Essential
reading:
VTB Capital
plc v Nutritek International Corp
Piercing
the corporate veil: An update in light of VTB v. Nutritek [Court of Appeal]
VTB v.
Nutritek: Supreme Court confirms corporate veil cannot be pierced to make a
puppeteer party to his puppet’s contract
Additional
reading:
Case
Comment: VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp & Ors [2013] UKSC 5
Technical
reading:
Court of
Appeal: VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ
808 (20 June 2012)
Issues for
discussion:
1)
What
courts considered the disputes? Who were
the parties? What were the essential
facts?
2)
Did
the bank have a contract with the defendant? Was the claim grounded on contract or tort law?
3)
Did
Russian or English law govern the alleged tortuous conduct? What were the opinions of the courts of different
instances on that?
4)
Did
English courts have jurisdiction to resolve the case? Was the English court “appropriate forum” for
that? Why or why not? What were parties’ opinions on that issue? What was the decision of the Supreme Court?
5)
What
is meant by “piercing the corporate veil”? What should be proved to “pierce the veil”? The veil of which company did the claimant want
to pierce? Who the claimant thought was
behind the veil?
6)
Do
you think a “puppeteer” should be responsible for contracts of his “puppet”? What has the Supreme Court decided?
7)
Do
you think the outcome of the case was fair?
8)
Does
the claimant have any remedy now, after English courts have refused to hear its
claim?
No comments:
Post a Comment