Produce a written answer (3,750 words) You must state the number of words you have used.

using  Thermatic approach & full bibliography of texts, journals etc. referred in the work.  footnotes should follow the OSCOLA referencing style, to the following essay questions:

Question:

The corporate veil should only be pierced in very limited circumstances”. Critically     analyse the case law relevant to piercing of the corporate veil in the  UK, Singapore & for USA use Delaware only.

Note: I have attached a draft, you can clean up that according and make the word count to 3,750 words with full bibliography of texts, journals etc. referred in the work.  footnotes should follow the OSCOLA referencing style. Please also help with the

1. Write 60% on UK and balance 40% on Singapore & Delaware (USA)
   Write based on the attached Article and slides shared. include a full bibliography of texts, journals etc. referred in the work.  footnotes should follow the OSCOLA referencing style.
   
2. Answer the question with coherent, well-expressed and well-structured. Demonstrate a high level of critical analysis, synthesis and evaluation and show comparative and analytical discussion. Display a considerable degree of creative thought. Demonstrate wide research. Display an excellent standard or presentation. Must be written with legal principles and not facts
3. Explain briefly the understanding or concept on Corporate personality with legal principle
4. use the attached article and slides to write the critical analyse argument on Corporate Personality, Judicial veil lifting  Fraud , Judicial veil lifting – Evasion of contractual obligation and Judicial veil lifting – Agency, statutory veil lifting Single economic entity. Write about the 3 exceptions from Adam v Cape industries case, Section 214 on Insolcency acr for Singapore include the principle of concealment and principle of Evasion
5. Cases to be used for the Critically analyse are Prest V Petronel, Singapore Tourism board v children media Gilford Motor Co. Ltd v Horne (1933), Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 All ER 442, Smith, Stone & Knight Ltd v Birmingham Corporation (1939), Adam v Cape industries case, Alwie Handoya v Tjong verysumtp

for USA (Delaware) use the Netlets Aviation case & the template approach