Responsibility Of Parent Companies For The Debts Of Their Subsidiaries As A Result Of Piercing The Corporate Veil
Keywords:
corporate veil, piercing the corporate veil, parent company, subsidiary companyAbstract
This article deals with the timely issue of a possibility of and need for the use of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil in bringing a parent company to responsibility for the debts of its subsidiary. The author analyses the international case law in respect of the application of this doctrine and the most widely used approaches to piercing the corporate veil in the context of relations between a parent and a subsidiary company.
References
1. Filatova Z. V. Legal regulation of holdings’ activities // [Electronic resource material]. Web-page: http://jrnl.nau.edu.ua/index.php/PPEI/article/viewFile/447/435.
2. Legal status of subsidiary companies under the laws of Ukraine in force // Journal of the Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine]. Issue 2(41), 2005: 225–233.
3. State Classification 002:2004 Classification of business entities approved by the Order of the State Committee of Ukraine for Technical Regulation and Consumer Policy No. 97 of 28 May 2004.
4. Kheda S. M. Legal regulation of participation of foreign legal entities in civil legal relations (comparative legal aspect) [Text]: Summary of thesis of Candidate of Legal Sciences in speciality 12.00.03 / Kheda Svitlana; Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. Kyiv, 2004: 20.
5. Spasibo-Fateeva I. Problems of responsibility of legal entities // Entrepreneurship, business and law. Issue 9, 2001: 3–6.
6. Corporate law: textbook for students of hider educational establishments specializing in law / Editor-in-chief Shitkina I. S. Moscow: Walters Kluwer, 2007: 648.
7. Shitkina I. S. Piercing the corporate veil in Russian law: legal regulation and practice // Business and law. Issue 2, 2013: 1–19.
8. Thomas K. Cheng, The Corporate Veil Doctrine Revisited: A Comparative Study of the English and the U.S. Corporate Veil Doctrines, 34 B.C. Int ‘l & Comp. L. Rev. 329 (2011).
9. Japan Petroleum CO. (Nigeria) LTD. v. Asland Oil, Inc., 456 F.Supp. 831 (D. Dell 1978).
10. Berkey v. Third Ave. Ry. Co., 244 N.Y. 84, 155 N.E. 58, 50 A.L.R. 599, 604 (1926).
11. National Bond Finance Co. v. General Motors Corp., 238 F.Supp. 248, 255–256 (W.D.Mo.1964), aff ‘d., 341 F.2d 1022 (8th Cir. 1965).
12. Pauley Petroleum, Inc. v. Continental Oil Co., 239 A.2d 629, 633 (Del.1968).
13. Shitkina I. Responsibility of parent company for the liabilities of its subsidiary // Corporate strategies. Issue 31 (9245), 2008.
14. Kantzas, I. Das Weisungsrecht im Vertragskonzern. Frankfurt am Main. 1988. S. 52–53.
15. Tai Yu. V. Piercing the corporate veil in private law // [Electronic resource material]. Web-page: www.privlaw.ru/files/ Tezisy_Taya.
16. Responsibility of cross-border corporate groups: theory and practice / Aristova Ye. A. Moscow: Infotropic Media, 2014: 248.
17. Radaszewski v. Telecom Corp., 981 F.2d 305, 306 (8 th Cir.1992).
18. Diachenko Ye. B. Control over corporations: doctrine and practice. Scientific publication. Moscow: Infotropic Media, 2013: 148.
19. Frederick J. Powell, Parent and Subsidiary Corporations (1931).
2. Legal status of subsidiary companies under the laws of Ukraine in force // Journal of the Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine]. Issue 2(41), 2005: 225–233.
3. State Classification 002:2004 Classification of business entities approved by the Order of the State Committee of Ukraine for Technical Regulation and Consumer Policy No. 97 of 28 May 2004.
4. Kheda S. M. Legal regulation of participation of foreign legal entities in civil legal relations (comparative legal aspect) [Text]: Summary of thesis of Candidate of Legal Sciences in speciality 12.00.03 / Kheda Svitlana; Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. Kyiv, 2004: 20.
5. Spasibo-Fateeva I. Problems of responsibility of legal entities // Entrepreneurship, business and law. Issue 9, 2001: 3–6.
6. Corporate law: textbook for students of hider educational establishments specializing in law / Editor-in-chief Shitkina I. S. Moscow: Walters Kluwer, 2007: 648.
7. Shitkina I. S. Piercing the corporate veil in Russian law: legal regulation and practice // Business and law. Issue 2, 2013: 1–19.
8. Thomas K. Cheng, The Corporate Veil Doctrine Revisited: A Comparative Study of the English and the U.S. Corporate Veil Doctrines, 34 B.C. Int ‘l & Comp. L. Rev. 329 (2011).
9. Japan Petroleum CO. (Nigeria) LTD. v. Asland Oil, Inc., 456 F.Supp. 831 (D. Dell 1978).
10. Berkey v. Third Ave. Ry. Co., 244 N.Y. 84, 155 N.E. 58, 50 A.L.R. 599, 604 (1926).
11. National Bond Finance Co. v. General Motors Corp., 238 F.Supp. 248, 255–256 (W.D.Mo.1964), aff ‘d., 341 F.2d 1022 (8th Cir. 1965).
12. Pauley Petroleum, Inc. v. Continental Oil Co., 239 A.2d 629, 633 (Del.1968).
13. Shitkina I. Responsibility of parent company for the liabilities of its subsidiary // Corporate strategies. Issue 31 (9245), 2008.
14. Kantzas, I. Das Weisungsrecht im Vertragskonzern. Frankfurt am Main. 1988. S. 52–53.
15. Tai Yu. V. Piercing the corporate veil in private law // [Electronic resource material]. Web-page: www.privlaw.ru/files/ Tezisy_Taya.
16. Responsibility of cross-border corporate groups: theory and practice / Aristova Ye. A. Moscow: Infotropic Media, 2014: 248.
17. Radaszewski v. Telecom Corp., 981 F.2d 305, 306 (8 th Cir.1992).
18. Diachenko Ye. B. Control over corporations: doctrine and practice. Scientific publication. Moscow: Infotropic Media, 2013: 148.
19. Frederick J. Powell, Parent and Subsidiary Corporations (1931).
