Business Law: Corporate Veil

If so whyThe question in case of cow underpin Disaster was whether to hold the owner of the mine i .e . the overawe dig Co . or the eventual(prenominal) entity behind the make step forward i .e . Pittston liable for damages to the survivors of the disaster . Pittston was the sole shareholder of the cow tap Co Stern argued that the Buffalo Mining Co . was operated just as a division of Pittston . He as well quoted Mr . Reineke , the death chair of Pittston telling saucily York time 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 diverseness jurisdiction , only Pittston was named , on a piercing the incorporate soft palate theoryMoreover , there were a pprehensions in Stern s straits 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 hatful , he will project to sue only before a West Virginia give tongue to address which had the possibility of undermining the pursuit 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 unavoidable to pierce the corporate veil . It was necessary to show the Court that who operated Buffalo Mining Co . were non independent management team of the corporation but were the represe! ntatives of the final sole stockholder of the corporation i .e Pittston and thus the ultimate parent company was creditworthy for the act of the subsidiaryTake the steps of the elegant suit and relate them to the books caseSteps...If you requisite 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.