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 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.
The company received its royal charter under the Royal Exchange and London Assurance Corporation Act 1719 (6 Geo. 1.c. 18), popularly known as the Bubble Act. [3] Under the terms of this legislation, the Royal Exchange and the London Assurance Company were the only incorporated bodies chartered to write marine insurance.
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.