<p>The subject for this composition is the instute"ansvarsgenombrott"which in english is called"lifting the corporate veil"or"piercing the corporate veil". This institute has given rise to several very controversial questions. The most important questions are: Which principles must be fulfilled if the institute shall come in to question and is there a need for a regulation of the institute in swedish law?</p>

The subject for this composition is the instute"ansvarsgenombrott"which in english is called"lifting the corporate veil"or"piercing the corporate veil". This institute has given rise to several very controversial questions. The most important questions are: Which principles must be fulfilled if the institute shall come in to question and is there a need for a regulation of the institute in swedish law?

LLM / Department of Mercantile Law / Once a company is incorporated it becomes a juristic entity, distinct and separate from its incorporators. Thus, the company bears its own liabilities. However, section 20(9) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 grants the courts the discretion to disregard the separate legal personality of a company where there is unconscionable abuse of the juristic personality of the company. However, the challenge is that the section fails to define what constitutes ‘‘unconscionable abuse’’. This research thus investigated what constitutes unconscionable abuse of the juristic personality of the company as the ground for piercing the corporate veil. Simply put, this research identified the circumstances under which the corporate veil may be pierced, given the confounding provisions of section 20(9). In unravelling the problems posed by the said section, the researcher employed a combination of doctrinal legal research methodology and comparative research methodology which involve the scrutiny of ‘black letter of the law’ and the laws of other jurisdictions. The result from this extensive inquiry is that the term ‘unconscionable abuse’ is a legislative derivate from the various terms used by the courts at common law to justify the disregarding of the separate legal personality of the corporate entity. Therefore, the inescapable conclusion reached is that just as those terms used at common law are confounding, so shall this legislative innovation. Therefore, in order to resolve this problem each matter should be dealt with based on its peculiar facts.

See the attached abstract below

Groups of companies offer considerable economic and practical advantages over other forms of business organizations. However, the phenomenon creates a long list of problems in terms of antitrust law, tax law, labour law, corporate law, and in the case of international companies, conflict of laws. National laws do not provide a complete solution to these problems because groups of companies are still governed by traditional corporate law, which is designed to govern single independent companies. On the other hand, harmonization of the law of corporate groups across Common legal systems is neither feasible not advisable. The most important problem which has not yet been completely solved by Common law systems is the liability of groups of companies for the debts of their subsidiaries. This has been described as &quot;one of the great unsolved problems of modern company law&quot;. The present study aims to analyse the solutions provided by Common law systems to this problem and evaluate if they provide a solid settlement or whether further safeguards are needed for those dealing with corporate groups, namely minority shareholders and outsiders including creditors. By using a comparative approach with the Islamic law system, the study evaluates if the Common law solutions are also applicable in such a religious system or whether, due to its unique character Islamic law needs to create its own solution. This comparative approach assesses the possibilities of harmonization between Common law and Islamic law systems and promotes the Islamisation of modern laws in Islamic countries.

Milan Kostohryz Piercing the Corporate Veil - Selected Issues in International Comparison Abstract The main purpose of the thesis is to give recommendation for possible application of the piercing doctrine in the Czech Republic. Secondary purposes are (i) analysis of effects caused by disregarding the principles of limited liability and separate legal personality because of piercing and (ii) detailed description of approaches to the piercing issue in selected legal systems (USA, UK and Germany). The thesis starts with some terminological issues; it introduces the possible Czech equivalents of the notion "piercing the corporate veil" and explains that it can have slightly different meaning depending on the individual author. The differences stem especially from the questions whether piercing negates only the principle of limited liability or also the principle of separate personality; whether so called inner piercing (Innenhaftung) shall be part of the doctrine and whether the piercing doctrine shall be regarded as product of case-law only. Also some special forms of piercing (reverse piercing, lateral piercing and insider piercing) are introduced. The third chapter analyses the relationship between the piercing doctrine and the principles of limited liability and separate legal personality. In particular it...

La organización productiva descentralizada y flexible que, bajo el impulso de las nuevas tecnologías y la globalización, viene sustituyendo a partir del último cuarto del siglo XX al fordismo de inspiración keynesiana, está deteriorando los mercados laborales, lo que supone una precarización de las condiciones de empleo, un notable repliegue de los «Estados del bienestar» y la desactivación del factor trabajo. Superado el tradicional principio de «unicidad» empresarial, un empresario «complejo» y múltiple –el grupo de empresas-, caracterizado por su dificultad identificatoria, absorbe un protagonismo creciente, en un contexto normativo-laboral casi desregulado, en el que al margen del fraude, la dirección unitaria de las empresas agrupadas no implica deducir de su funcionamiento una responsabilidad (solidaria). En esa «cierta unidad económica» que constituye el grupo, se detecta un punto de conflicto o desconexión, entre las facultades empresariales decisorias -unidad de decisión- y las organizativas –dependencia y ajenidad de frutos-. / The decentralized and flexible productive organization, boosted by globalization, new information and knowledge technologies, has been replacing the Fordist Keynesian inspiration since the last quarter of the 20th century; besides it has been worsening the labour markets, which involves a precariousness of employment conditions and an outstanding backing down of “welfare states” and job factor neutralization. Once the traditional principle of business uniqueness has been overwhelmed, a complex and multiple –the corporate group- employer arises; this employer is characterized by the difficulty of being identified and acquires an increasingly featuring role, inside a regulatory working context almost deregulated, where, on the fringe fraud, the unitarian corporate group management doesn’t imply deducing a solidarity liability from its activity. Inside that “particular economical unity” made up by the group, a deal-breaker or a gap is detected between the decision-making management faculties –decision unity- and the organizational ones –dependence and another person’s benefits-.

The gas leak disaster in Bhopal, India, in 1984 illustrates a situation of catastrophe and mass torts resulting in loss of life and health as well as environmental degradation. The Indian company Union Carbide India Limited, who owned and operated the chemical plant that caused the disaster, did not have sufficient assets to compensate the victims in contrast to its financially well-equipped US parent company Union Carbide Corporation. The courts never reached a decision regarding parent company liability for the subsidiary’s debts arising from tort claims against the subsidiary. However, where the subsidiary cannot satisfy its tort creditors, as in the Bhopal case, questions regarding parent company liability become highly relevant in relation to both foreign and domestic subsidiaries. Therefore, parent company liability for subsidiaries’ torts is discussed in this thesis with reference to Swedish and UK company law and with a focus on the tort creditors’ situation and the business and human rights debate. From limited liability for shareholders and each company being a separate legal entity follows that a parent company is not liable for its subsidiaries’ debts in neither Swedish nor UK company law. These concepts serve the important function of facilitating risk-taking and entrepreneurial activities. However, they also contribute to the problem of uncompensated tort victims arising where a subsidiary is involved in liability- producing activities but lacks assets to compensate the tort victims. Where limited liability and each company being a separate legal entity leads to particularly inappropriate results, the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil in both Sweden and the UK allows the court to disregard the separate legal personalities and hold the parent company liable for its subsidiary’s acts or omissions. The doctrine is characterised by uncertainty and is seemingly only available under exceptional circumstances. The doctrine does little to mitigate the problems for subsidiaries’ tort creditors at large. The business and human rights debate calls for access to judicial remedies for victims of businesses’ human rights violations. As some human rights violations can form the basis of a tort claim, it is relevant to discuss parent company liability according to company law in relation to human rights violations. The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights emphasise the need to ensure that corporate law does not prevent access to judicial remedies. However, the company law regulation of liability in company groups seems in practice to function as an obstacle for access to judicial remedies for human rights victims, particularly when also considering the inadequate legal regimes in some host states and the hurdles of jurisdiction and applicable law in multinational company groups. It is concluded in this thesis that the company law regulation of liability in company groups is seemingly not equipped to meet the challenges arising with the development of company groups, the global reach of the private business sector, the risks of mass torts and the influence of the business sector on human rights.