•  
  •  
 
University of Baltimore Law Review

Abstract

In Maryland, it is well settled that the veil of a corporate entity may be pierced only to prevent fraud or to enforce a paramount equity. This test, formulated to balance the policy of limited shareholder liability with the interest of serving justice, has produced disparate results. This comment surveys the tests employed by other jurisdictions, reviews and criticizes the policies and application of the Maryland standard, and advocates the adoption of a more equitable approach in veil piercing cases - a "many factors" analysis.

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS