Piercing the corporate veil definition

Piercing the corporate veil means any and all common law doctrines by which a holder may be liable for an obligation or liability of a covered entity on the basis that the holder controlled the covered entity, the holder is or was the alter ego of the covered entity, or the covered entity has been used for the purpose of actual or constructive fraud or as a sham to perpetrate a fraud or any other common law doctrine by which the covered entity is disregarded for purposes of imposing liability on a holder for the debts or obligations of that covered entity.

Piercing the corporate veil means looking beyond the separate personality of a company to fix liability on the shareholder(s).

Piercing the corporate veil is a legal term that means looking beyond a company’s separate legal status to hold its owners or shareholders personally responsible for the company’s actions or debts. Normally, when you own part of a company, your personal assets are protected, and you’re not personally liable for what the company does. However, if a court decides that the company is being misused or isn’t being run as a separate entity, they might “pierce” that legal protection and hold the owners accountable. This is usually done in cases of fraud, illegal activities, or when the company isn’t following proper business practices. Piercing the corporate veil is a way to ensure that people can’t use a company to escape personal responsibility when they’ve done something wrong.18

Examples of Piercing the corporate veil in a sentence

• Piercing the corporate veil “is a step to be taken cautiously,” Quinn v.

• Piercing the corporate veil is an equitable remedy and is “intended to prevent abuse of corporate protections.” Equity Trust Co. Custodian v.

• Piercing the corporate veil is not favored and in general, courts are reluctant to do so.

• Piercing the corporate veil is an equitable remedy that only applies “when a plaintiff proves that a defendant shareholder abused the corporate form to perpetrate a fraud or injustice.” Cavusoglu, 2015 WL 4315330, at *5.In the instant matter, Plaintiff relies on Wang’s deposition testimony to assert that he diverted Global Way’s assets to pay personal and other debts, such that Global Way could no longer repay Plaintiff.

• Therefore, the district court did not err by not addressing Ambor‘s joint-venture or joint-enterprise claims or by not submitting them to a jury.c. Piercing the corporate veil This court has concluded that Generally, absent fraud or bad faith, a corporation will not be held liable for the acts of its subsidiaries.

• Piercing the corporate veil is remedy of last resort and is not available when other remedies are still available.

• Piercing the corporate veil is one of the most criticized and litigated issues of corporate law,1 and it has been ∗ J.D. expected 2010, Cleveland State University, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law; B.A. Miami University, Oxford, Ohio.

• Piercing the corporate veil doctrine is a judicial process where by courts disregard usual immunity of limited liability from shareholders.

• Piercing the corporate veil is an action that sounds in equity.” U.S. v.

• Piercing the corporate veil “may be done only in the interest of justice, when such matters as fraud, contravention of law or contract, public wrong, or where equitable consideration among members of the corporation require it .