Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd [1925] AC 619 appeared before the House of Lords concerning the principle of lifting the corporate veil. Unusually, the request to do so was in this case made by the corporation's owner.
Sir Andrew Morritt VC held that there was enough evidence to lift the veil on the basis that it was a "mere facade". He noted the tension between Adams v Cape Industries plc and later cases and stated that impropriety is not enough to pierce the veil, but the court is entitled to do so where a company is used ‘as a device or façade to conceal the true facts and the liability of the ...
Wallersteiner v Moir [1974] 1 WLR 991 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. This case was followed by a connected decision, Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) , [ 1 ] that concerned the principles behind a derivative claim .
The Pioneer Instrument Company was started by Morris Maxey Titterington and Brice Herbert Goldsborough in Brooklyn, New York in 1919 using patents from the Lawrence Sperry Aircraft Corporation. [2] [3] Charles Herbert Colvin was the president. They specialized in aeronautical instruments including a bubble sextant and the Earth Inductor Compass.
The 1990 accounts (the first on line at Companies House) showed premium income of £3.5 billion but a £121 million pre-tax loss in 1990. After three years of losses, General Accident bounced back to record profits in 1993. This was followed by the purchase of the life assurance company, Provident Mutual in 1996. [4] [3]
Re City Equitable Fire Insurance Co; Court: Court of Appeal of England and Wales: Citation [1925] Ch 407, 94 LJ Ch 445, [1925] B & CR 109, [1924] All ER Rep 485, 133 LT 520, 40 TLR 853: Case history; Prior action: Romer J (in the High Court) Court membership; Judges sitting: Lord Pollock MR Warrington LJ and Sargant LJ: Keywords; Duty of care
Thomas William Lawson (February 26, 1857 – February 7, 1925) [1] was an American businessman and writer. A highly controversial Boston stock promoter, he is known for both his efforts to promote reforms in the stock markets and the fortune he amassed for himself through highly dubious stock manipulations.
The insurer refused to indemnify Mr. Kosmopoulos on the grounds that the corporation owned the property, even though he was the sole-shareholder of the corporation. The insurer's position was consistent with the 1925 decision of the House of Lords in Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd.