Category: corporate veil

Akhmedova v Akhmedov: piercing the corporate veil – Family Law

Posted July 3rd, 2018 in company law, corporate veil, divorce, financial provision, news, shareholders by sally

‘It is not incomprehensible that wealthy business shareholders feed their high-net-worth assets through their companies, with the consequence of making the assets available to their spouse limited and out of reach. It therefore comes as no real surprise that the English family courts have shown that they are prepared to tackle the issues related with parties hiding international assets within divorce proceedings, whilst trying to remedy the same.’

Full Story

Family Law, 2nd July 2018

Source: www.familylaw.co.uk

Reinforcing the Veil – Defending Cases Where the Corporate Veil is Threatened – Drystone Chambers

Posted December 8th, 2017 in company directors, company law, confiscation, corporate veil, news, Supreme Court by sally

‘“The corporate veil” is a much discussed, but much misunderstood phrase. When Lord Halsbury LC stated in Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 that a limited liability company was to be viewed ‘like any other independent person with its rights and liabilities appropriate to itself’ he imbedded in law the idea of corporations having a separate legal identity from their directors. That principle is agreed. What has been in dispute, and is still uncertain to a degree, is when that separation can be made. ‘

Full Story

Drystone Chambers, 4th December 2017

Source: drystone.com

Piercing the Corporate Veil: Ramifications of the SC Decision in Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited – 11 KBW

Posted July 31st, 2013 in company law, corporate veil, divorce, financial provision, news, Supreme Court, trusts by sally

Presentation

11 KBW, 24th July 2013

Source: www.11kbw.com

A matter of trust… New Law Journal

Posted June 28th, 2013 in company law, corporate veil, financial provision, matrimonial home, news, Supreme Court, trusts by tracey

“To widespread surprise, the Supreme Court allowed the wife’s appeal in Prest v Petrodel Resources [2013] UKSC 34, [2013] All ER (D) 90 (Jun) although on a different basis from the decision of Mr Justice Moylan at first instance. For those law “nerds” amongst us, the new Supreme Court live feed added an extra frisson, with social media abuzz with speculation as to what it might mean that Lord Sumption was to give the lead judgment. It quickly became clear that this may be a red herring (for Lady Hale to give the lead judgment would have been too obvious a clue). However, a more detailed consideration of the judgment may lead us to conclude that Lord Sumption was a clue indeed and that the corporate veil has survived fully intact, albeit it with the Supreme Court wedging open some doors for family lawyers on the issues of trusts and inferences to be drawn from both pre- and post-litigation behaviour.”

Full story

New Law Journal, 27th June 2013

Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk

Prest v Prest and others – WLR Daily

Posted June 19th, 2013 in assets recovery, company law, corporate veil, divorce, family courts, financial provision, law reports, legal personality, matrimonial home by sally

Prest v Prest and others [2013] UKSC 34; [2013] WLR (D) 237

“If a person was under an existing legal obligation or liability, or subject to an existing legal restriction, which he deliberately evaded or the enforcement he deliberately frustrated by interposing a company under his control, the court could ‘pierce the corporate veil’ but only for the purpose of depriving the company or its controller of the advantage which they would otherwise have obtained by the company’s separate legal personality.”

WLR Daily, 12th June 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

The Supreme Court grasps the nettle in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd – 11 Stone Buildings

Posted June 18th, 2013 in company law, corporate veil, divorce, financial provision, matrimonial home, news, Supreme Court by sally

“On 12th June 2013, the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the eagerly anticipated appeal in Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited [2013] UKSC 34. For the second time this year, the Supreme Court has had to grapple with the circumstances in which it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil, the previous decision being that of VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] 2 WLR 398 (a case in which a number of 11 SB members were involved). Unlike in VTB Capital, however, this time the Supreme Court grasped the nettle and gave some practical guidance as to the reach and limitations of the doctrine.”

Full story (PDF)

11 Stone Buildings, June 2013

Source: www.11sb.com

Does VTB v Nutritek foreshadow the Supreme Court’s approach to the Petrodel appeal on piercing the corporate veil? – Family Law week

Posted February 12th, 2013 in appeals, company law, corporate veil, disclosure, financial provision, matrimonial home, news by tracey

“Emily Marshall, family law professional support lawyer at Irwin Mitchell considers the possible implications of the Supreme Court’s decision in a commercial case on the forthcoming appeal in the Petrodel appeal, to be heard in March.”

Full story

Family Law Week, 11th February 2013

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

VTB Capital plc v Nutritek and others – WLR Daily

Posted February 7th, 2013 in appeals, banking, corporate veil, freezing injunctions, law reports, loans, misrepresentation, service out of jurisdiction, Supreme Court by sally

VTB Capital plc v Nutritek and others [2013] UKSC 5; [2013] WLR (D) 41

“Where a claimant alleged that it had been induced by the fraudulent misrepresentations of a third party to enter a contract with a company, and sought to make a contractual claim against the third party as being jointly and severally liable with the company, it was not appropriate for the court to pierce the corporate veil, even if it could do so on appropriate facts, since to do so would render the third party liable as if he had been a co-contracting party with the company when he had not, and when none of the contracting parties, including the claimant, had intended that he should be.”

WLR Daily, 6th February 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Petrodel v Prest: hiding assets behind the corporate veil? – Halsbury’s Law Exchange

Posted November 2nd, 2012 in appeals, company law, corporate veil, disclosure, financial provision, matrimonial home, news by sally

For a long time family lawyers and the family courts have made the best of the creaking mechanism for financial provision that is the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) (much amended…). Procedural changes are made but in terms of the interpretation of the MCA 1973 itself, case law is king. The family courts “make do and mend” so that the nearly 40-year-old primary legislation is fit for purpose. But the Court of Appeal last week decided that that the company law case of Salomon v A Salomon and Company, Limited [1897] AC 22 applies as much in the disposition of ancillary relief proceedings as in other proceedings.

Full story

Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 1st November 2012

Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk