Bremmer, Jan N. (2014). Initiation into the Mysteries of the Ancient World. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-029955-7. Several other sources influenced the motif of the veiled Isis. One was a tradition that linked Isis with nature and the goddess Artemis. European art has a long tradition of personifying nature as a motherly figure. Starting in the 16th century, this motif was influenced by the iconography of the goddess Artemis of Ephesus (also known under the name of her Roman equivalent, Diana). The Ephesian Artemis was depicted with round protuberances on her chest that may originally have been jewelry but came to be interpreted as breasts. Isis was sometimes compared with Artemis, and the Roman writer Macrobius, in the fourth century CE, wrote, "Isis is the earth or nature that is under the sun. That is why the goddess's entire body bristles with a multitude of breasts placed close to one another [as in the case of Artemis of Ephesus], because all things are nourished by earth or by nature." Thus, the 16th-century artists represented nature as Isis-Artemis with multiple breasts. [5] 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. Held, although the restructuring did mean the claim was worthless, it was not done for the purpose of avoiding liability. Instead it was a response to a financial crisis. Because it was done in good faith, and not to avoid liability, not able to lift the veil.

It is neither necessary nor desirable to enumerate the classes of cases where lifting the veil is permissible, since that must necessarily depend on the relevant statutory or other provisions, the object sought to be achieved, the impugned conduct, the involvement of the element of public interest, the effect on parties who may be affected, etc.”. This was iterated by the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Ltd. [vi] Berkey v. Third Avenue Railway, 244 N.Y. 602, 155 N.E. 914 (1927). Benjamin Cardozo decided there was no right to pierce the veil for a personal injury victim. PREMATURE TRADING- Another example of personal liability is mentioned in Section 117 (8) of The English Companies Act. Under this section a public limited company newly incorporated as such must not “do business or exercise any borrowing power” until it has obtained from the registrar of companies a certificate that has complied with the provisions of the act relating to the raising of the prescribed share capital or until it has re-registered as a private company. If it enters into any transaction contrary to this provision not only are the company and it’s officers in default , liable to pay fines but if the company fails to comply with its obligations in that connection within 21 days of being called upon to do so, the directors of the company are jointly and severally liable to indemnify the other party in respect of any loss or damage suffered by reason of the company’s failure. Section 127- A director of a company is punishable with imprisonment or fine if a dividend which is declared has not been paid or a warrant which in respect thereof has not been posted within 30 days of the date of declaration.Daimler Co. Ltd. v. Continental Tyre and Rubber Co. (Great Britain) Ltd [xiii]– This is an instance of determination of the enemy character of a company. In this case, there was a German company . It set up a subsidiary company in Britain and entered into a contract with Continental Tyre and Rubber Co. (Great Britain) Ltd. for the supply of tyres. During the time of war, the British company refused to pay as trading with an alien company is prohibited during that time. To find out whether the company was a German or a British company, the Court lifted the veil and found out that since the decision making bodies, the board of directors and the general body of share holders were controlled by Germans, the company was a German company and not a British company and hence it was an enemy company.

Rands, William J. (1998). "Domination of a Subsidiary by a Parent" (PDF). Indiana Law Review. 32: 421 . Retrieved 9 September 2017. Entitled to pierce the corporate veil and recognise a receipt as that of the individuals in control if the company was a facade to conceal the true facts thereby avoiding or cancelling any liability of the individuals.Thus those who enjoy the benefits of the machinery of incorporation have to assure a capital structure adequate to the size of the enterprise. They must not withdraw the corporate assets or mingle their own individual accounts with those of the corporation. The Courts have at times seized upon these facts as evidence to justify the imposition of liability upon the shareholders. A corporation will be looked upon as a legal entity as a general rule……but when the notion of legal entity is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or defend crime, the law will regard the corporation as an association of persons.” From the juristic point of view, a company is a legal person distinct from its members [Salomon v. Salomon and Co. Ltd. (1897) A.C 22]. This principle may be referred to as the ‘Veil of incorporation’. The courts in general consider themselves bound by this principle. The effect of this Principle is that there is a fictional veil between the company and its members. That is, the company has a corporate personality which is distinct from its members. But, in a number of circumstances, the Court will pierce the corporate veil or will ignore the corporate veil to reach the person behind the veil or to reveal the true form and character of the concerned company. The rationale behind this is probably that the law will not allow the corporate form to be misused or abused. In those circumstances in which the Court feels that the corporate form is being misused it will rip through the corporate veil and expose its true character and nature disregarding the Salomon principal as laid down by the House of Lords.

Macpherson, Jay (2004). "The Travels of Sethos". Lumen: Selected Proceedings from the Canadian Society for 18th-Century Studies. 23. The alter-ego theory considers if there is in distinctive nature of the boundaries between the corporation and its shareholders. Kinney Shoe Corp. v. Polan, 939 F.2d 209 (4th Cir. 1991). [48] The veil was pierced where its enforcement would not have matched the purpose of limited liability. Here a corporation was undercapitalized and was only used to shield a shareholder's other company from debts. There is also the matter of what jurisdiction the corporation is incorporated in if the corporation is authorized to do business in more than one state. All corporations have one specific state (their "home" state) to which they are incorporated as a "domestic" corporation, and if they operate in other states, they would apply for authority to do business in those other states as a "foreign" corporation. In determining whether or not the corporate veil may be pierced, the courts are required to use the laws of the corporation's home state. This issue can be significant; for example, California law is more liberal in allowing a corporate veil to be pierced, while the laws of neighboring Nevada make doing so more difficult. Thus, the owner(s) of a corporation operating in California would be subject to different potential for the corporation's veil to be pierced if the corporation was to be sued, depending on whether the corporation was a California domestic corporation or was a Nevada foreign corporation operating in California. FRAUDULENT TRADING- Under Section 542 of The Indian Companies Act, 1956, if any business of a company is carried on with the intent to defraud creditors of the company or creditors of any other person or for any fraudulent purpose, who was knowingly a party to the carrying on of the business in that manner is liable to imprisonment or fine or both. This applies whether or not the company has been or is in the course of being wound up. This was upheld in Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Constructions Co. Ltd. (1997).Where at the end of its financial year, the company has subsidiaries, it must lay before its members in general meeting not only its own accounts, but also attach therewith annual accounts of each of its subsidiaries along with copy of the board’s and auditor’s report and a statement of the holding company’s interest in the subsidiary. Besides the statutory provisions for lifting the corporate veil, courts also do lift the corporate veil to see the real state of affairs. However, even though t he legislature and the courts have in many cases now allowed the corporate veil to be lifted, it should be noted that the principle of veil of incorporation is still the rule and the instances of lifting or piercing the veil are the exceptions to this rule. INTRODUCTION In the United States, corporate veil piercing is the most litigated issue in corporate law. [39] Although courts are reluctant to hold an active shareholder liable for actions that are legally the responsibility of the corporation, even if the corporation has a single shareholder, they will often do so if the corporation was markedly noncompliant with corporate formalities, to prevent fraud, or to achieve equity in certain cases of undercapitalization. [40] [41] Fletcher v. Atex, Inc., 68 F. 3d 1451 (2d Cir. 1995)". Google Scholar . Retrieved 9 September 2017.

Reverse veil piercing is when the debt of a shareholder is imputed onto the corporation. Throughout the United States, the general rule is that reverse veil piercing is not allowed. [53] However the California Court of Appeals has allowed reverse veil piercing against a limited liability company (LLC) based largely on the difference in remedies available to creditors when it comes to attaching assets of a debtors' LLC as compared to attaching assets of a corporation. [54] [55] See also [ edit ] Ziolkowski, Theodore (Summer 2008). "The Veil as Metaphor and Myth". Religion & Literature. 40 (2). 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 ] In The King v Portus; ex parte Federated Clerks Union of Australia [iv], where Latham CJ while deciding whether or not employees of a company owned by the Federal Government were not employed by the Federal Government ruled that the company is a distinct person from its shareholders. The shareholders are not liable to creditors for the debts of the company. The shareholders do not own the property of the company.

March back to the Salomon rule

Re Noel Tedman Holdings Pty Ltd., 1967 Qdr 561. See also, Mayson, French & Ryan, Company Law (29th edn, OUP 2012). Kinney Shoe Corp. v. Polan, 939 F. 2d 209 (4th Cir. 1991)". Google Scholar . Retrieved 9 September 2017. In Adams v. Cape Industries the Court of Appeal did not specify what would be required to constitute a sham, but it seems that if the motive behind the company is improper then it is more than likely to be a sham.