Sentences with phrase «corporate veil»

This is known as the corporate shield or corporate veil as it separates your personal assets from those of the business.

Corporate Veil Smith's attorneys initially argued that much of what Smith was being sued for was outside of the scope of the home inspection, but as the case progressed they began to lean heavily on the argument that as a corporate officer, Smith should not be liable for the contract breach of SHI, the corporate entity, and consequently was not accountable for the alleged mistakes.

There is a concept in corporate law called «piercing the corporate veil» — which just means that someone suing your business can also sue you personally!

While piercing the corporate veil is rare, when it happens, it can be devastating for the business owner.

In the long run, you'll find it's much cheaper than going it alone and then later discovering holes in your financial parachute or «corporate veil.»

«What you want to avoid is anything that might «pierce the corporate veil,» says Sandra E. Mayerson, leader of the national bankruptcy practice of law firm Holland & Knight LLP, who is based in New York City.

«The Hobby Lobby owners are trying to pierce the corporate veil to get exemptions for their religious beliefs, but they [likely] don't want to accept the other obligations imposed on the corporation,» Winkler says.

Because if your business happens to be sued and the plaintiff shows you haven't maintained your LLC / Inc to the letter of the law, your corporate veil is pierced and you can be personally liable again.

In other words, once the business is incorporated, shareholders are protected by the corporate veil, or limited liability.

Because, unless you cross your T's and dot your I's, the IRS, or any litigant for that matter, can «pierce the corporate veil» and turn your corporation back into a sole proprietorship.

«We've seen plaintiffs» counsel pierce the corporate veil because business owners treat the corporation as a piggy bank and don't maintain bylaws,» said Rick Keller, chairman of First Foundation in Irvine, California.

I'd also love that — a «reality cam» with freedom to roam and to record everything including what goes on behind the corporate veil, telephone calls, associations, the lot would help fans to know who it is that's sincere and credible from who seeks to pull the wool over our eyes.

The suit also asks the court to «pierce the corporate veil» to reveal the identities of those behind the LLCs in order to determine whether the companies exist for a legitimate business purpose, or if they are «corporate alter - egos» meant to circumvent the limits.

While an author is always potentially liable for his / her writing, forming a business creates a «corporate veil» that can help protect his / her personal assets.

Plaintiffs concede that they are not attempting to pierce the corporate veil in order to hold Penguin liable for Author Solutions» actions.

If you deliberately create a corporation that doesn't have enough assets to meet its liabilities and it fails, creditors can «pierce the corporate veil» and go after the shareholders.

This is called «piercing the corporate veil».

The LAST thing you want is to end up with auditors or regulators sniffing around your business, even if you haven't done anything wrong, and you certainly don't want to run the risk of accidentally «piercing the corporate veil», as someone else here astutely pointed out.

However, if someone can show that there's no real separation between your LLC's activities and your personal activities, then they can «pierce the corporate veil» and go after your personal assets.

Other Considerations The issues explored here, admittedly, are not the only issues that come into play when a plaintiff attempts to «pierce the corporate veil» in a home - inspector related lawsuit.

The case of SHI and Tom Smith is a compelling example of how the «corporate veil» can be pierced but it does not mean that corporate forms of organization are categorically useless for home inspectors.

In what quickly became an exercise in «piercing the corporate veil,» this case provides a stark warning for inspectors who believe that incorporating is a foolproof way to limit their personal liability and protect their personal assets.

HAWK doesn't pay (Mexico respects the corporate veil) and can't tender for PEMEX contracts, if they ever arrive.

Second, the «corporate veil» does not exist when personal finances are co-mingled with your business finances.

Can he use an existing credit card in his name for all his business expenses, or does that pierce the corporate veil?

They increase the risk that creditors and others may be able to «pierce the corporate veil» and seize the personal assets of the owners.

Rather than celebrating its status as # 1m - a-head revenue generators, the SFO should perhaps be actively piercing the corporate veil in serious fraud to get to the men and women responsible for committing serious crime involving millions of pounds.

An accountant or lawyer can ensure that your business does not pierce the corporate veil and that all of the legal responsibilities your business must adhere to are adequately met.

As such, proof will need to be provided that shows your company has pierced the corporate veil.

As a business owner, it is possible to pierce the corporate veil by not adhering to the formalities of owning a corporation.

In essence, the corporate veil is the legal standing in which you're protected from the liabilities and debts of your business.

Whether you're trying to make a judgment against a company and you're claiming they pierced the veil, or you're facing claims of piercing your corporate veil, a lawyer will be needed.

We provide a way to incorporate, create bylaws, and ensure corporate compliance to reduce the possibility of piercing the corporate veil.

If you pierce the corporate veil, this protection will be invalid and you'll be legally responsible for the debts of your business.

Corporate veils are only pierced when the shareholders or owners use the corporation in a fraudulent manner, or they fail to separate the business assets from their own.

The phrase «piercing the corporate veil» refers to the removal of the legal separation of shareholders and the corporation itself.

Public companies, for instance, that pierce the corporate veil will not have all shareholders held liable for the debts incurred.

Some cases approach the problem from the perspective of the «duty of care», whereas others approach it from the perspective of «piercing the corporate veil».

After the 2013 Supreme Court decision in Prest v Petrodel, attacking properties held by offshore companies (often referred to as «piercing the corporate veil») is more difficult.

As the willingness of courts to pierce the corporate veil grows, there may be new situations, perhaps involving a lower standard of corporate misconduct, in which individuals are held personally liable for a corporation's misdeeds.

In finding that the circumstances described above would justify piercing the corporate veil, the Court endorsed earlier decisions that held that the corporate veil could properly be lifted when those in control of an otherwise validly incorporated corporation «expressly direct a wrongful thing to be done», or when a corporation «is completely dominated and controlled and being used as a shield for fraudulent or improper conduct.»

In both cases the Court of Appeal held that the facts could support piercing the corporate veil.

In some circumstances, it is possible for a creditor to get behind the company, and «pierce the corporate veil» to hold individuals liable for certain debts.

Yet in recent years there have been several decisions that have acted to broaden the test for piercing the corporate veil.

Beginning with the 2001 case of 642947 Ontario Ltd. v. Fleischer the Ontario Court of Appeal began to set out an expanded test recognizing circumstances in which the corporate veil of a corporation that was validly incorporated can nevertheless be pierced.