877 book Isis Unveiled, one of the foundational texts for the esoteric belief system of Theosophy, used the metaphor of the veil as its title. Isis is not prominent in the book, but in it Blavatsky said that philosophers try to lift the veil of Isis, or nature, but see only her physical forms. She added, "The soul within escapes their view; and the Divine Mother has no answer for them," implying that Theosophy would reveal truths about nature that science and philosophy could not. [20] Parting of the Veil [ edit ]

The alter-ego theory considers if there is in distinctive nature of the boundaries between the corporation and its shareholders. Reverse veil piercing is when the debt of a shareholder is imputed onto the corporation. Throughout the United States, the general rule is that reverse veil piercing is not allowed. [53] However the California Court of Appeals has allowed reverse veil piercing against a limited liability company (LLC) based largely on the difference in remedies available to creditors when it comes to attaching assets of a debtors' LLC as compared to attaching assets of a corporation. [54] [55] See also [ edit ]

Conclusion

Held, although the restructuring did mean the claim was worthless, it was not done for the purpose of avoiding liability. Instead it was a response to a financial crisis. Because it was done in good faith, and not to avoid liability, not able to lift the veil. Significant undercapitalization of the business entity (capitalization requirements vary based on industry, location, and specific company circumstances); FG (Films) wanted to register its firms as British. The company was 90% owned by US citizens, no employees or officers in the UK, money was merely channelled through FG (films) The House of Lords, however, upon appeal, reversed the above ruling, and unanimously held that, as the company was duly incorporated, it is an independent person with its rights and liabilities appropriate to itself, and that “the motives of those who took part in the promotion of the company are absolutely irrelevant in discussing what those rights and liabilities are”. 3 Thus, the legal fiction of “corporate veil” between the company and its owners/controllers 4 was firmly created by the Salomon case. IMPLICATIONS OF SALOMON V SALOMON Gelb, Harvey (December 1982). "Piercing the Corporate Veil - The Undercapitalization Factor". Chicago Kent Law Review. 59 (1) . Retrieved 9 September 2017.

The entity of the corporation is entirely separate from that of its shareholders; it bears its own name and has a seal of its own; its assets are distinct and separate from those of its members; it can sue and be sued exclusively for its purpose; liability of the members are limited to the capital invested by them. [ii] Marc Moore, ‘A Temple Built on Faulty Foundations: Piercing the Corporate Veil and the Legacy of Salomon v Salomon’ (2006) JBL 180. The Hivemind Invasion of Civilization" is a compendium of esoteric mystery sciences, an invaluable, timeless resource, building a progressive tapestry of revelation upon revelation, LOADED with truly mind-blowing graphics, visuals, & stunning images, deep Universal Secrets, advanced occult symbolism, rich philosophical & existential motifs utilized in Hollywood & pop culture, language, mythology, spiritual mysticism & fundamental laws of nature, astrotheology & the constructs of masonic civilization for individual & collective mastery, as well as control, coercion, confinement & enslavement, but leading us ultimately to sovereignty & liberation from the artifices of the manipulation of reality itself & most importantly, our perception of it! Re Noel Tedman Holdings Pty Ltd., 1967 Qdr 561. See also, Mayson, French & Ryan, Company Law (29th edn, OUP 2012). Thus when “Tata Company” or “German Company” or “Government Company” is referred to, we look behind the smoke-screen of the company and find the individual who can be identified with the company. This phenomenon which is applied by the courts and which is also provided now in many statutes is called “ lifting of the corporate veil”. As a consequence of the lifting of the corporate veil, the company as a separate legal entity is disregarded and the people behind the act are identified irrespective of the personality of the company. So, this principle is also called “disregarding the corporate entity”. LIFTING THE CORPORATE VEIL Meaning of the doctrine:

The corporate veil in UK company law is pierced very rarely. After a series of attempts by the Court of Appeal during the late 1960s and early 1970s to establish a theory of economic reality, and a doctrine of control for lifting the veil, the House of Lords reasserted an orthodox approach. According to a 1990 case at the Court of Appeal, Adams v Cape Industries plc, the only true "veil piercing" may take place when a company is set up for fraudulent purposes, or where it is established to avoid an existing obligation. [10] However, cases were rare and their justification in light of the Salomon principle remained doubtful. In VTB Capital, [11] Lord Neuberger sympathised with rejecting the doctrine altogether, but left the issue undecided because it did not matter for the outcome. Soon afterwards, in Prest v Petrodel, [12] a divorce case where the matrimonial home was not held by the husband but by his company, the Supreme Court confirmed the existence of the doctrine in English law, but narrowed it down to practical irrelevance. [13] The "fraud exception" [14] was dismissed. According to the leading judgement by Lord Sumption, piercing the veil is a subsidiary remedy of last resort that only covers the avoidance of existing obligations ("evasion principle", as opposed to the cases of the "concealment principle" that does not give rise to a claim). On closer analysis, this was said obiter because the Court reached the desired outcome (attribution of the family home to the assets of the husband) by applying trust law. Nevertheless, Prest v Petrodel is generally assumed to state the current law in the UK, even though the restriction of "abuse" to evasion only can be questioned and there were statements in Prest v Petrodel that supported a broader approach. [15] It is noteworthy that under English law, piercing the veil can never be used to make shareholders pay for contractual debts of the company because they have not been party to that contract. [16] In the past, the veil was sometimes ignored in the process of interpreting a statute, [17] and as a matter of tort law it is open as a matter of authority that a direct duty of care may be owed by the managers of a parent company to accident victims of a subsidiary. [18] Tort victims and employees [ edit ] While the secondary literature refers to different means of "lifting" or "piercing" the veil (see Ottolenghi (1959)), judicial dicta supporting the view that the rule in Salomon is subject to exceptions are thin on the ground. Lord Denning MR outlined the theory of the "single economic unit" - wherein the court examined the overall business operation as an economic unit, rather than strict legal form - in DHN Food Distributors v Tower Hamlets. [24] However this has largely been repudiated and has been treated with caution in subsequent judgments.