CSR

Question 1

Salomon v. Salomon

Answer 1

SPV
confirmation of corporate veil

Question 2

Mol v. Mercedez Benz

Answer 2

duty of care of mother corporation for daughters, forum delicti jurisdiction (7.2 BIa)

• mother undertaking damaged because of infringement of competition law by competitor
• direct impact on daughter undertaking
• no direct impact on mother holding
• mother undertaking can’t use 7.2 BIa in its place of incorporation (not the intention of 7.2 BIa)

Question 3

Begum v. Maran

Answer 3

duty of care vis-à-vis third parties
judges are cautious
alleged duty of care is not susceptible to being struck out or doesn’t lead to a summary judgment in favour of the appellant

Question 4

Dyson

Answer 4

UK judgments/the English common law of the development of due diligence and responsibility = looked upon authoritatively by other common law jurisdictions

Question 5

Vedanta

Answer 5

pre-Brexit
parent companies can be liable alongside their non-UK subsidiaries for adverse human rights impacts occurring abroad

importance of statutory duty of compliance
-> “it should have” is enough if corporation has the policy (>< Apartheid Litigation)

Question 6

Kenyan tea plantation workers v. James Finlay

Answer 6

combination of pre- and post-Brexit jurisdictional claims

Question 7

Okpabi v. Shell

Answer 7

managing of control

based on the degree of control + de facto management, it’s possible that the parent company owns a duty of care to citizens for environmental damage and human rights abuses by its subsidiaries

level of management involvement by parent is crucial (control is not determinative)

Question 8

Kiobel

Answer 8

US SC reigns in ATS jurisdiction

touch and concern test = the case needs to touch and concern the US territory with sufficient force

Question 9

Apartheid Litigation

Answer 9

collusion and touch and concern test

you need to show that the US incorporated defendants effectively aided and abetted with the foreign subsidiaries

(>< Vedanta: “it should have” is enough)