Search results
Mar 4, 2021 · The majority in the Court of Appeal focused inappropriately on the issue of the level of control that a parent exerts over its subsidiary in determining whether the parent can be liable for the ...
Oct 23, 2018 · According to a universal bedrock principle of corporate law, corporations have separate legal personality and limited liability. These principles apply equally to corporate groups. Accordingly, a parent company is normally not liable for legal infractions and unpaid debts of its subsidiaries. In relation to torts and other misconduct committed by corporations, however, the bedrock principles ...
Sep 13, 2023 · Subsidiaries and special purpose vehicle limited liability companies are intended to insulate the parent entity. A parent company and its subsidiary are separate in the eyes of the law, with separate liability for their acts and omissions. However, in certain circumstances a parent company may be liable for the activities of its subsidiary.
Mar 26, 2008 · The Supreme Court adopted the general rule that a parent company can be liable for the acts of its subsidiary only when a basis exists for "piercing the veil" under traditional corporate law principles, or when the parent company actually "manage[s], direct[s], or conduct[s] operations specifically related to pollution, that is, operations ...
How and when can a parent company be liable for conduct of its (foreign) subsidiaries? Corporate separateness, a key principle of English law, provides that each entity in a corporate group has a separate legal personality. 1 English courts are generally reluctant to ‘pierce the corporate veil’ to find liability higher up the corporate chain and will only do so in limited circumstances.
Mar 7, 2018 · When can a parent company be liable for the acts of an international subsidiary? The question has hit the UK courts several times in recent months. Malcolm Simpson offers some practical conclusions arising from key cases on the complex questions of jurisdiction and intra-group corporate liability.
subsidiary and a British parent company was insufficient to hold the British parent liable under the antitrust laws for the acts of a subsidiary. Similarly, in Arnold Chevrolet LLC,4 the Court stated “in the antitrust context, courts have held that absent allegations of anticompetitive
