If the sole director of the company loans the company money within months as well as after it collapses, and after the collapse seeks to be a preferred creditor, what would be the outcome? Would the coporate veil be lifted and the director made to be liable for the collapse?

If the sole director of the company loans the company money within months as well as after it collapses, and after the collapse seeks to be a preferred creditor, what would be the outcome? Would the coporate veil be lifted and the director made to be liable for the collapse?


And would this be homework or a discussion you and your friends were having over dinner?

It's what we're discussing in class however I can't wrap my head around it. I was hoping for some laymans terms.

It's what we're discussing in class however I can't wrap my head around it. I was hoping for some laymans terms.

Sorry, but AMHD does not do homework.

I would guess your age is contained in your name (24) and you are in law school?

As was CORRECTLY stated by JudyKayTee, the rules of this site are we do NOT do your homework for you, we will however help you once you have posted your answer with anything we find wrong with it.

It also against the site rules to give out an Innacurate because of some OPINION you have.

If the sole director of the company ... after the collapse seeks to be a preferred creditor, ...

I think the Deep Rock case might apply. Look it up.


... Would the coporate veil be lifted and the director made to be liable for the collapse?

The corporate veil doesn't shield directors for mafeasance, nonfeasance, or misfeasance. It protects shareholders.