|
Subject: overlapping strands law The Bancec decision established the framework for all subsequent “veil piercing” cases in the United States, and the subsequent cases inevitably take as their point of departure one or more of the three overlapping strands of the Bancec holding: the State agency theory, the alter ego theory or the fraud and injustice theory.До этого говорилось: In the United States, “veil piercing” has been described as one of the “most confusing” subjects of corporate law, “enveloped in the mists of metaphor.” The basic rule is that “government instrumentalities enjoy a presumption of separate juridical status vis-à-vis the foreign government to which they are related.” The exceptions to this rule derive principally from a 1983 Supreme Court decision, First National City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba (“Bancec”), which held that “government instrumentalities established as juridical entities distinct and independent from their sovereign should normally be treated as such,” except where (a) the state-owned company acts as an agent of the State, (b) the State-owned company is so dominated by the State that it becomes its alter ego, or (c) possibly, where observing its separate corporate existence “would work fraud or injustice.” получается, что это "взаимосвязанные исключения (ограничения)"?
|
