The Legal 500

It is well known that, until 1996, an original tenant or guarantor remained liable on the tenant covenants under a lease until the end of the lease term. The same was true of assignees, provided that there was a licence to assign containing appropriate covenants from the assignee. 


Shook, Hardy & Bacon currently authors the Insurance section of The In-House Lawyer magazine. For more information and articles from this author click here .

Shook, Hardy & Bacon currently authors the Insurance section of The In-House Lawyer magazine. For more information and articles from this author click here .

WilmerHale currently authors the Fraud and Corporate Crime section of The In-House Lawyer magazine. For more information and articles from this author click here .

Burges Salmon LLP currently authors the Environment and Energy section of The In-House Lawyer magazine. For more information and articles from this author click here

Macfarlanes LLP currently authors the Litigation & Dispute Resolution section of The In-House Lawyer magazine. For more information and articles from this author click here .

Druces currently authors the Insolvency and corporate restructuring section of The In-House Lawyer magazine. For more information and articles from this author click here .

Arnold & Porter (UK) LLP currently authors the EU & Competition section of The In-House Lawyer magazine. For more information and articles from this author click here .

Edwards Wildman Palmer UK LLP currently authors the Contract section of The In-House Lawyer magazine. For more information and articles from this author click here .

Shook, Hardy & Bacon currently authors the Insurance section of The In-House Lawyer magazine. For more information and articles from this author click here . In the event that a safety problem is identified with one of your products, you will need to undertake a risk assessment to comply with the General Product Safety Directive.

Macfarlanes LLP currently authors the Litigation & Dispute Resolution section of The In-House Lawyer magazine. For more information and articles from this author click here . This article considers the Supreme Court decision in VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp & or s [2013]. Perhaps the most striking aspect of the case is that it casts doubt on the notion that the Court has the power to pierce the corporate veil. The Supreme Court also held that, even if the power to pierce the corporate veil does exist, it does not enable a claimant to hold parties that control a company jointly and severally liable under contracts entered into by that company.