Talk:Piercing the corporate veil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been assessed as High-importance on the assessment scale.

How about a paragraph explaining how to prevent piercing the corporate veil of a sole proprietorship LLC where the owner is sued for say a car accident and the plaintiff is trying to tap into the assets of the LLC claiming they are not separate entities? And, how can an owner tap into the assets of the LLC and not have the veil pierced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raquel666 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 14 March 2006

In the 3rd paragraph of the section discsusing the "single economic unit" there is a sentence fragment. A sentence ends "were merely circumstances where." I do not know what is supposed to follow, nor am I inclined to figure out what ought to be there. But the error remains, and someone should fix it.Kthejoker 15:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Worldwide view/limited geographic scope

This article concentrates heavily on UK and Australian law without really getting into the laws of the USA, Canada, or other countries. I am putting the "globalize" template on here. --Eastlaw 09:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changed article on motives for piercing corporate veil

This doesn't explain why people wouldn't want to piece the corporate veil.


However, for corporations with fewer than 10 shareholders, courts of law have found that individuals could escape liability for their own misconduct by holding assets in the name of the corporation. Unlike a large corporation where no individual shareholder could possibly obtain management authority over the corporation, closely held corporations are potentially expressions of the will of a few shareholders. Historically, corporations with 10 or more shareholders are not likely to be affected by piercing.

Roadrunner 23:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Also removed

Similarly, officers and directors of corporations, like other employees, are generally not held liable for the losses of the corporation, unless the liability in question relates directly to the scope of the officer's or director's responsibilities. In a similar manner, people would be less willing to serve as an officer or director if they were liable for the entire amount of the corporation's losses (though not necessarily for a fractional amount).

This isn't relevant to piercing the corporate veil. When you pierce the corporate veil, you are going after shareholders and not employees or directors.

Roadrunner 23:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. Piercing the corporate veil goes after the directing mind of the corporation, be it a shareholder or director. G. Csikos, 16 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.81.125 (talk) 06:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The "Fraud" Exception

This is an exception to the rule in Salomon yet reads as an exception to the concept of piercing the veil. Whilst the case law indicates it is not strictly an instance of piercing the veil it remains an instance of the courts setting aside the veil to find members liable. 'other rules of law' is similarly vague considering the mention of equity in the previous sentence. 14/01/2007