LIABILITY OF A PARENT CORPORATION FOR OBLIGATIONS OF ITS SUBSIDIARY

Abstract

U ovome je radu obrađeno pitanje proboja pravne osobnosti, točnije odgovornosti društva majke za obveze društva kćeri prema pravu SAD-a, u sudskoj praksi Europskog suda, te u hrvatskom pravu. Pitanje proboja pravne osobnosti posebice se pojavljuje u grupama društava, gdje u pravilo društvo majka ima kontrolu nad društvom kćeri. Posebno pitanje koje se obrađuje u radu je standard za proboj pravne osobnosti, gdje se ispituje traže li u odabranim komparativnim sustavima sudovi kao temelj proboja pravne osobnosti da društvo majka zloupotrebljava činjenicu da kao član društva kćeri ne odgovara za obveze društva kćeri ili je sama činjenica da društvo majka ostvaruje kontrolu nad društvom kćeri dostatna. Pitanje proboja pravne osobnosti posebno je važno jer se putem proboja dolazi do odgovornosti društva majke za obveze društva kćeri prema trećima, što je vjerovnicima ključno imajući na umu da društva majke u pravilu imaju veću platežnu moć.The author in this article discusses the issue of piercing the veil of corporate entity, more precisely the liability of a parent corporation for obligations of its subsidiary according to the law of the United States of America, case law of the European Court of Justice and the Croatian law. The issue concerning the disregard of the separate corporate existence of the subsidiary is particularly raised in case of corporate groups where the parent generally exercises control over the subsidiary. The author pays a special attention to standards which have to be satisfied to pierce the veil. She examines the selected comparative systems to establish basis for courts’ decision to break through the legal entity of the subsidiary, i.e. is the mare fact that the parent exercises control over the subsidiary sufficient for such decision or courts have to establish that the parent misuses the fact that as a member of the subsidiary is not liable for obligations of the subsidiary. The veil piercing issue is highly important due to the fact that according to it the parent can be held liable for obligations of its subsidiary towards third parties. Having in mind that in most cases the parent corporations are more financially solvent than the subsidiaries, for creditors piercing the veil is a key issue