Lifting the Veil: Imagination and the Kingdom of God

£9.9
FREE Shipping

Lifting the Veil: Imagination and the Kingdom of God

Lifting the Veil: Imagination and the Kingdom of God

RRP: £99
Price: £9.9
£9.9 FREE Shipping

In stock

We accept the following payment methods

Description

A simple example would be where a businessperson has left their job as a director and has signed a contract to not compete with the company they have just left for a period of time. If they set up a company which competed with their former company, technically it would be the company and not the person competing. [1] But it is likely a court would say that the new company was just a "sham" or a "cover"; and that as the new company is completely owned and controlled by one person that the former employee is deliberately choosing to compete, and so is in breach of that non-competing contract.

The "single economic unit" theory was likewise rejected by the CA in Adams v Cape Industries, [26] where Slade LJ held that cases where the rule in Salomon had been circumvented were merely instances where they didn't know what to do. The view expressed at first instance by HHJ Southwell QC in Creasey v Breachwood [27] that English law "definitely" recognised the principle that the corporate veil could be lifted was described as a heresy by Hobhouse LJ in Ord v Bellhaven, [28] and these doubts were shared by Moritt V-C in Trustor v Smallbone (No 2): [29] the corporate veil cannot be lifted merely because justice requires it. Despite the rejection of the "justice of the case" test, it is observed from judicial reasoning in veil piercing cases that the courts employ "equitable discretion" guided by general principles such as mala fides to test whether the corporate structure has been used as a mere device. [30] Perfect obligation [ edit ] A director was diverting money to a company which he owned; on the basis this meant he had not personally received the money. Section 147- Misdescription of name: Under sub-section (4) of this section, an officer of a company who signs any bill of exchange, hundi, promissory note, cheque wherein the name of the company is not mentioned is the prescribed manner, such officer can be held personally liable to the holder of the bill of exchange, hundi etc. unless it is duly paid by the company. Such instance was observed in the case of Hendon v. Adelman. [viii]

ABSTRACT

Assmann, Jan (1997). Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-58738-0. Greer, John Michael (1997). Circles of Power: Ritual Magic in the Western Tradition. Llewelyn Worldwide. ISBN 978-1-56718-313-9. While the secondary literature refers to different means of "lifting" or "piercing" the veil (see Ottolenghi (1959)), judicial dicta supporting the view that the rule in Salomon is subject to exceptions are thin on the ground. Lord Denning MR outlined the theory of the "single economic unit" - wherein the court examined the overall business operation as an economic unit, rather than strict legal form - in DHN Food Distributors v Tower Hamlets. [24] However this has largely been repudiated and has been treated with caution in subsequent judgments. The HiveMind Invasion of Civilization! Compendium of Esoteric Science, Symbolism & Universal Secrets

The Court may, on the facts of a case, treat a subsidiary as merely a branch or department of one large undertaking owned by the holding company. The motif was based on a statue of Isis, or of the goddess Neith who was sometimes equated with her, in the Egyptian city of Sais mentioned by the Greco-Roman authors Plutarch and Proclus. They claimed the statue bore an inscription saying "I am all that has been and is and shall be; and no mortal has ever lifted my mantle." Illustrations of Isis with her veil being lifted were popular from the late 17th to the early 19th century, often as allegorical representations of Enlightenment science and philosophy uncovering nature's secrets. Authors at the end of the 18th century, foreshadowing the Romantic movement, began using the lifting of Isis's veil as a metaphor for revealing awe-inspiring truth. Helena Blavatsky, in Isis Unveiled in 1877, used the metaphor for the spiritual truths that her Theosophical belief system hoped to discover, and modern ceremonial magic includes a ritual called the Rending of the Veil to bring the magician to a higher state of spiritual awareness. Capuano, Angelo (2009), "The Realist's Guide to Piercing the Corporate Veil", Australian Journal of Corporate Law, 23 (1): 56–94, SSRN 1369110 India being one of the top three emerging economies, has been longing for strong and cogent corporate laws that will enable the country’s international trade to conduct its affairs on a par with the western industrialized nations. The proposals in the Bill are expected to act as a catalyst to fostering the growth of the economy. One of the main highlights of this Bill is that it proposes a mechanism for vigilance that will reward whistle blowers. This measure will allow companies to follow transparency at every move they initiate. The authors have mentioned a few provisions which bring in responsibilities and liabilities upon a director. The principle is a limited one which has been developed pragmatically to enable a practical solution in particular factual circumstances.

lift the veil (on something)

Lifting of the corporate veil means disregarding the corporate personality and looking behind the real person who are in the control of the company. In other words, where a fraudulent and dishonest use is made of the legal entity, the individuals concerned will not be allowed to take shelter behind the corporate personality. In this regards the court will break through the corporate shell and apply the principle of what is known as “lifting or piercing through the corporate veil.” And while by fiction of law a corporation is a distinct entity, yet in reality it is an association of persons who are in fact the beneficial owners of all the corporate property. In United States V. Milwaukee Refrigerator Co., the position was summed up as follows: Macey, Jonathan R. (27 March 2014). "The Three Justifications for Piercing the Corporate Veil". Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation . Retrieved 9 September 2017. The case concerned claims of certain unsecured creditors in the liquidation process of Salomon Ltd., a company in which Salomon was the majority shareholder, and accordingly, was sought to be made personally liable for the company’s debt. Hence, the issue was whether, regardless of the separate legal identity of a company, a shareholder/controller could be held liable for its debt, over and above the capital contribution, so as to expose such member to unlimited personal liability. RULING IN SALOMON V SALOMON

In English criminal law there have been cases in which the courts have been prepared to pierce the veil of incorporation. For example, in confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 monies received by a company can, depending upon the particular facts of the case as found by the court, be regarded as having been 'obtained' by an individual (who is usually, but not always, a director of the company). In consequence those monies may become an element in the individual's 'benefit' obtained from criminal conduct (and hence subject to confiscation from him). [37] The position regarding 'piercing the veil' in English criminal law was given in the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of R v Seager [38] in which the court said (at para 76): At times it may happen that the corporate personality of the company is used to commit frauds and improper or illegal acts. Since an artificial person is not capable of doing anything illegal or fraudulent, the façade of corporate personality might have to be removed to identify the persons who are really guilty. This is known as ‘lifting of corporate veil’. Ziolkowski, Theodore (Summer 2008). "The Veil as Metaphor and Myth". Religion & Literature. 40 (2).One of the main motives for forming a corporation or company is the limited liability that it offers to its shareholders. By this doctrine, a shareholder can only lose what he or she has contributed as shares to the corporate entity and nothing more. This concept is in serious conflict with the doctrine of lifting the veil as both these do not co-exist which is discussed by us in the paper in detail. DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPT OF “LIFTING THE CORPORATE VEIL” The doctrine laid down in Salomon v. Salomon and Salomon Co.Ltd, has to be watched very carefully. It has often been supposed to cast a veil over the personality of a limited liability company through which the Courts cannot see. But, that is not true. The Courts can and often do draw aside the veil. They can and often do, pull off the mask. They look to see what really lies behind”. Judicial Provisions Or Grounds For Lifting The Veil-



  • Fruugo ID: 258392218-563234582
  • EAN: 764486781913
  • Sold by: Fruugo

Delivery & Returns

Fruugo

Address: UK
All products: Visit Fruugo Shop