On the matter of piercing the corporate veil, there is one recent English law case Vitol v Capri (The Thor) (2010).
Capri the owners entered into a settlement agreement with the charterers Vitol to pay US$6 million. Capri alleged they had no funds to pay and Vitol took out a worldwide freezing order against Capri and gave the usual undertaking not to use information in this order for the purpose of any legal proceedings in any jurisdiction.
In 2009, Vitol obtained a Rule B attachment in the US against a vessel ‘Thor’ which they suspected of being under the same beneficial ownership of Capri.
Capri went back to the English courts seeking a decision that :
- Vitol could not start an action in the US as the charterparty was subject to English law and jurisdiction and sought an anti suit injunction.
- Vitol could not rely on the information in the freezing order to start legal proceedings in the US as this contravened Vitol’s undertaking.
It was held the legal proceedings in US were to enforce Vitol’s claim and did not relate to the merits of the dispute and accordingly the law and jurisdiction of the charterparty was not an issue. Both Capri and Vitol were aware it was not possible to enforce the settlement in England as both Capri had no assets in the UK and an English law and jurisdiction clause did not prevent enforcement in other jurisdictions.
With regard to the second defence, it was held the proceedings in the US was a continuation of the enforcement proceedings in the UK and the US proceedings related solely to the purpose of obtaining assets under the freezing order, and hence the information in the UK proceedings could be used in the US proceedings.
To conclude, the laws in other jurisdictions relating to piercing the corporate veil must be considered which may be easier to prove than the laws in the UK even though UK is the law and jurisdiction of the dispute or claim.
See attached file : ALCO20120018Piercing corporate veil to enforce judgement.pdf
“揭开公司面纱” 进行强制执行
关于 “揭开公司面纱” 问题，近期有一英国法案例 Vitol v Capri (The Thor) (2010)。
船东Capri和租家Vitol签订和解协议，由船东支付租家600万美金。之后Capri（船东）声称他们没有钱支付，Vitol（租家）便发出全球冻结令对抗船东，并做了通常承诺，不在任何司法辖区使用冻结令上的信息进行任何司法程序。
2009年，Vitol（租家）怀疑 “THOR’号船舶的实际所有权归船东Capri所有，进而根据Rule B 规则在美国获得了针对该船舶的财产扣押令。
Capri(船东)向英国法院主张：
- 申请禁诉令，由于租约受英国法律和英国管辖权的制约，Vitol（租家）不能在美国采取司法行动。
- Vitol（租家）不能依据冻结令上的信息在美国提起司法程序，因为这与Vitol（租家）的承诺相抵触。
法院认为，Vitol（租家）在美国所进行司法程序的目的是为了强制执行其对船东的索赔，与事实争议无关，因此，租约法律和司法管辖权的适用不构成问题。Capri (船东)和Vitol（租家）都知道，Capri (船东)在英国没有资产，因此不可能在英格兰强制执行其和解协议，另外英国法和管辖权条款并不禁止当事人在其他司法辖区进行强制执行。
对于Capri(船东)的第二点主张，法院认为，Vitol（租家）在美国的司法程序是英国强制执行程序的延续，其目的只是为了获得资产冻结令下的资产，因此英国司法程序中的信息可以被用于美国司法程序中。
综上，尽管该争端或索赔发生于英国法下，且受英国管辖，但涉及 “揭开公司面纱” 问题时，如果其他司法辖区的法律比英国法更容易判明事实，则可以适用该法律。
以上由 ANDREW LIU & CO.,LTD 编译，应以英文为准！
详细信息请参阅附件。
