DOCSLIB.ORG

Prolomení Majetkové Samostatnosti Obchodních Společností

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Prolomení Majetkové Samostatnosti Obchodních Společností Právnická fakulta Masarykovy univerzity Právo a právní věda Katedra obchodního práva DIPLOMOVÁ PRÁCE Prolomení majetkové samostatnosti obchodních společností Martin Brázdil 2014/2015 Prohlašuji, že jsem diplomovou práci na téma Prolomení majetkové samostatnosti obchodních společností zpracoval sám. Veškeré prameny a zdroje informací, které jsem použil k sepsání této práce, byly citovány v poznámkách pod čarou a jsou uvedeny v seznamu použitých pramenů a literatury. V Brně dne 2. 4. 2015 Martin Brázdil 1 Rád bych poděkoval JUDr. Ing. Josefu Šilhánovi, Ph.D., vedoucímu mé diplomové práce, za pomoc v podobě odborných konzultací a všechny cenné rady, které mi při jejím zpracování poskytl. 2 Abstrakt Tato práce se zabývá analýzou prolomení majetkové samostatnosti obchodních společností, především s ohledem na českou a anglickou právní úpravu. Po stručném historickém shrnutí vývoje samostatné právní subjektivity je práce v další části zaměřena na vývoj doktríny piercing the corporate veil v anglickém právu a představeny jsou základní východiska, ke kterým anglická judikatura dospěla. Následuje analýza právních nástrojů českého práva, které je možné uplatnit v souvislosti s prolomením majetkové samostatnosti. Pozornost je věnována zejména zákonu o obchodních korporacích, institutu vlivné osoby a ručení statutárních orgánů v případě úpadku obchodní společnosti. Poslední část práce se zabývá nejvýznamnější judikaturou ESD a právní úpravou EU v oblasti samostatné právní subjektivity. Klíčová slova piercing the corporate veil – prolomení majetkové samostatnosti – omezená odpovědnost – samostatná právní subjektivita – vlivná osoba – ručení statutárních orgánů – zákon o obchodních korporacích – podnikatelská seskupení Abstract The thesis analyzes the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil of commercial companies, particularly with regard to Czech and English law. A brief historical summary of the development of the separate legal personality is followed by a discussion of how the doctrine manifests in English law, including the basic assumptions found in English case law. Next, an analysis is presented on the legal instruments available in Czech law that can be applied in pursuit of the doctrine of piercing, particularly the influential entities and the liability of members of statutory bodies when a business is submitted to bankruptcy under the Business Corporations Act. In the last chapter the thesis is focused on the most significant case law of the ECJ and EU legislation in the area of separate legal personalities. Keywords piercing the corporate veil – limited liability – separate legal personality – influential entity – liability of members of a body – business corporations act – business groups 3 SEZNAM POUŽITÝCH ZKRATEK Brusel I Nařízení Rady (ES) č. 44/2001 o příslušnosti a uznávání a výkonu soudních rozhodnutí v občanských a obchodních věcech. Brusel I bis Nařízení Evropského parlamentu a Rady (EU) č. 1215/2012 o příslušnosti a uznávání a výkonu soudních rozhodnutí v občanských a obchodních věcech. ESD Evropský soudní dvůr Insolvenční zákon, InsZ Zákon č. 182/2006 Sb., o úpadku a způsobech jeho řešení (insolvenční zákon), ve znění pozdějších předpisů. Občanský zákoník Zákon č. 89/2012 Sb., občanský zákoník. Obchodní zákoník Zákon č. 513/1991 Sb., obchodní zákoník, ve znění předpisů účinných ke dni 31. 12. 2014. Zákon o mez. právu soukromém Zákon č. 91/2012 Sb., o mezinárodním právu soukromém. Zákon o obchodních korporacích Zákon č. 90/2012 Sb., o obchodních společnostech a družstvech (zákon o obchodních korporacích). Zákon o přeměnách Zákon č. 125/2008 Sb., o přeměnách obchodních společností a družstev, ve znění pozdějších předpisů Zákon o veřejných rejstřících Zákon č. 304/2013 Sb. o veřejných rejstřících právnických a fyzických osob. 4 OBSAH SEZNAM POUŽITÝCH ZKRATEK .................................................................................................................. 4 ÚVOD ................................................................................................................................................... 6 1. OMEZENÁ ODPOVĚDNOST .................................................................................................................. 8 1.1 Historický vývoj na evropském kontinentu ................................................................................ 8 1.2 Historický vývoj v Anglii a USA ................................................................................................. 10 1.3 Benefity omezené odpovědnosti ............................................................................................. 11 1.4 Morální hazard ......................................................................................................................... 12 1.5 Samostatná právní subjektivita ................................................................................................ 13 2. ÚVOD DO TEORIE DOKTRÍNY PROLOMENÍ ......................................................................................... 14 2.1 Podnikatelská seskupení .......................................................................................................... 16 3. ANGLIE – JUDIKATURNÍ PODOBA DOKTRÍNY ..................................................................................... 20 3.1 Rozhodnutí Salomon ................................................................................................................ 20 3.2 Teorie hospodářského celku a prolomení v zájmu spravedlnosti ............................................ 22 3.3 Politická situace ........................................................................................................................ 26 3.4 Zneužití korporátní formy ........................................................................................................ 26 4. ANGLIE - ZÁKONNÁ PODOBA DOKTRÍNY ........................................................................................... 32 4.1 Fraudulent trading .................................................................................................................... 32 4.2 Wrongful trading ...................................................................................................................... 33 4.3 Domněnka řídící osoby ............................................................................................................. 35 5. ÚPRAVA PODLE ZÁKONA O OBCHODNÍCH KORPORACÍCH ................................................................. 38 6. SPOLEČNÍCI ....................................................................................................................................... 42 6.1 Zákonná povinnost ručení za dluhy společnosti (ust. § 132) .................................................... 42 6.2 Vlivná osoba (ust. § 71) ............................................................................................................ 43 6.3 Ovládající osoba (ust. § 74) ...................................................................................................... 47 6.4 Povinnost péče řádného hospodáře (ust. § 76) ....................................................................... 48 6.5 Odpovědnost při úpadku (ust. § 68) ......................................................................................... 50 6.6 Důkazní břemeno ..................................................................................................................... 55 6.7 Ručení členů volených orgánů podle občanského zákoníku .................................................... 56 7. KONCERNY A DALŠÍ PŘÍPADY ............................................................................................................ 58 7.1 Úpadek řízené osoby ................................................................................................................ 60 7.2 Zpráva o vztazích ...................................................................................................................... 61 7.3 Další případy prolomení v českém právu ................................................................................. 62 8. SAMOSTATNÁ PRÁVNÍ SUBJEKTIVITA OPTIKOU EU ............................................................................ 64 8.1 Devátá směrnice ....................................................................................................................... 64 8.2 Akzo Nobel NV a další proti Komisi Evropských společenství .................................................. 64 8.3 Centrální registr skutečných majitelů ....................................................................................... 65 8.4 Procesní pravidla příslušnosti soudu ........................................................................................ 66 ZÁVĚR ................................................................................................................................................. 70 SEZNAM POUŽITÝCH PRAMENŮ ............................................................................................................. 74 5 ÚVOD Samostatná právní subjektivita právnických osob je nerozlučně spjata s korporátním právem většiny známých právních řádů a mnohými je považována za nezbytnou součást fungování moderní nadnárodní i lokální ekonomiky. Vlivem omezené odpovědnosti, která je většinou důsledkem samostatné právní subjektivity, dochází k oddělení majetku vlastníků a samotné společnosti. Neplní-li společnost své závazky, nelze se dodatečného plnění domáhat po jejich společnících nebo akcionářích. Snahu o limitaci odpovědnosti
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 3 Lifting the Veil
    3 Lifting the veil SUMMARY Introduction Statutory examples Veil lifting by the courts Classical veil lifting, 1897–1966 The interventionist years, 1966–1989 Back to basics, 1989–present Tortious liability Parent company personal injury tortious liability Commercial tort The costs/bene? ts of limited liability Introduction 3.1 You may not unnaturally wonder at this point what the phrase ‘lifting the veil’ is about. It refers to the situations where the judiciary or the legislature have decided that the separation of the personality of the company and the members is not to be maintained. 7 e veil of incorporation is thus said to be lifted. 7 e judiciary in particular seem to love using unhelpful metaphors to describe this process. In the course of reading cases in this area you will fi nd the process variously described as ‘lifting’, ‘peeping’, ‘penetrating’, ‘piercing’ or ‘parting’ the veil of incorporation. In a nutshell, having spent the whole of the last chapter emphasising the separateness of corporate personality, we now turn to those situations where for various reasons that separateness is not maintained. BBookook 77a.indba.indb 3311 88/14/2008/14/2008 99:08:31:08:31 PPMM 32 | Lifting the veil 3.2 While some of the examples of veil lifting involve straightforward shareholder lim- itation of liability issues many of the examples involve corporate group structures. As businesses became more adept at using the corporate form, group structures began to emerge. For example Z Ltd (the parent or holding company) owns all the issued share capital in three other companies—A Ltd, B Ltd and C Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • IS VEIL PIERCING REALLY the MESS THAT COMMENTATORS THINK IT IS? Ioanna Mesimeri Advocate 1. INTRODUCTION in Appropriate Cases
    IS VEIL PIERCING REALLY THE MESS THAT COMMENTATORS THINK IT IS? Ioanna Mesimeri Advocate 1. INTRODUCTION In appropriate cases, the judiciary or the legislature have decided to disregard the principle of corporate personality in order to ‘look behind the corporate person to its real controllers’1 and so to reallocate liability among shareholders and corporations2. This situation is commonly known as ‘piercing’ or ‘lifting’ the corporate veil and it occurs in an attempt of the courts to focus on the reality of the company instead of its structural form3. The doctrine of veil piercing ‘has been generally assumed to exist in all common law jurisdictions’4 but without a well-articulated basis. The courts, though, instead of producing comprehensive doctrines as to when the veil should be lifted, they have tended to use some unhelpful metaphors when describing the process of the doctrine5. Particularly, they stated that the corporate veil will be lifted when the company is ‘a mere cloak or sham’6, ‘a mere device’7, ‘a mere channel’8, ‘a mask’9, or ‘a façade concealing the real facts’10. Thus, the absence of a certain principle to veil piercing, ‘has been the subject of intense scrutiny by both judges and scholars’ as it has provoked many issues that need to be examined at theoretical, doctrinal and empirical levels11. In this regard, the very recent decision of the Supreme Court in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013]12 has introduced a new approach at the concept of veil. However, it is debated whether Prest represents ‘a fresh start to this sometimes vexed area of corporate law’13 or if it enhances even more the controversy and complexity of the veil piercing approach.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Huddersfield Repository
    University of Huddersfield Repository Mendelsohn, James Still "the unyielding rock"? A critical assessment of the ongoing importance of Salomon V Salomon & Co LTD[1897] AC 22 in the light of selected English company law cases Original Citation Mendelsohn, James (2012) Still "the unyielding rock"? A critical assessment of the ongoing importance of Salomon V Salomon & Co LTD[1897] AC 22 in the light of selected English company law cases. Masters thesis, University of Huddersfield. This version is available at http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/23331/ The University Repository is a digital collection of the research output of the University, available on Open Access. Copyright and Moral Rights for the items on this site are retained by the individual author and/or other copyright owners. Users may access full items free of charge; copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided: • The authors, title and full bibliographic details is credited in any copy; • A hyperlink and/or URL is included for the original metadata page; and • The content is not changed in any way. For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, please contact the Repository Team at: [email protected]. http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/ STILL ―THE UNYIELDING ROCK?‖ A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE ONGOING IMPORTANCE OF SALOMON V SALOMON & CO LTD [1897] AC 22 IN THE LIGHT
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Structures, the Veil and the Role of the Courts
    CRITIQUE AND COMMENT CORPORATE STRUCTURES, THE VEIL AND THE ROLE OF THE COURTS T HE HON CHIEF JUSTICE M ARILYN WARREN AC* The topic of the corporate veil is one that has been long-discussed, but which remains the subject of considerable debate and uncertainty. This lecture will look at a few areas related to veil-piercing or lifting, used in a broad sense, which usefully highlight the tensions the courts have to grapple with when faced with corporate structures and the question of whether to look behind those structures to commercial realities. The topics canvassed are directors’ liability for corporate fault, limited liability and corporate groups, and direct liability of parent entities in tort. C ONTENTS I Preface: Professor Ford ............................................................................................ 658 II Introduction .............................................................................................................. 659 III Directors’ Liability.................................................................................................... 661 IV Limited Liability and Corporate Groups .............................................................. 668 V Direct Liability of Parent Entities .......................................................................... 673 A Chandler v Cape ........................................................................................... 674 B The Australian Cases ................................................................................... 677 C Canada
    [Show full text]
  • Tort Litigation Against Transnational Corporations in the English Courts: the Challenge of Jurisdiction Ekaterina Aristova*
    This article is published in a peer-reviewed section of the Utrecht Law Review Tort Litigation against Transnational Corporations in the English Courts: The Challenge of Jurisdiction Ekaterina Aristova* 1. Introduction Recent decades have seen an explosion of interest in the social, economic and environmental risks caused by the cross-border operations of transnational corporations (‘TNCs’). These powerful corporate groups have often been involved in various forms of corporate wrongdoing in many parts of the world.1 Severe abuses, reported by various non-governmental organisations (‘NGOs’), range from murder to the violation of socio- economic rights.2 As a response to inadequate legal remedies for the victims of corporate abuses in host states3 and an absence of international binding instruments on corporate accountability,4 few jurisdictions have shown a growing trend of civil liability cases against TNCs (‘Tort Liability Claims’).5 These cases are examples of private negligence claims brought by the victims of overseas corporate wrongs against parent companies before the courts of the home states. This paper will address the potential of Tort Liability Claims to close a regulatory gap in international corporate accountability. It is divided into three parts. Part 1 will provide a general analysis of Tort Liability Claims through a description of the facts of the most significant UK cases and an identification of their common features. The second part will then examine recent developments in the establishment of the personal jurisdiction of the English courts over the corporations involved in the overseas abuses. Finally, the concluding part will critically assess the overall impact of the increasing trend of litigating against TNCs in their home states.
    [Show full text]
  • John Lowry and Arad Reisberg Pettet’S Company Law: Company Law & Corporate Finance FOURTH EDITION
    LONGMAN LAW SERIES John Lowry and Arad Reisberg Pettet’s Company Law: Company Law & Corporate Finance FOURTH EDITION “John Lowry and Arad Reisberg rise more than admirably to the task of assimilating, explaining and analysing this vast corpus of legal material. The text is pellucidly clear, analytically précis, judicious in its balance in dealing with the various topics, comprehensive, and always cognisant of the policy issues.” Professor Dan Prentice, Oxford, UCL and Erskine Chambers Pettet’s Company Law LONGMAN LAW SERIES Providing you with the best possible basis for your legal study. ISBN: 9781408279281 ISBN: 9781408255520 ISBN: 9781408295731 ISBN: 9781408279328 ISBN: 9781408280799 ISBN: 9781408272831 Longman Law Series titles come with Your Complete Learning Package All Longman Law Series titles are available to order from all good bookshops or online at: www.pearsoned.co.uk/law Pettet’s Company Law Company Law and Corporate Finance Fourth Edition John Lowry Arad Reisberg Pearson Education Limited Edinburgh Gate Harlow Essex CM20 2JE England and Associated Companies throughout the world Visit us on the World Wide Web at : www.pearson.com/uk First published 2001 Second edition published 2005 Third edition published 2009 Fourth edition published 2012 © Pearson Education Limited 2001, 2012 The rights of John Lowry and Arad Reisberg to be identified as authors of this Work have been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying in the United Kingdom issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd, Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.
    [Show full text]
  • Judging Corporate Law II May 31St 2013 University of Pennsylvania
    Judging Corporate Law II May 31st 2013 University of Pennsylvania Law School Organized and moderated by John Armour (Oxford) and Edward Rock (Penn Law) 9.00 am Registration and Coffee 9.30 am Welcome PROFESSOR MICHAEL A. FITTS Dean and Bernard G. Segal Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School 9.45am Capital Structure I: Legal Capital: What are the constraints on redemption of redeemable shares? How are these constraints imposed, and to what extent may parties modify them by contract? How are questions of valuation of corporate assets approached for the purposes of applicability of these constraints? Barclays Bank plc v British & Commonwealth Holdings plc [1996] 1 BCLC 1 SV Investment Partners LLC v Thoughtworks Inc, (Del. 2011) CHIEF JUSTICE STEELE MR JUSTICE HILDYARD Delaware Supreme Court High Court, Chancery Division 10.45am Capital Structure II: Exchange Offers: What degree of coercion, if any, is it permissible to introduce into an exchange offer to bondholders, in order to overcome hold-out objections? How do/should courts review such offers? Katz v Oak Industries, Inc, 508 A.2d 873 (Del. Ch. 1986) Asseìnagon Asset Management SA v Irish Bank Resolution Corp [2012] EWHC 2090 (Ch), [2013] 1 All ER 495 MR JUSTICE BRIGGS CHANCELLOR STRINE High Court, Chancery Division Delaware Court of Chancery 11.45pm Coffee 12.00pm Piercing the Corporate Veil: What is understood by “piercing the corporate veil”? Is there a judicial power to do this in appropriate circumstances? If so, what do such circumstances look like? Midland Interiors Inc v Burleigh 2006 WL 3783476 (Del. Ch.
    [Show full text]
  • Parent Company Liability for Torts of Subsidiaries
    Department of Law Spring Term 2020 Master’s Thesis in Company Law 30 ECTS Parent Company Liability for Torts of Subsidiaries A Comparative Study of Swedish and UK Company Law with Emphasis on PierCing the Corporate Veil and ImpliCations for ViCtims of Torts and Human Rights Violations Author: Matilda Lindblad Supervisor: Professor Daniel Stattin 2 Acknowledgements It is quite difficult to apprehend, that this era has come to an end. Four and a half years of law studies are done, can I call this a home run? When the world is upside down, I stand in my mental graduation gown. In the midst of a shift we are, business as usual – au revoir. To me this clearly motivates, discussions on liability in company groups and the business and human rights debate. I thank my friends and family for listening to my endless thesis-related discussions, despite it causing them minor concussions. Caroline, Rebecka, Emma, Eva, Maia, Clara, Henrietta, Mom, Dad, Amanda, Oscar. Without your support, I would have failed in this thesis-writing sport. I thank my colleagues at the Embassy of Sweden in Manila, for making my internship everything but dull and vanilla. I thank my supervisor Professor Daniel Stattin for helping me on the right track, with invaluable feedback. I thank the University of Glasgow for a semester of rain, and an introduction to the UK company law domain. Finally, I thank Uppsala University for providing me with an excellent education, when I am rich and famous I will make a generous donation. Uppsala, July 2020 3 4 Abstract The gas leak disaster in Bhopal, India, in 1984 illustrates a situation of catastrophe and mass torts resulting in loss of life and health as well as environmental degradation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Corporate Veil Is an Outdated Concept. Quite Rightly, It Is Lifted by the Judiciary at Every Oppurtunity and Certainly Whenever Justice Demands It
    The corporate veil is an outdated concept. Quite rightly, it is lifted by the judiciary at every oppurtunity and certainly whenever justice demands it. Discuss. Fuller once said, the trouble with the law does not lie in its use of concepts, nor the use of 'lump concepts', the difficulty lies in part... in the fact that we have often forgotten that the 'lumps' are the creation of our own minds.' Pioneering the area of separate legal personality, the orthodox case of Salomon v Salomon exists both as a powerful metaphor and a judicial reality. It should be understood that the 'company is at law a different person' as per Lord Macnaghten words culminating to the ratio of Salomon. In Salomon, we see an evident use of the metaphor to vividly express the fact that Salomon's incorporation was legitimate according to legislation and therefore he should be allowed to benefit from limited liability.In this case Mr Salomon a shoe manufacturer had sold his business to a limited liability company where he and his wife and five children where the shareholders and directors of the company (to comply with the Companies Act of 1862 which required a minimum of 7 members). Vaughan Williams J in the High Court accepted the argument that since Mr. Salomon had created the company solely to transfer his business to it, at prima facie, the company and Salomon were a singular unit; the company was in reality his agent and he as principal was liable for debts to unsecured creditors. The COA was no different and also ruled against Mr.Salomon, reading that the shareholders were "mere puppets" in this showcase and he was the brains of the company.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Approaches to Separate Legal Personality of a Company in Ireland, the State of Delaware in the United States of America and Nigeria
    P a g e | 1 1 CURRENT APPROACHES TO SEPARATE LEGAL PERSONALITY OF A COMPANY IN IRELAND, THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND NIGERIA Franco Jombo University of Limerick, [email protected] SCHOOL OF LAW, UNVERSITY OF LIMERICK, LL.M BY RESEARCH THESIS _____________________________________________________________________________ Recommended Citation: Jombo .F, ‘Current Approaches to Separate Legal Personality of a Company in Ireland, the State of Delaware in the United States of America and Nigeria’ [2018] Vol.1. P a g e | 2 Thesis submitted for the award of LL.M Degree School of Law, University of Limerick, Ireland Supervisor: Barrister Sinead Eaton November 2017 ‘Current Approaches to ‘Separate Legal Personality’ of a Company in Ireland, the State of Delaware in the United States of America and Nigeria’. Franco Jombo, Dip. Bus. Comp, BBL & T [BLGLM] I hereby attest that this thesis, which I now submit for appraisement on the programme of research for the award of LL.M, is unreservedly my personal work. I have taken justifiable diligence to make certain that the work is entirely original. This thesis does not to the most excellent of my comprehension violate any copyright law. The thesis has not been extracted from the work of others save and to the extent that such work has been referenced and recognised at the footnotes of my thesis. Signed: Franco Jombo ID Number 15088138 Date: November 2017 P a g e | 3 APPRECIATION FOR THE DEGREE OF LL.M BY RESEARCH I, in every respect, wish to express my genuinely gratitude to Barrister Sinead Eaton, Lecturer in Law, School of Law at University of Limerick for her invaluable help, guidance and advice over the past two years.
    [Show full text]
  • Implication of Multinational Character of a Company to Criminal Liability
    RESPONSIBILITY OF MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS IN MUNICIPAL JURISDICTIONS THESIS PREPARED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE MASTER OF LAWS DEGREE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI BY JOSEPH KIPCHUMBA KIGEN Reg. No. G62/7702/02 Signature…………………………………………… Under the Supervision of Mr. Yash Vyas……………………………………….Date…………………………... TABLE OF STATUTES 1. The Constitution of Kenya, 2010 2. Penal Code Cap 63 Laws of Kenya 3. Civil Procedure Code Cap 21 Laws of Kenya 4. Criminal Procedure Code Cap 75 Laws of Kenya 5. Interpretation and General Provisions Act Cap 2 Laws of Kenya 6. Companies Act Cap 486 Laws of Kenya 7. The State Corporation Act Cap 446 Laws of Kenya 8. Limitation of Actions Act Cap 22 Laws of Kenya 9. Alien Tort Claims Act [A.T.C.A] 28 U.S.C. § 1350 [U.S.A] 10. The Brussels Convention [EEX Convention] 1968 11. Federal Tort Claim Act [F.T.C.A] 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b) [U.S.A] 12. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) 28 U.S.C Chapter 97 [U.S.A] 13. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisation Act (RICO) 18 U.S.C Chapter 96 [U.S.A] 14. Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 [U.S.A] i TABLE OF CASES 1. Adams v. Cape Industries [1991] 1 All ER 929 2. Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1977] 2 All ER 118 3. Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court 480 U.S. 102 [1987] 4. Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd v. Ritchie [1875] L.R 7 H.L 653 5. Bank of Tokyo Ltd v.
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Personality
    3 Corporate personality Separate legal personality: • A company can make • Salomon v Salomon & Co contracts Ltd (1897) • A company can sue and be • A company is not an agent sued of its members • A company can own property • The doctrine applies to • A company has ‘perpetual groups – a subsidiary is succession’ not an agent of its holding • Shareholders can delegate company management to directors CORPORATE PERSONALITY Judicial approaches to A company is an association lifting the veil of of its members and a person incorporation: separate from its members • Evasion of liability, fraud, The current position Corporate façade – Adams v Cape liability: • National Industries (1990) security • Liability in • Agency The veil will be lifted: contract – s 39 • Groups of • when a statute, CA 2006 contract or other companies • Liability in tort document requires it – liability of – ‘single • when the court is directors economic unit’ satisfi ed that the • To achieve company is a mere • Criminal liability justice façade – strict liability • But note lack • when it is clear • Crimes requiring of any clear that the company mens rea is an agent of its principle • Corporate members manslaughter 18 Corporate personality 3.1 Introduction 1. A company is both a separate legal person and an association of its members. This is an underpinning feature of company law. This chapter will describe the principles and the limitations of separate legal personality. 2. Issue of the certificate of incorporation is conclusive evidence that all the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 in relation to incorpora- tion have been complied with (s 15(4) CA 2006).
    [Show full text]