Piercing the Corporate Veil of Shareholder in German, US and Georgian Legal Doctrine


  • Teona Mgeladze


Piercing the Corporate Veil, Limited Liability, Separate Personality, Corporation, Undercapitalisation, Disregarding the Corporate Formalities, Commingling of Assets, Konzern Law.


The aim of the present article is to study the grounds and judicial practices of piercing the corporate veil in Germany and the United States, and to present the flaws and problems of the present doctrine in Georgia, while providing solutions and recommendations regarding respective issue.

The article generally discusses piercing the corporate veil as a concept, which focuses on the legal and economic approach of limited liability. Afterwards, it outlines positive and negative economic and legal dichotomy of limited liability. The article examines the forms of piercing the corporate veil in the US and German law doctrines, types of creditors, the main preconditions for the use of the doctrine and related judicial practice. Moreover, article compares and reviews the legislative regulation, its historical development and judicial practice of piercing the corporate veil in Georgia.


Law of Georgia on Entrepreneurs, 28/10/1994.

Civil Code of Georgia, 26/06/1996.

Uniform Limited Liability Company Act, 12/07/1995.

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 11/12/1980.

Aktiengesellschafts Gezets, 01/11/1937.

Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch Deutschlands, 01/01/1900.

Gesetz betreffend die Gesellschaften mit beschränkter Haftung, 20/04/1892, https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gmbhg/.

Allen N., Reverse Piercing of the Corporate Veil: A Straightforward Path to Justice, St. John's Law Review, Vol. 16, № 1, 2012, 26.

Alting C., Piercing the Corporate Veil in American and German Law — Liability of Individuals and Entities: A Comparative View, Tulsa Journal of Comparative and International Law, Vol. 2, Issue 2, 1995, 202-204, 207, 210-211, 214-217, 238-239.

Armour J., Hansmann H., Kraakman R., The Essential Elements of Corporate Law: What is Corporate Law?, Harvard Law School, Discussion Paper № 643, 2009, 6, 9.

Bainbridge S. M., Abolishing LLC Veil Piercing, University of Illinois Law Review, Vol. 1, 2005, 87-88, 90.

Bakst D. S., Piercing the Corporate Veil for Environmental Torts in the United States and the European Un-ion: The Case for the Proposed Civil Liability Directive, Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, Vol. 19, Art. 4, 1996, 335.

Burduli I., Authorized Capital and Its Functions, Collection: Theoretical and Practical Issues of Contempo-rary Corporate Law, Elizbarashvili N. (ed.), Tbilisi, 2009, 236, 248, 251, 255-259 (in Georgian).

Burduli I, Fundamentals of Corporate Law, Vol. I, Tbilisi, 2010, 165 (in Georgian).

De Blasi M., Liability of Parent Corporations, Officers, Directors, and Successors: When Can CERCLA Liability Extend Beyond the Company?, Arizona State Law Journal, № 46:0481, 2014, 481.

Ezzo R. P., Corporations, Piercing the Corporate Veil, Stockholder Liability, University of Miami Law Re-view, № 122, 1957, 122-123.

Figueroa D., Comparative Aspects of Piercing the Corporate Veil in the United States and Latin America, Duquesne Law Review, Vol. 50, 2012, 721, 728, 743.

Freedman J., Limited Liability: Large Company Theory and Small Firms, The Modern Law Review, Vol. 63, № 3, 2000, 326-327, 329.

Gelb H., Piercing the Corporate Veil ― The Undercapitalization Factor, Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 59, Issue 1, 2013, 17.

Görtz M., The Federal Court of Justice’s Concept for Piercing the Corporate Veil due to Destruction of a German Limited Liability Company, Client Newsletter, № 9, 2007, 1.

Graefe R. R., The Liability of Corporate Groups in Germany, Connecticut Law Review, Vol. 37, 2005, 795, 799-800.

Klass A. B., CERCLA, State Law, and Federalism in the 21st Century, Southwestern Law Review, Vol. 41, 2012, 682.

Knappke T. C., No Liability of Shareholder for Material Undercapitalization of a GmbH, Newsletter Corpo-rate Law, October, 2008, 6.

Kraakman R., Davies P., Hansmann H., Hertig G., Hopt K., Kanda H., Rock E., The Anatomy of Corporate Law, A Comparative and Functional Approach, Oxford, 2003, 8-9.

Matchavariani S., Management of Corporate Groups in Germany and the United States and Integration of Management Principles in Georgian Private Law, Tbilisi, 2015, 150 (in Georgian).

Makharoblishvili G., The Two Differentiated Elements by the Corporation's Legal Personality: Limited Liability and Entity Shielding, Jubilee Collection: Guram Natchkebia ― 75, Todua N. (ed.), Tbilisi, 2016, 435-437, 439 (in Georgian).

McGaughey R. J., Disregarding the Corporate/LLC Veil: The Most Litigated Issue in Corporate Law, Port-land, 2007, 3, 5-6.

Orn P., Piercing the Corporate Veil ― a Law and Economics Analysis, University of Lund, 2009, 12-13.

Petroševičienė O., Effective Protection of Creditors’ Interests in Private Companies: Obligatory Minimum Capital Rules versus Contractual and other Ex Post Mechanisms, Social Studies Research Journal, № 3(7), 2010, 214.

Posner R. A., The Rights of Creditors of Affiliated Corporations, The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 43, № 3, 1976, 503.

Posner R., Economic Analysis of Law, 8th ed., New York, 2011, 535-536.

Schiessl M., The Liability of Corporations and Shareholders for the Capitalization and Obligations of Sub-sidiaries under German Law, Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business, Vol. 7, Issue 3, 1986, 481, 485, 492, 495, 497.

Smith D. G., Piercing the Corporate Veil in Regulated Industries, Brigham Young University Law Review, Vol. 1165, № 4, 2008; George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper № 08-08, 5, 7-8, 10.

Sommer J. H., Subsidiary: Doctrine without a Cause?, Fordham Law Review, Vol. 59, Issue 2, 1990, 230.

Stubbs L., Undercapitalization as an Independent Ground for Shareholder Liability: The Case for Corporate Stakeholders, Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia, August, 2016, 79.

Tchanturia L., Piercing Liability of the Shareholder for Tax Infringement of the Corporation — Attempt to Implement Piercing the Corporate Veil in Judicial Law, The Grounds of Civil Law in Georgian Judicial Practice, Zarandia T. (ed.), Tbilisi, 2016, 415, 280 (in Georgian).

Tchanturia L., Piercing Liability of the Shareholder for Tax Infringement of the Corporation (Innovation of Common Law), Jubilee Collection: Guram Natchkebia — 75 Collection, Todua N. (ed.), Tbilisi, 2016, 414 (in Georgian).

Vandekerckhove K., Piercing the Corporate Veil, European Company Law, Vol. 4, Issue 5, 2007, 192.

Vandekerckhove K., Piercing the Corporate Veil: A Transnational Approach, Catholic University of Leuven Legal Faculty, 2007, 36, 115, 383.

Zhen Qu C., Ahl B., Lowering the Corporate Veil in Germany: a Case Note on BGH 16 July 2007 (Trihotel), Oxford U Comparative L Forum 4, 2008, ouclf.iuscomp.org.

Zubitashvili N., Liability of Shareholders for Corporate Obligations within Insolvency Proceedings — Ex-ception Cases from Limited Liability Principle, Tbilisi, 2016, 14-17, 58, 21, 95, 69, 145, 97, 98, 100 (in Georgian).

Zubitashvili N., Evaluation Standard of Paragraph 6 of Article 3 of the Law of Georgia on Entrepreneurs through the Doctrine of Piercing the Corporate Veil, Journal of Law, № 2, 2014, 107.

The Free Dictionary by Farlex, https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/promoter"promoter/a.

Decision of May 6, 2015 № AS-1158-1104-2014, Supreme Court of Georgia

Decision of May 6, 2015 № AS-1307-1245-2014, Supreme Court of Georgia

Anderson v. Abbott, 321 U.S. 349, 362 (1944).

Automotriz etc. De California v. Resnick, 47 Cal.2d 792 (1957).

Amsted Industries Inc. v. PollakIndustries Inc., 382 N.E.2d 393, Ill. App. Ct. (1978).

Adams v Cape Industries plc, BCC 786, 822. (1990).

Booth v. Bunce, 33 N.Y. 139 (1865).

Bangor Punta Operations Inc. v. Bangor & Arrostook R. R. Co., 417 U.S. 703, 713 (1974).

DHN Ltd v Tower Hamlets 1 WLR 852, Lord Denning MR14 (1976).

Gartner v. Snyder, 607 F.2d 582, 588, 2d Cir (1979).

In re Mobile Steel Co., 563 F.2d 692, 5th Cir. (1977).

In re Palmer Trading Inc., 695 F.2d 1012, 7th Cir (1983).

In Penick v. Frank E. Basil Inc., 579 F. Supp. 160, D.C. (1984).

In re Kaiser, 791 F.2d 73, 7th Cir. (1986).

United States v. Milwaukee Refrigerator Transit Co., 142 F. 247, 255, C.C.E.D. Wis. (1905).

Sabine Towing & Transportation Co. v. Merit Venture Inc., 575 F. Supp. 1442 E.D. Tex. (1983).

Shapoff v. Scull, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1457, Cal. Ct. App. (1990).

Tanzi v. Fiberglass Swimming Pools Inc., 414 A.2d 484, 490, R.I. (1980).

United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51, 52 (1998).

Weeks v. Kerr, 486 NE2d 10, 12, Ind. App. (1985).

Bremer Vulkan, BGH 2001, II ZR 178/99 (2001).

BGH, 22 BGHZ 226, (1956).

Bundesgerichtshof, W. Ger., 45 BGHZ 204 (1966).

Bundesgerichtshof, W. Ger., NJW 2104 (1978).

Bundesgerichtshof, W. Ger., NJW 2284 (1984).

Bundesgerichtshof, W. Ger., WM 1526, 1528 (1985).

Bundesgerichtshof, AG, 244. (1989).

Bundesgerichtshof, AG, 244. (1989).

Bundesgerichtshof, ZIP, 694 (1992).



How to Cite

Mgeladze, T. (2018). Piercing the Corporate Veil of Shareholder in German, US and Georgian Legal Doctrine. Journal of Law, (2). Retrieved from https://jlaw.tsu.ge/index.php/JLaw/article/view/2580