--- Kenneth Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andy Nachos writes: > > >I am not sure just what you are looking for. > > Specifically, as I wrote, this: > > What I have found missing in this analysis of > agency > is the real membrane between the controlling > shareholder and the sham corporation.
This is a highly fact intensive inquiry -- was there some sort of fraud or injustice, what were the relationships between the two entities or the stockholder and the corporation, etc. > > [BTW -- thank you for the other points.] > > My main interest, in asking, is where the line is > drawn between the > protection and the liability. There is no rule that you can state generally. > > This is not just a "public issue," also a creditor > issue. Oh course. > > From the bit I have seen and studied, the CPD is a > cloak used "on and > off again." When is that switch between on and off > allowed? I called it > a membrane. I think that is a fair term, since it > seems to be thin and > weak but powerful for the body. I have done a fair amount of veil-piercing and single-employer work, and I have never encountered or used this doctrine in this context. > > Rather than discuss the national differences between > Canada and the US, > I was hoping to hear (from you, certainly) a > discussion of the legal > theories of flipping that switch. Which classes are > protected in which > manner? I don't think that is the right analysis -- it is not that there are protected classes as far as I know. I think it's just a fact intensive inquiry. > When can you say Conrad Black was really not the > guts of the corp and > just a shielded shareholder as opposed to being the > mastermind? Depends on the facts. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
