The document discusses the concept of piercing the corporate veil in corporate law. It addresses situations where:
1) The veil of incorporation, which separates a company from its directors and shareholders, can be lifted. This includes cases of fraud, statutory provisions, and situations where justice dictates.
2) Three specific court cases where the veil was lifted: Adams v Cape Industries, the BMF scandal, and the Bhopal disaster.
3) A scenario where a subsidiary company faces liability claims that exceed its assets for a failed drug experiment. This raises the issue of whether the subsidiary, its director, or the parent company can be held liable. The document advises on assessing each entity's potential liability.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0 ratings0% found this document useful (0 votes)
124 views
Tutorial 4 - ND
The document discusses the concept of piercing the corporate veil in corporate law. It addresses situations where:
1) The veil of incorporation, which separates a company from its directors and shareholders, can be lifted. This includes cases of fraud, statutory provisions, and situations where justice dictates.
2) Three specific court cases where the veil was lifted: Adams v Cape Industries, the BMF scandal, and the Bhopal disaster.
3) A scenario where a subsidiary company faces liability claims that exceed its assets for a failed drug experiment. This raises the issue of whether the subsidiary, its director, or the parent company can be held liable. The document advises on assessing each entity's potential liability.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2
Tutorial 4: The Lifting of the Veil of Incorporation
1. Explain the significance of the veil of incorporation?
To ensure the members of the company are kept separate (directors and shareholders separated from the company).
2. List and explain the situations in which the veil will be lifted? Statutary and judicial decisions. Statutary would be under section 36 and 121. Under judicial it will be under case to case fraud, 3. Research the following incidents: Adams v. Cape Industries Plc and Another (1991) 1 All ER. 929 CA The BMF scandal / Lorraine Esme Osman The Bhopal disaster
In reviewing the facts of the above incidents identify how the concept of separate legal identity operates and whether the veil ought to be lifted when justice dictates?
4. Good Health Sdn. Bhd. is a well established pharmaceutical company which is the parent company of a large group of subsidiary companies involved in different aspects of the pharmaceutical industry. Testing Sdn. Bhd. is one these subsidiaries and was set specifically for the purpose of carrying out commercially risky ventures in the search for profitable new drugs. Owing to this aspect of the business, Testing Sdn. Bhd.s total assets are intentionally capped at approximately RM 50,000.00. Recently, Testing undertook experiments to try and develop a new drug to cure a new strain of deadly influenza. Barry Tablet, the Managing Director of Testing Sdn. Bhd., appeared live on the television to make a personal appeal for volunteers for the experiment. After an intensive media campaign involving Barry Tablet, 100 volunteers were chosen. Unfortunately, the experiment went disastrously wrong resulting in several volunteers losing their eyesight permanently. The experiment was not properly researched and there is clear evidence of negligence. Testing now faces claims of millions of ringgit. Discuss Testing Sdn. Bhd.s liability and advise Barry if he can be held personally liable and further, if claims can be brought against Good Health Sdn. Bhd.
First paragraph single economic entity or group of companies? If not stated then you have to make assumptions whether good health is a single economic entity or group of companies. You must state the best and worst case scenario possibilities. Talk on both iffs. Second paragraph Liability of testing Liability of barry Liabitlity of good health