Piercing the Corporate Veil: UK, Singapore & Delaware

Produce a written answer (3,750 words). You must state the number of words you have used, using the Thermatic approach & full bibliography of texts, journals, etc., referred to in the work.  Footnotes should follow the OSCOLA referencing style for the following essay questions:

Question:

“The corporate veil should only be pierced in minimal circumstances”. Critically analyse the case law relevant to piercing of the corporate veil in the  UK, Singapore & for USA, using Delaware only.

1. Write 60% on the UK and the balance 40% on Singapore & Delaware (USA)
   Write based on the attached Article and slides shared. include a full bibliography of texts, journals, etc., referred to in the work.  Footnotes should follow the OSCOLA referencing style.
2. Answer the question with coherent, well-expressed, and well-structured. Demonstrate a high level of critical analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, and show comparative and analytical discussion. Display a considerable degree of creative thought. Demonstrate wide research. Display an excellent standard of presentation. Must be written with legal principles and not facts
3. Explain briefly the understanding or concept of Corporate personality with legal principles –
4. Use the attached article and slides to write the critical analysis argument on Corporate Personality, Judicial veil lifting  Fraud, Judicial veil lifting – Evasion of contractual obligation, and Judicial veil lifting – Agency, statutory veil lifting Single economic entity. Write about the 3 exceptions from the Adam v Cape industries case, Section 214 on Insolvency Act for Singapore, including the principle of concealment and the principle of Evasion

Cases to be used for the Critical Analysis are Prest V Petronel, Singapore Tourism Board v Children’s media Gilford Motor Co. Ltd v Horne (1933), Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 All ER 442, Smith, Stone & Knight Ltd v Birmingham Corporation (1939), Adam v Cape industries case, Alwie Handoya v Tjong verysumtp

Law Assignment Samples: Expert Answers on Above Law Questions

Answer 1: Introduction
A company is considered as a separate legal entity that is completely different from its shareholders and directors. This doctrine lays down the basic premise of the concept of corporate personality and thereby ensuring limited liability. However the courts also do not accept this separation to hold individuals accountable in case of piercing the corporate veil.
Judicial veil piercing in the UK
Fraud and evasion principle: There was a situation when the veil was pierced in order to prevent the company from concealing wrongful conduct. It was mainly identified in the case of Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch 935 and Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 WLR 832. Concealment is where the company tries to hide the identity of the real actor whereas evasion is the frustration of legal obligation.

Want a Full Worked Out Answer with References?

Check Law Samples Written by Law Experts in Singapore

The post Piercing the Corporate Veil: UK, Singapore & Delaware appeared first on Assignment Help Singapore.