{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018274111675126905, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.975757575757576, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Piercing the Corporate Veil - Should English Law Go Dutch?

English law is known for its robust approach to the issue of veil piercing. As such, it does not allow creditors to hold shareholders liable for company debts. This means that in the absence of contractual guarantees, shareholders are generally able to escape liability for failure within their company. On the other hand, the Dutch legal system allows creditors to seek recourse against shareholders by way of circumventing the separate legal personality of corporations through the operation of tort. In the Netherlands, the so-called 'indirect veil piercing' according to which shareholders can be held liable on the basis of tort, is deeply embedded in the legal system. This paper analyses some recent major developments in English tort law and concludes that a shift towards a more flexible, tort-law based approach to corporate veil piercing would be a much welcomed development leading to greater creditor protection.