Piercing the Corporate Veil, Direct Liability, Parent Companies, English Law


Piercing the corporate veil has been substantially limited in English law since Prest v. Petrodel. This contraction coincides with the development of the direct liability doctrine which attaches liability directly on the parent company. The authors argue that the shift from using piercing the corporate veil to direct liability is a positive development as it gives English courts a better tool to combat the abuse of separate legal personality. However, compared the English doctrines with their counterparts under the U.S. laws, it is argued that the much broader U.S. piercing doctrine makes the expansion of direct liability doctrine unnecessary in the United States.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.