Abstract

The legal division between a business and its owners, directors, and members is referred to as the "corporate veil." A company is seen by the law as being a separate legal entity from its members. Even if he owns all of the company's shares, a shareholder or member cannot be held accountable for the actions. The removal of the corporate veil doctrine enables the court to ignore the corporate form and hold individuals accountable for its deeds. The conventional method of removing the corporate veil as well as more recent innovations are examined in this essay along with any ramifications for corporate law. The paper begins by outlining the conventional justifications for breaching the corporation veil, such as fraud, inappropriate intent, and alter ego. It then examines recent cases where the courts have applied the doctrine more broadly, including the acceptance of the corporate veil piercing doctrine in the context of group companies, the use of the doctrine to hold parent companies accountable for the deeds of their subsidiaries, and the application of the doctrine to LLCs and LLPs. The article also examines the legislative ramifications of these changes, including possible effects on liability, risk management, and corporate governance. The conclusion of the paper discusses the difficulties that these developments present for corporation law as well as the necessity for additional study in this area.

Keywords