copy and paste this google map to your website or blog!
Press copy button and paste into your blog or website.
(Please switch to 'HTML' mode when posting into your blog. Examples: WordPress Example, Blogger Example)
Input Form:Deal with this potential dealer,buyer,seller,supplier,manufacturer,exporter,importer
(Any information to deal,buy, sell, quote for products or service)
China Ocean Shipping Co. v Mitrans Shipping Co. Ltd. - vLex The veil of incorporation between Mitrans Panama and its controllers, the Defendants ought to be lifted in particular since at all material times Mitrans Panama acted as a facade for the Defendants so as to enable the Defendants to evade their legal obligations to the Plaintiffs
法规判例法案例 59 - UNCITRAL 当事人名称 China Ocean Shipping Company v Mitrans Maritime Panama S A 评论 Original in English Unpublished
蓝海查明案例 已解散的香港公司能否作为诉讼主体承担责任？ 香港的法院在China Ocean Shipping Co v Mitrans Shipping Co Ltd [1995]3HKC123指出利用公司架构逃避现有的法律责任是可以被反对的，法院可以在适当情况下行使它的权力刺破公司面纱以保存公司应有的法律责任；但以公司架构避免负上任何法律责任是无可厚非的。
观韬视点 | 香港法下的公司人格否认制度——以内地法院查明 . . . 在该案，原告China Ocean Shipping Co 与一家巴拿马公司Mitrans Panama签署租船合同。 当后者违约后，经过仲裁，Mitrans Panama被裁决需要赔偿原告。 但Mitrans Panama没有履行仲裁裁决。 原告起诉香港注册的被告Mitrans Shipping Co Ltd。
笔记 - 香港公司法（2. 成立公司流程与揭开公司面纱） - 知乎 （China Ocean Shipping Co v Mitrans Shipping Co Ltd [1995]） 公正和衡平的理由：常见的情况是，朋友以公司形式开展的业务，此后各方分裂，法庭判定揭开公司面纱，认为其实质为合伙（quasi-partnership），从而要求清盘（Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd [1973]*）。
China Ocean Shipping Co v Mitrans Shipping Co 1995 HKC 123 Fact Mitrans . . . • MP is NOT registered with the HK Registry of Companies as a “non- Hong Kong company” • MHK replies with out qualification to all Mitrans’ correspondence • MHK has, in the past, admitted that they were the true charterers • All MP’s activity has accrued for the benefit of the MHK
Chans Advice 254 – Lifting corporate veil - sun-mobility. com Under each charterparty, the plaintiff China Ocean, a Chinese company, chartered its vessel the Gao Yang for the carriage of bulk cargo from China to North Korea A Panamanian company Mitrans Panama was named in each charterparty as the charterers
L1- China Ocean Shipping Co V Mitrans Shipping Co Ltd – TMBI CHINA OCEAN SHIPPING CO Plaintiff (Respondent) and MITRANS SHIPPING CO LTD Defendant (Appellant) Coram : Nazareth VP, Bokhary Liu JJA Date of Hearing : July 11, The court’s power to lift the corporate veil might be exercised to overcome such evasion so as to preserve legal obligations (China Ocean Shipping Co v Mitrans Shipping Co