Assignment 7 Corporate Law

User Generated

grffavpbynf

Business Finance

Southwestern College

Description

This is for California. Please just use your own research. Thank you,

For this assignment, you will need to conduct legal research online and in the LEXIS/NEXIS database of the Rasmussen College Library.

Locate and read two court opinions relating to two court cases in your state (or the state of your choosing) in which the issue of piercing of the corporate veil was ruled upon. Write a two paragraph summary of the facts and legal issues in each of the cases selected. Also, explain any ethical issues that you feel were present in either of the cases and describe how the outcome of the two cases could impact other businesses. Include full citation information, formatted per Harvard Blue Book, for each case discussed, as well as any other sources you use.

User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Hello buddy, kindly find your paper attached below. Let me know if you have any question or need any edit. Thank you

Corporate Law
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Date

Postal Instant Press, Inc. v. Kaswa Corp. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1510 [77 Cal.Rptr.3d 96].)
Summary of Facts
Shahid Randoonwala and Syed Saeed Ahmed in 1998 bought a PIP franchise from a
working PIP franchisee.1 Rangoonwala, Ahmed and PIP implemented a contract and agreed to
assign the franchise agreement with Ahmed and Rangoonwala being held as general partners. No
guaranties were required by PIP to secure the obligations for Rangoonwala and Ahmed under the
franchise agreement. Later, the Kaswa Corporation was formed by the two partners and Kaswa
was not a party to the agreement of the franchise.2
In 2000, Ahmed sold his interests in the partnership to Rangoonwala. Following the
withdrawal of Ahmed from the partnership, Rangoonwala asked PIP to approve a transfer of the
franchise to Kaswa from him.3 PIP did not agree to transfer to Kaswa. Nevertheless, despite the
refusal to approve the transfer by PIP, the case facts note that Rangoonwala transferred the
franchise to Kaswa and Kaswa started using the PIP location that was the franchise’s subject.
Later Kaswa merged with another corporation owned by Michael Haxton and Kaswa
went on to use the franhise. PIP and Rangoonwala had a disagreement concerning t...


Anonymous
This is great! Exactly what I wanted.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags