This dissertation deals with international company law, namely with piercing the corporate veil doctrine. The dissertation is divided, apart from introduction and conclusion, into 5 chapters. Chapter I deals with general definition of the doctrine. Chapter II explains that the complexity of the doctrine is caused by a fact that it actually consists of several related questions. This Chapter offers an answer to the most serious one - the predictability of use of the doctrine. Chapter III discusses current questions related to the piercing. Chapter IV brings an analysis of use of the piercing in chosen developed legal orders including a comparison summary. Finally, Chapter V is devoted to possibility of use of the doctrine in Czech law. Key words: International company law; piercing the corporate veil; breakthrough of the property independence; limited liability of shareholders; capital companies; economic analysis of law; closely held corporations; voluntary and involuntary creditors.

This thesis argues that the twin concept of separate personality and limited liability from its historical beginnings, has entrenched corporate irresponsibility. It assesses the role that these concepts have played in tackling corporate irresponsibility from their historical origins to the present day, commenting on the lessons learnt. Whilst the institution of the company as a legal person is unquestionably the bedrock of modern company law,1 this thesis examines these concepts not necessarily from the position of disputing the philosophical, economic, or political imperatives, all of which are incredibly important – but from the viewpoint that historically, the principle of separate personality and limited liability entrenches corporate irresponsibility. As such, this thesis suggests a partial abandonment of the separate personality principle because it provides a mechanism for dishonest directors to escape liability for their fraudulent conduct. It also argues that the existing judicial evasion and concealment2 principles and the statutory fraudulent and wrongful trading provisions under the Insolvency Act 19863 are too restrictive, and ambiguous in combating corporate abuse. It is concluded that the existing common law and statutory rules geared towards combating abuse of limited liability provides no coherent format upon which the courts and legislature may effectively curb abuse of the corporate form. As such, these laws in light of their inability to make dishonest directors personally liable for their fraudulent conducts ought to be challenged. There is a need to challenge the existing rules in order to show the effect abuse of limited liability has on creditors, the public and the economy. This research indicates that there ought to be an adequate and effective alternative law which provides balance and support for genuine enterprise whilst providing a robust system whereby those who abuse the corporate form can be easily made liable for corporate debts.

勞動基準法、勞工退休金條例課予雇主於成就一定要件下，有給付勞工退休金、資遣費之責，以保護照顧勞工。然時至今日，為因應全球化趨勢，經營者透過交互協力的經營網絡，使人事調動亦趨於頻繁，產生多法人格經營組織形態下的調職。惟勞工退休金與資遣費係本於勞動契約之請求，故其求償對象為「勞動契約上雇主」，當事人一方(事業單位)改變，工作年資重新計算，將衍生應以誰承擔雇主責任及工作年資併計、平均工資計算等債權範圍問題。甚或雇主透過關係企業交叉控制，濫用公司法人格、掏空資產，導致關廠歇業，勞工之債權求償無門。 勞動基準法各條文所規範之雇主(責任主體)，須斟酌各該法條的立法意旨與目的予以審酌認定，且未包含多重勞動關係之處理。我國公司法第154條第2項規定引進揭穿公司面紗原則，惟勞工如係因關係企業、家族企業調動，導致工作年資中斷或勞動條件不利益變更，損及其權益，尚難逕以該法條要求控制股東負清償之責，以擴張雇主責任。又104年2月4日修正公布勞動基準法第28條規定，提升退休金與資遣費之受償順位，並納入墊償，該條文對勞動債權之保護及施行以來之適用問題，亦為本文關切之重點。 　　本文將從雇主範圍、跨法人格企業調動、經營主體消滅等變動因素下，探討勞工退休金及資遣費之求償對象、求償範圍及債權保護等，並透過檢視現行勞動法制、公司法關係企業債權人保護之規定，介紹美國「揭穿公司面紗原則」、日本「法人格否認理論」、我國實務發展「實體同一性」概念等，試圖描繪擴充退休金與資遣費求償與保護法制之輪廓，並對於擴張勞工退休金與資遣費追償對象之可能，提出相關建議以供參考。

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...

I de fall enskilda aktieägare tillfogas skada, genom organledamots handlande, innehar dessa rättigheten att påkalla skadeståndsansvar enligt 29:1 1 st. 2 men. ABL. I den svenska rättstillämpningen ter sig dock tillämpningen av paragrafen, i samband med indirekta skador, problematisk. Problematiken hänför sig till vilka regler, vars åsidosättande, aktualiserar tillämpningen av paragrafen tillsammans med aktieägares talerätt. Två tolkningar kan i fallet identifieras, vilka framförts inom doktrinen, varvid en begränsad och en mer liberal. Även om den liberala tolkningen är förenad med viss problematik, är denna enligt mitt förmenande den vilken bör tillämpas. En sådan tillämpning skulle således innebära att enskilda aktieägare tillerkänns talerätt vid indirekt skada, då regler vilka ger uttryck för normskyddsläran och bolagsledningens lojalitetsplikt åsidosatts. Rättsutvecklingen har vidare givet upphov till frågan, huruvida en ”indirekt” indirekt skada kan omfattas av paragrafens tillämpningsområde. En sådan skada uppstår särskilt i koncernförhållanden då dotterbolaget tillfogas en direkt skada, vilken därigenom åsamkar aktieägarna i dess moderbolag en ”indirekt” indirekt skada. Skadan faller utanför paragrafens tillämpningsområde, då de skadedrabbade inte utgör aktieägare i dotterbolaget. En lösning enligt mitt förmenande, varigenom paragrafens tillämpning koncernanpassas, är att principen om ansvarsgenombrott i betydelsen genomsyn nyttjas. Principens aktualisering medför att ett moder- och dotterbolag betraktas som en juridisk enhet, om erforderliga rekvisit uppfylls, varigenom de skadedrabbade aktieägarna från ett teoretiskt perspektiv även ses som aktieägare i dotterbolaget. Effekten av principens tillämpning är sålunda att en ”indirekt” indirekt skada faller inom paragrafens tillämpningsområde. / Whenever individual shareholders inflict an injury, due to action taken by a corporate member, they possess the right to impose liability in accordance with 29:1 1 st. 2 men. ABL. The paragraph is though associated with some difficulties when it comes to an indirect injury. The difficulties regard which rules that have to be infringed, in order for the paragraph to be applicable and thereby providing shareholders with the right to sue. Two different interpretations can hereby be identified, whereby one limited and the other one more liberal. Even if the liberal interpretation is associated with some difficulties, I find that this one should be applied. Such an application would mean that an individual shareholder acquire the right to sue, for an indirect injury, when rules protecting a third person and the corporate member’s duty of loyalty have been infringed. Legal progress has also given rise to another question, whether an “indirect” indirect injury falls within the paragraphs application. Such an injury is mostly affiliated with corporate groups where the daughter company causes a direct injury, whereby the shareholders in the mother company causes an “indirect” indirect injury. Since the shareholder here is not an owner of the daughter company, the paragraph could not be applied. A solution to this problem is, according to me, an application of the principle piercing the corporate veil, whereby the paragraphs application extends to corporate groups. The effect of the principles application is that a mother- and daughter company becomes one legal entity, if the prerequisites are fulfilled. The outcome is hereby that a shareholder in the mother company, from a theoretical perspective, also is regarded to be an owner of the daughter company. Wherefore an “indirect” indirect injury hereby falls within the scope of the paragraphs application.

控制公司與從屬公司在法律面各具有獨立法人格，但在經濟面共同為聯盟經濟體。法律上允許控制公司與從屬公司不對等的控制支配關係存在，控制公司對從屬公司之財務、經營或人事具有控制支配力，可使從屬公司為或不為一定行為，當該行為不合於一般營業常規（本研究簡稱非常規交易）時，從經濟學角度，非常規交易或因集團整體運作需要，或因風險彼此瞭解或共同承擔等，致交易條件與一般常規不同，並非絕對無效率或涉有不法目的，完全禁止反有礙市場效率，故先進國家如美國、德國及我國等，對於非常規交易行為立法採不禁止，只是管制方式不同。我國公司法重視從屬公司權益之保障，制約控制公司適當補償或損害賠償責任；證券交易法則就行為致公司遭受重大損害，以刑責相繩；所得稅法基於租稅公平，按營業常規予以調整納稅，所謂不同法律立法目的所欲保護的法益不同，對於非常交易行為課以的法律效果也不同。 　　本研究以公司法第369條之4規定作為探討主軸，除認識、剖析我國公司法、證券交易法及所得稅法對非常規交易的規範目的及構成要件外，釐清控制關係、非常規交易等意涵也是很重要的，概實務案例上，非常規交易的確是不法利益輸送或掏空公司資產行為最常藉用的手法，主要原因除了控制與從屬關係外，非常規交易複雜難辨亦是原因之一。又控制公司支使從屬公司為非常規交易行為可能產生三種法律後果，一為直接損害從屬公司的權益；二為直接損害控制公司少數股東或債權人權益；三為同時損害從屬公司少數股東及其債權人權利。我國公司法、證交法及所得稅法基於不同立法目的而律定規範制約控制者責任，引進控制股東之受託義務、公司法人格否認、揭穿公司面紗原則、深石原則及代位訴訟等法理基礎與實務判例來作制約，保障受害者權益，立法意義值得肯定。但沒有一種責任機制能夠在所有情況下都發揮作用，水能載舟，亦能覆舟，加強控制公司責任，並賦予從屬公司或少數股東相對應的防衛工具，某種程度也影響了企業集團整體利益之運作，又法律正義權益平衡的設計，恐因舉證責任的關係，而難以落實。國內非常規交易規範行之有年，但商業交易行為推陳出新，以及跨境交易查證困難等，法制上及實務上面臨一些問題，本研究試著歸納並提出建議意見，希望法律正義得以伸張，經濟發展與利益保護得以衡平。 / The controlling company and the subsidiary company is independent in law, but in the economic side together for the Union economy. The law allows them to non-arm’s length transactions. From an economic perspective, it is not absolute inefficiency, so the advanced countries does not prohibit, but different control mode. Different legal legislative purpose is seeking to protect legal interests of different, so legal effect is different. 　　In this study, First, introducing and analyzing the legislative purposes and constituent elements of non-arm’s length transactions in the Company Act, the Securities and Exchange Act and the Income Tax Act. Second, understanding and clarifying the meaning of control relationship, non-arm’s length transactions, etc. Third, jurisprudencing fiduciary duty, disregard of the corporate fiction, piercing the corporate veil, doctrine of deep stone and derivative suit. Finally, summarizing cases from the substantive issues, concludes with recommendations observations.

中國大陸經濟體制改革中最為重要的是對國有企業的改革，而企業集團（關聯企業）的產生與發展，就可以追溯到20世紀80年代對國有企業的一系列改革。1993年《公司法》的制定主要目的和功能是爲了進行國有企業股份制改革，因此並未對企業集團（關聯企業）有所規定。最近20年來，中國大陸經濟飛速發展，企業集團化非常普遍，關聯企業在中國大陸的經濟活動中有著舉足輕重的地位。 臺灣公司法1997年修正時，新增關係企業專章，以保障從屬公司少數股東及其債權人之權益，並促進關係企業之健全運營。而中國大陸《公司法》幾次修正卻從未將關聯企業納入其中。本文認為，在中國大陸，如何規範關聯企業之發展，如何保護從屬公司少數股東及其債權人之利益，已經成為一個迫切需要進行立法規範的議題。 因此，本文會對臺灣公司法關係企業章進行研究，尋求中國大陸《公司法》可以借鑑之處，同時亦會分析中國大陸在關聯企業形成過程中的不同之處，以提出適合中國大陸環境之立法建議。 / The reform of State-owned enterprises has been the top priority in China for the economic reform. The formation and development of enterprise group (affiliates enterprises) can be traced back to the enterprise system reform in 1980s. The China Corporate Act 1993 focus on the reform of State-owned enterprises but not the enterprise group (affiliates enterprises). The following amendments still did not regulate the enterprises group (affiliates enterprises). In the last two decades, the economy developed rapidly and enterprise group is very common. Affiliated enterprises play an important role in China's economic activities. Taiwan amended its Corporate Law in 1997, adding Affiliated Enterprises chapter to protect the minority shareholders and the creditors of the affiliated company. The purpose is to promote the sound operation of the affiliated enterprises. There are some substantial developments from the practical experience and legal inquiry for the relevant operations. This paper argues that in order to protect the transaction safety, improve the regulations and development for affiliates enterprises, ensure the interests of minority shareholders and creditors of affiliated companies, we should clarify the forms, types, legal operation background, and difficulties of affiliated enterprises in China. Based on the examination and analysis of Taiwan Corporate Law, and learning from the China Corporate Act at the same time, this paper hopes to propose appropriate legislation fit to China's corporate structures and environments.

LLM / Department of Mercantile Law / This research examined the mechanisms that were employed by the Companies Act 71 of 2008 in order to protect the interests of creditors in company affairs. At the preamble of the aforementioned Act lies an undertaking from legislature to provide appropriate redress to investors and third parties/creditors. It was on that basis that the researcher sought to establish whether legislature had indeed fulfilled its commitment to provide appropriate redress to creditors. Traditionally, companies have been run to promote the interests of shareholders with little attention given to the interests of other stakeholders such as creditors. It is this research`s findings that South African company law has moved from the traditional view, that is the shareholder value approach, to the enlightened shareholder value approach: a model of corporate governance which permits directors to have regard, where appropriate, to the interests of other stakeholders but with shareholders’ interests retaining primacy. It is thus found that creditors cannot be protected by contract laws alone but that their protection should be enhanced by mandatory corporate laws which regulates the manner and conduct of company controllers in a way that ensures that the interests of all stakeholders, including creditors, are given due regard. Finally, it has been found that much work has been done by legislature in developing the re-enacted creditor protective mechanisms and also in statutorily adopting new mechanisms which are aimed at advancing creditor interests. Recommendations have thus been made to legislature for possible amendments to refine its corporate laws. / NRF

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.