Report this comment to a moderator

CoA delivers shock verdict in big-money divorce case

"Stashing the assets in a company" specifically to escape a division of assets on divorce would surely provide sufficient evidence of iniquity to justify piercing the corporate veil on standard company law principles - the company would be being used as an instrument of fraud. That was not the case here, however. The companies pre-dated the divorce and were used by both parties for purposes other than hiding assets from divorce proceedings. There is no justification for pursuing the companies (which are of course separate from their shareholder) here. If the husband fails to pay up, the wife could presumably seek a transfer into her name of the shares in the companies, as part of a seizure of the husband's own assets? That way she would obtain the property in the companies through the more legally appropriate route?

2-Nov-2012

12:21 pm