Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-9 of 9

A tale of veil fail & from Russia with continuing love

Baker & McKenzie
-
United Kingdom
-
August 6 2012

Court of Appeal rules that piercing the corporate veil will not create privity of contract and that Russian defendants to a claim in tort are outside the jurisdiction of the English court

Liability of parent companies for actions of their subsidiaries

Baker & McKenzie
-
United Kingdom
-
May 29 2012

In Chandler v Cape Plc 2012 EWCA Civ 525, the Court of Appeal held that a parent company owed a duty of care to a claimant who had worked for one of its subsidiaries over 50 years ago, in circumstances where the subsidiary had been subsequently dissolved

To Russia with love

Baker & McKenzie
-
Russia, United Kingdom
-
December 31 2011

High Court rules that claimants can obtain substantial justice in Russia, and considers when it is appropriate to 'pierce the corporate veil'

Yukos revisited: Court of Appeal retreats from the High Court’s judgment

Baker & McKenzie
-
United Kingdom
-
November 15 2012

On 27 June 2012, the English Court of Appeal handed down its judgment reversing key parts of the High Court decision in the Yukos case

Clarification on the interpretation of the Unfair Practices Directive

Baker & McKenzie
-
European Union, United Kingdom
-
December 31 2012

Practices by which companies give consumers the false impression of having won a prize, when in fact they must incur a cost, even negligible, in order to

UK tax treatment of Delaware LLC: the Swift case

Baker & McKenzie
-
United Kingdom
-
March 19 2010

A recent decision of the UK's First-tier Tribunal (Swift v HMRC 2010 UKFTT 88 (TC)) dealt with the legal status of Delaware Limited Liability Companies ("LLCs") for UK tax purposes and appears to undermine the generally accepted view (and HM Revenue & Customs' ("HMRC") current practice) regarding the UK tax status of Delaware LLCs

Auditors protected from negligence claims over fraudulent corporate activities

Baker & McKenzie
-
United Kingdom
-
August 26 2009

A company which has carried out fraudulent activities will not be permitted to bring claims in negligence against its auditors for losses arising from such illegality when the fraud occurred with the actual or deemed knowledge of all those involved in the management or ownership of the company

Take care if restricting the right to rescind a contract

Baker & McKenzie
-
United Kingdom
-
August 15 2011

The Court of Appeal has held in BDW Trading Ltd (ta Barratt North London) v JM Rowe (Investments) Ltd 2011 EWCA Civ 548 that where parties agree to particular restrictions on a contractual right to rescind, this agreement is exhaustive and no other restrictions will apply

Recent developments for the fourth quarter 2011

Baker & McKenzie
-
Canada, China, Denmark, European Union, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom, USA
-
March 15 2012

The end of the year and beginning of a new year is always a busy time for us, as it is for most of our clients

Search results

A tale of veil fail & from Russia with continuing love

Liability of parent companies for actions of their subsidiaries

To Russia with love

Yukos revisited: Court of Appeal retreats from the High Court’s judgment

Clarification on the interpretation of the Unfair Practices Directive

UK tax treatment of Delaware LLC: the Swift case

Auditors protected from negligence claims over fraudulent corporate activities

Take care if restricting the right to rescind a contract

Recent developments for the fourth quarter 2011

Current Search

Suggested Facets

Author

Jurisdiction

Workarea