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.
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 .
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 ...
The Western Assurance Company was a Canadian insurance company that has operated from 1851 to 2025. Western was one of the country's earliest fire insurance companies and played an important role in the development of the industry in Canada.
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]
The company built a new head office at 3-7 King William Street, erected in 1915, [5] on a design by John Macvicar Anderson and his son Henry Lennox Anderson. [6] It was known as Phoenix House while the seat of the company from 1915 to 1983; the name later went to another building at No. 18 in the same street.
A more than 100-year-old Wichita company has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to restructure the business and potentially bring in new partners. Amid bankruptcy filing, Pioneer Balloon owners find ...
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.