Search for: "Director Pierce"
Results 21 - 40
of 808
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Jan 2023, 3:34 pm
In such situations, parties sometimes seek to “pierce the corporate veil,” going behind the curtain of the corporate form and holding third-parties, such as shareholders, directors, and officers, liable for actions done in the name of the corporation. [read post]
3 Oct 2017, 10:09 am
Additionally, for veil piercing cases that involve parent-subsidiary relationships, Florida courts also consider the following factors: Common Management: The same directors and officers control both the parent and subsidiary. [read post]
3 Sep 2010, 10:34 am
The decision whether to pierce the corporate veil in a given instance depends on the particular facts and circumstances. [read post]
11 Aug 2014, 11:47 am
Doug described the case (correctly, in my view) as "an outlier decision on veil-piercing" for piercing the veil based on so little. [read post]
6 Sep 2011, 8:32 am
Certainly the basics: electing directors and officers. [read post]
15 Nov 2019, 10:00 am
“Piercing the corporate veil” is a legal colloquialism used to describe the removal of corporate entity protection to hold shareholders or directors personally liable for corporate debts and liabilities. [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 6:33 am
Pierce courthouse was dedicated on Friday:After what some government officials called a 25-year effort, theU.S. [read post]
11 Aug 2014, 6:47 am
Doug described the case (correctly, in my view) as “an outlier decision on veil-piercing” for piercing the veil based on so little. [read post]
11 Aug 2016, 1:19 am
Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department has notified Mr. [read post]
26 Apr 2010, 6:15 am
In the United States, corporate veil piercing is the most litigated issue in corporate law. [read post]
3 Dec 2016, 1:00 am
USACafes is as much a corporate law doctrine, dictating to whom corporate directors owe a fiduciary duty. [read post]
22 Dec 2013, 11:44 pm
However, the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil “is not a theory of liability” but rather “provides an avenue to pursue legal claims against corporate directors and officers” for which they would otherwise be shielded from liability by the corporate form. [read post]
6 Feb 2007, 4:18 pm
Burleigh, Burleigh formed Window Treatment & Carpet, Inc. in 1994 and was the sole shareholder, director, officer, and employee. [read post]
5 Nov 2009, 9:13 am
Winger, the court succinctly sets out the requirements for piercing the corporate veil. [read post]
8 Aug 2016, 8:00 am
For those reasons, not only was the corporate veil pierced, but attorney fees were awarded. [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 8:31 am
This is known in legal terms as "Piercing the Corporate Veil". [read post]
22 May 2012, 6:37 pm
Pierce was treated differently than other Assistant Directors. [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 3:00 am
See for example, our discussion of false conflicts in the context of a veil piercing proceeding, and our treatment of whether veil piercing was the correct procedure to enforce an arbitral award (it was, but the claim lost on the merits). [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 8:31 am
This is known in legal terms as "Piercing the Corporate Veil". [read post]
27 Dec 2006, 8:00 pm
Piercing the corporate veil in its purest form means making a shareholder responsible for the actions of the company. [read post]
