Business Law: Corporate Veil

If so whyThe question in case of cow allow Disaster was whether to hold the owner of the mine i .e . the overawe dig Co . or the eventual(prenominal) entity behind the make come forward i .e . Pittston liable for damages to the survivors of the disaster . Pittston was the sole shareholder of the cow mine Co Stern argued that the Buffalo Mining Co . was operated just as a division of Pittston . He as well quoted Mr . Reineke , the chair of Pittston telling rude(a) York measure that the office is Pittston s in the long br range . Pittston s president also testified that Buffalo Mining Co s vice-president was acting as Pittston s agentTo be able to recover against the parent and to preserve renewing jurisdiction , only Pittston was named , on a piercing the corporeal soft palate theoryMoreover , there were apprehensio ns in Stern s brain that the coal companies had more than influence within the West Virginia courts than they do within the slight political federal courts . If he sues Buffalo Mining Co .

which is a West Virginia toilet , he will project to sue only before a West Virginia give tongue to motor inn which had the possibility of undermining the elicit of the plaintiffs . On the other overhaul , if they sue Pittston which is a New York based company he would be able to do it in a federal official CourtTo sue Pittston , it was inerrable to pierce the corporate veil . It was necessary to show the Court that who operated Buffalo Mining Co . were non independent management squad of the corporation but were the representatives of! the final sole stockholder of the corporation i .e Pittston and thus the ultimate parent company was responsible for the act of the subsidiaryTake the steps of the elegant suit and relate them to the books caseSteps...If you requirement to get a practiced essay, order it on our website: OrderEssay.net

If you want to get a full information about our service, visit our page: How it works.