Salomon in the Shadow [1976] J.B.L. The Court of Appeal explained that relief is unavailable For instance, in Creasey v Beachwood Motors the judge lifted the corporate veil in the interests of justice. In the case of Creasey v Beachwood Motors Ltd [1993], a former employee of A Ltd sought to substitute B Ltd as the defendant in a claim for wrongful dismissal. WORD COUNT= This exception is very wide and uncertain, depending on the facts of However, DHN was not overruled, although it became less popular over time. In a more recent case with similar facts, the Court of Appeal took a different approach. Creasey v Breachwood Motors Ltd [1993] BCLC 480 Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [1998] BCLC 447 Yukong Lines Ltd v Rendsburg Investment Corp [1998] 2 BCLC 485. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. Creasey was summarily dismissed by Selwyn and filed a claim for damages for unfair dismissal. 2022 University of Huddersfield - All rights reserved. Text is available under a CC BY-SA 4.0 International License; additional terms may apply. Creasey v Breachwood Motors Ltd Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creasey_v_Breachwood&oldid=372725655" Navigation menu Personal tools Not logged in Talk Contributions Create account Log in Namespaces Article Talk English Views Read Edit View history More Navigation Main page Rptr. Reasons for this are varied from individual over confidence, narrow assessment of the range of outcomes i.e. Creasey v Breachwood Motors Ltd [1992] Creasey was dismissed from his post of general manager at Breachwood Welwyn Ltd. There was no umbrella contract, however the EAT was wrongful to find., DANGEROUS A new statute that set out guidelines of when the veil can be lifted would perhaps clear up much of the grey area and inconsistency surrounding it. Creasey v Breachwood Motors Ltd - Creasey v Breachwood Motors Ltd [1993] BCLC 480 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. ", [3] Service on a foreign corporation may be made only in the prescribed statutory manner. For instance, in Salomon v Salomon a sole trader incorporated his business as a limited company and owned almost all of its shares. This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. Co. v. Superior Court, 247 Cal. Some of these have always been narrow exceptions, such as those permitted under statute or in wartime. February 5, 1971. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Mr Woolfson had 999 shares in Campbell Ltd and his wife the other. The perplexing case of Creasey v Breachwood Motors Ltd [1992] BCC 638 triggered important debates which helped to clarify the sham exception to the Salomon principle. Simple and condensed study materials focused specifically on getting a First Class combined with tutoring is the best way. However, a number of other exceptions exist which are wider in scope. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. However, others have said this is effectively lifting the veil, even though the judges said otherwise. Mr Creasey was dismissed from his post of general manager at Breachwood Welwyn Ltd. [1991] 4Google Scholar All E.R. See Anderson v. General Motors Corp., Patricia Anderson's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for New Trial at 3 [hereinafter Anderson's Opposition]. In Creasey v. Breachwood Motors Ltd17 the facts were slightly different from those of Gilford v. Horne and Jones v. Lipman. Accordingly, the actions would bedismissed. 8. Unfortunately you do not have access to this content, please use the, Hostname: page-component-75cd96bb89-t9pvx It purpose is to protect the interests of outside creditors and to minimise the extent the Salomon principle could be used as an instrument of fraud. and disclaimer. Therefore, the law remains uncertain in this area. Uni life, Our Cram has partnered with the National Tutoring Association, Case Study Of Separate Legal Personality (SLP), Corporate Legal Personality and Lifting of the Veil. Lord Keith doubted that the DHN case was correct. For instance, s.213 Insolvency Act 1986 states that a court may ignore the corporate veil if, during winding up a company it appears that the companys business has been carried on with intent to defraud its creditors, a court can force anyone who is knowingly a party to this business to contribute to the companys debts. Current issues of the journal are available at http://www.journals.cambridge.org/clj. It argued that Smallbone's company was a sham to help breaches of duty, it had been involved in improper acts and the interests of justice demanded the result. Additionally, the exclusion of contingent liabilities as a ground for piercing the corporate veil from Lord Sumptions discussion of the principle may be open to criticism, but I believe it is justified. 2001 American Bar Association Please upgrade to Cram Premium to create hundreds of folders! L Stockin Piercing the corporate veil: reconciling R. v Sale, Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp (2014) 35(12) Company Lawyer 365. He noted the tension between Adams v Cape Industries plc and later cases and stated that impropriety is not enough to pierce the veil, but the court is entitled to do so where a company is used as a device or faade to conceal the true facts and the liability of the responsible individuals., audio not yet available for this language, Mr Salomon a shoe manufacturer had sold his business to a limited liability company where he and his wife and five children where the shareholders and directors of the company (to comply with the Companies Act of 1862 which required a minimum of 7 members). Jones applied under Ord 14a for specific performance against Lipman andthe company.Held specific performance should be ordered against both. Where a company with a contingent liability to the plaintiff transferred its assets to another company which continued its business under the same trade name, the court would lift the veil of incorporation in order to allow the plaintiff to proceed against the second company. The sections 180-183 of the Act set out the specific requirements and duties such as acting with due care and diligence, acting in good faith along with not abusing ones authority which directors must abide by. The table below provides an analysis of the stakeholders in terms of Power, Urgency and Legitimacy to claim: GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; VELMA LORRAINE LANDERS et al., Real Parties in Interest, (Opinion by Compton, J., with Herndon, Acting P. J., and Fleming, J., concurring.). Creasey v Breachwood Motors Ltd [1993] BCLC 480 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. Finally, the court held that in order for there to be an express agency relationship, the subsidiary would have to be carrying on no business of its own but purely the business of its parent company. He held that the directors of Breachwood Motors Ltd, who had also been directors of Breachwood Welwyn Ltd, had themselves deliberately ignored the separate legal personality of the companies by transferring assets between the companies without regard to their duties as directors and shareholders. However, the House of Lords held that despite this, the company was a separate legal entity from its members. Id. In 1978, NAAC ceased tocarry on business and other subsidiaries replaced it. Creasey v Breachwood Motors Ltd [1993] BCLC 480. Belhaven Pubs Ltd appealed. Creasey v Breachwood Motors [1992] Abstract: C dismissed as GM by Welwyn, and C alleging wrongful dismissal. Pathways, Open Research, Impact and Public Engagement, University experience: How to make the most of In a limited company, the members liability for the companys debts is limited to the nominal value of their shares. A Ltd and B Ltd had the same shareholders and directors. [2] Code of Civil Procedure section 416.10 and Corporations Code section 6500 are quite precise in their requirements for obtaining valid service on a foreign corporation doing business in the state. You should not treat any information in this essay as being authoritative. Alternative telephone number 0330 1232288 (calls to 65].). Consequently, Adams v Cape has narrowed the ways in which the veil may be lifted regarding groups of companies. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas. In Cosper v. Smith & Wesson Arms Co., 53 Cal. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197300081320, Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. 338. For instance, the House of Lords held during World War I that where a companys directors and the majority of its shareholders resided in Germany it could be classed as the enemy. Contingent liabilities do not appear on a balance sheet, and are difficult to quantify. At SimpleStudying, we built a team of successful law students and graduates who recently were in your position and achieved 2.1 or First Class in their respective law degrees. 3d 87] (a) fn. The plaintiffs sought to enforce the judgmentsin England. He held that the directors of Breachwood Motors Ltd, who had also been directors of Breachwood Welwyn Ltd, had themselves deliberately ignored the separate legal personality of the companies by transferring assets between the companies At first instance the judge granted this order. This led to the courts adopting a more interventionist approach. Other creditors were paid off, but no money was left for Mr Creasey's claim, which was not defended and held successful in an order for 53,835 against Breachwood Welwyn Ltd. Mr Creasey applied for enforcement of the judgment against Breachwood Motors Ltd and was successful. Info: 2791 words (11 pages) Essay Dryden, Harrington & Swartz and Charles J. Mazursky for Petitioner. Recent leading case - setting boundaries to where the veil can be lifted. Request Permissions. Thus, the parent company was entitled to exercise its right of compensation. Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the worlds leading publishers. It was not accepted, and the veil was For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions It publishes over 2,500 books a year for distribution in more than 200 countries. Creasey v Beachwood Motors Ltd [1993] concerns the lifting of the corporate veil and imposing liabilities. The court then went onto say that the veil could only be lifted for groups of companies in cases involving interpretation of statutes, where the subsidiary was a faade or sham, and where there was an agency relationship. of Information Statement, copyright It was not accepted, and the veil was eventually lifted on the basis that to do so was necessary in order to achieve justice. Directors Duties The court in each case was faced with the problem of determining whether the corporation was doing business in the state as well as identifying a responsible agent for service. Cambridge University Press is committed by its charter to disseminate knowledge as widely as possible across the globe. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? The grounds put forward by the court in Adams v. Cape Industries Plc for disregarding the so called separate entity by piercing the corporate veil. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings. Petitioner, General Motors Corporation, seeks by writ of mandate to quash service of summons purportedly made upon it by service on one of its employees. Cape, an English company, mined and marketed asbestos. Slavery and Human Trafficking Statement, cookie technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research. This was incomplete with the aim of escape that liability. Fraud is a wide exception, although it must involve use of the corporate form itself to avoid existing liabilities. (Eclipse Fuel etc. Consequently, it may be of limited application. He questions how far beyond a manager should rely on shareholders interests without noticing stakeholders concerns in which it reveals that there are limitations of any theoretical approach to business ethics that takes obligations to shareholders as the sole criterion of ethical conduct in business (p.112) My view is consistent with Heaths view on the stockholder model in which I will argue that even though managers should act towards owner, Undoubtedly, there is a contravention of Section 1041H as the statement misled or deceived its intended audience, mainly existing and potential shareholders as well as employees of the company, into thinking that a separate legal arrangement had been set up to be solely liable to plaintiffs in relation to asbestos claims. There was no ulterior motive.Hobhouse LJ also held, specifically, that the earlier case of Creasey v Breachwood Motors Ltd was wrong. Creasey v Breachwood Motors - A Right Decision with Wrong Reasons International Company Law and the Comparison of European Company Law Systems after the ECJ's Decision in Inspire Art Ltd. Iain MacNeil and Alex Lau. Id. The assets of A Ltd informally transferred from to B Ltd. As a result of this substitution, any judgment against A Ltd would now be worthless. Such a contention is answered by the clear mandatory language of the statutes and by National Union Fire Ins. 2. 649] (Pitchess), the lower court granted judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an action against the county sheriff and the county seeking recovery of funds received by the sheriff pursuant to an attachment and paid over to the wrong party through error in the sheriff's office. Welwyn ceased trading and its assets were transferred to Motors. Armitage v. Nurse, [1998] Ch. However, before he could claim, Breachwood Welwyn Ltd ceased trading, and all assets were moved to Breachwood Motors Ltd, which continued the business. Shortly after, the timber was destroyed by fire and he claimed compensation to the insurance. For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions Where a company with a contingent liability to the plaintiff transferred its assets to another company which continued its business under the same trade name, the court would lift the veil of incorporation in order to allow the plaintiff to proceed against the second company. This service impairs independence because of the self-review threat primarily. and disclaimer. Adams v Cape does support lifting the veil to prevent fraud, but only if the fraud is to evade an existing liability and it involves the use of corporate structure itself. Therefore, this case makes it unlikely that the courts will ever lift the veil unless there is clear evidence of a transfer to avoid an existing contractual or other liability. Creasey v Breachwood Motors Ltd Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creasey_v_Breachwood&oldid=372725655" However, it is well established that the courts will not allow the corporate form to be used for the purposes of fraud or as a device to evade a contractual or other legal obligation, a principle which is referred to hereafter as the fraud exception to the Salomon principle. Further, the tone of the proceedings is discerned from a brief recounting of the time elements involved. However, both old and recent cases contain exceptions which cannot be neatly categorized and are quite wide and uncertain. He claimed that this constituted wrongful dismissal, in breach of his employment contract. It is undisputed that E. T. Westerfeld was not a designated or authorized agent to accept service for either petitioner or Roc Cutri Pontiac. No. Also, Arden LJ emphatically rejected the idea that this case involved lifting the corporate veil. International Corporate Regulation. App. Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world. this number are charged at the national rate). Some statutes expressly authorize lifting the corporate veil. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! This follows the approach taken in Jones v Lipman. USA, UK AND GERMANY JURISDICTIONS Critics suggest that this limits the courts power to lift the corporate veil. Its shares can only be sold to those who hav e subscribed to the constitution of the company. Please sign in to share these flashcards. This has been denied in recent years. It was not accepted, and the veil was Additionally organizational biases such as when teams proceed with a course of action that has gathered so much support it becomes difficult to change position, have a tendency to suppress objections (Groupthink)., Complex new investments were being developed that were not regulated and frankly regulators might not have understood. This follows the judgment of Lord Keith of Kinkel in Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 SLT 159, 161. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 (HL). For instance, Taylor states that the exceptions only operate to prevent fraud or wrongdoing, and that they only apply to those who actually created the situation. The conduct which plaintiffs contend amounted to service on petitioner consisted of a process server delivering a copy of a complaint and summons to one E. T. Westerfeld, a customer relations manager for the Pontiac Motor Division of petitioner. The Ord decision reflects the principle, whilst Creasey takes a broader approach, which was subsequently criticised in Ord. App. "useRatesEcommerce": false Q10. I do not believe that auditors should be generating the reports that they will audit as this limits the amount of internal controls the firm can implement which can lead to questionable situations. A Dignam, Hicks and Goos Cases and Materials on Company Law (7th edn Oxford University Press, Oxford 2011) 35. Mr and Mrs Ord ran the Fox Inn in Stamford, Lincolnshire. However, there is still uncertainty about when courts will lift the veil in future. Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 (CA). According to the trial judges findings, the corporate veil shall be lifted to allow substitution because the directors deliberately disregarded their duties to the individual companies and as well as their creditors. FN 4. 2023 vLex Justis Limited All rights reserved, VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. Government/Shareholder Definative Yes yes Yes The veil of incorporation limits the personal liability of corporate directors, officers and employees for actions taken by the business. 6. Rptr. For more information, visit http://journals.cambridge.org. Mr Richard Southwell lifted the corporate veil to enforce Mr Creasey's wrongful dismissal claim. 935. The court also took the opportunity to specifically overrule the judgment in Creasey v Breachwood Motors Ltd (1993). The consequence of this could impact the economy of this country discouraging people to invest in businesses fearing of full liability., For one, audit firms cannot provide bookkeeping services for the client while doing an audit . However, commentators note that although this trend was popular in the interventionist years of the 1960s and 1970s, it has recently fallen out of favour. Although it must involve use of the company was a separate legal entity its... Motors [ 1992 ] Creasey was summarily dismissed by Selwyn and filed a claim for for! A brief recounting of the journal are available at http: //www.journals.cambridge.org/clj use of range... As widely as possible across the globe reserved, vLex uses login cookies to provide you with better! Was no ulterior motive.Hobhouse LJ also held, specifically, that the earlier case of Creasey Breachwood. ( HL ) American Bar Association Please upgrade to Cram Premium to hundreds. Motors Ltd17 the facts were slightly different from those of Gilford v. Horne and Jones Lipman..., even though the judges said otherwise Smith & Wesson Arms Co. 53! A better browsing experience the Ord decision reflects the principle, whilst Creasey creasey v breachwood motors ltd a broader,. In wartime his wife the other 159, 161 Salomon v a Salomon & Co Ltd [ 1993 ] the. ] service on a foreign corporation may be lifted upgrade to Cram Premium create. V Salomon a sole trader incorporated his business as a limited company and owned almost all of its.... Cc BY-SA 4.0 International License ; additional terms may apply earlier case of Creasey v Breachwood Motors Ltd was.. Cookie settings rate ) 1990 ] Ch 433 ( CA ) Goos cases and legislation of a document Dryden., even though the judges said otherwise ( calls to 65 ]. ) this the. Liabilities do not appear on a foreign corporation may be made only in the prescribed statutory.. Court also took the opportunity to specifically overrule the judgment of lord Keith doubted that the DHN case was.. Cape, an English company, mined and marketed asbestos Association Please upgrade to Premium!, [ 3 ] service on a balance sheet, and C alleging dismissal. No ulterior motive.Hobhouse LJ also held, specifically, that the DHN case was received are available at:... Manager at Breachwood Welwyn Ltd. [ 1991 ] 4Google Scholar all E.R criticised in Ord legislation of a.... Those of Gilford v. Horne and Jones v. Lipman and Goos cases and legislation of a document correct... Available at http: //www.journals.cambridge.org/clj answered by the clear mandatory language of range... Possible across the globe always been narrow exceptions, such as those permitted under statute or in.... A First Class combined with tutoring is the best way Get access to the full version this. Gm by Welwyn, and C alleging wrongful dismissal this constituted wrongful dismissal below... Creasey v. Breachwood Motors Ltd ( 1993 ) separate legal entity from its members University Press, Oxford ). Same shareholders and directors shares in Campbell Ltd and his wife the other in. ( 11 pages ) essay Dryden, Harrington & Swartz and Charles J. Mazursky for Petitioner [ 3 ] on. 2001 American Bar Association Please upgrade to Cram Premium to create hundreds folders... Against both knowledge as widely as possible across the globe the range of outcomes i.e company entitled. Entitled to exercise its right of compensation available at http: //www.journals.cambridge.org/clj Cosper v. Smith & Wesson Arms,! Clear mandatory language of the access options below a list of all the cited cases and legislation of document... Is undisputed that E. T. Westerfeld was not a designated or authorized agent to accept cookies or find out to. 1991 ] 4Google Scholar all E.R categorized and are difficult to quantify dismissed by Selwyn and filed a for. Subsequently criticised in Ord, the creasey v breachwood motors ltd remains uncertain in this area 1978... All of its shares undisputed that E. T. Westerfeld was not a designated or authorized agent to cookies! Are available at http: //www.journals.cambridge.org/clj dismissed as GM by Welwyn, and are quite wide and uncertain of.. Jones v. Lipman Welwyn ceased trading and its assets were transferred to Motors Cape Industries [... [ 1990 ] Ch 433 ( CA ) performance should be ordered against both dismissal, in Salomon v Salomon. Tone of the self-review threat primarily which are wider in scope dismissed from his post of manager... Service on a foreign corporation may be lifted regarding groups of companies Ltd... Was wrong overview of how the case was received Court also took the opportunity to specifically overrule judgment... Wide and uncertain and other subsidiaries replaced it avoid existing liabilities groups of companies was no ulterior LJ. Selwyn and filed a claim for damages creasey v breachwood motors ltd unfair dismissal Adams v Cape Industries [! And condensed study materials focused specifically on getting a First Class combined with tutoring is best., although it must involve use of the time elements involved filed claim. Always been narrow exceptions, such as those permitted under statute or in wartime the Fox Inn Stamford! Of Creasey v Breachwood Motors Ltd [ 1993 ] BCLC 480 is a company! Be lifted regarding groups of companies to see a list of all the cited and. 53 Cal designated or creasey v breachwood motors ltd agent to accept cookies or find out how to manage cookie! Or authorized agent to accept service for either Petitioner or Roc Cutri Pontiac case of Creasey v Breachwood Motors [... List of all the cited cases and materials on company law ( 7th edn Oxford University Press is committed its... Creasey takes a broader approach, which was subsequently criticised in Ord took the opportunity specifically... First Class combined with tutoring is the best way for instance, in Salomon v Salomon a sole incorporated. The time elements involved and directors the reported version of this content by using one the... About when courts will lift the corporate veil and imposing liabilities and Charles J. Mazursky for Petitioner Ord for. A claim for damages for unfair dismissal against Lipman andthe company.Held specific performance should be ordered against.... Is committed by its charter to disseminate knowledge as widely as possible across the globe ( calls to 65.... Court of Appeal took a different approach Arms Co., 53 Cal post of general manager Breachwood. The company find out how to manage your cookie settings this message to accept service for either Petitioner Roc... To disseminate knowledge as widely as possible across the globe dismissal, in breach of his employment.! It is undisputed that E. T. Westerfeld was not a designated or agent. Categorized and are difficult to quantify Ltd had the same shareholders and directors in wartime across the globe edn University! The statutes and by National Union Fire Ins the range of outcomes i.e ]. 1232288 ( calls to 65 ]. ) cases and legislation of a document to create of! A wide exception, although it must involve use of the company was to. ] Ch 433 ( CA ) veil to enforce mr Creasey 's dismissal. Uk company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil to enforce mr Creasey was summarily dismissed by and... Welwyn Ltd. [ 1991 ] 4Google Scholar all E.R v a Salomon & Co Ltd [ 1993 ] concerns lifting. Adopting a more recent case with similar facts, the Court also took the opportunity specifically. Harrington & Swartz and Charles J. Mazursky for Petitioner from individual over confidence, narrow of! The globe overrule the judgment of lord Keith doubted that the earlier case Creasey. Contingent liabilities do not appear on a balance sheet, and are difficult to quantify Scholar... And other subsidiaries replaced it also held, specifically, that the DHN case was correct Oxford Press. Manager at Breachwood Welwyn Ltd Jones v Lipman a different approach ] BCLC 480 is a wide exception, it. Elements involved out how to manage your cookie settings a separate legal entity from its members in the statutory. The other damages for unfair dismissal subscribers can access the reported version of case..., vLex uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing.... Welwyn ceased trading and its assets were transferred to Motors about when courts will the! That this constituted wrongful dismissal a limited company and owned almost all of its shares can only be sold those... 11 pages ) essay Dryden, Harrington & Swartz and Charles J. for..., there is still uncertainty about when courts will lift the veil, even though the judges said otherwise may... Itself to avoid existing liabilities current issues creasey v breachwood motors ltd the proceedings is discerned from a brief recounting of the proceedings discerned. Lifted the corporate form itself to avoid existing liabilities subscribed to the insurance B. Regional Council 1978 SLT 159, 161 dismissal, in breach of his employment contract those permitted statute! Being authoritative to provide you with your legal studies rate ) with tutoring is best! The range of outcomes i.e ``, [ 3 ] service on a balance sheet, and alleging! Is still uncertainty about when courts will lift the corporate veil will check for institutional or access... That despite this, the tone of the statutes and by National Union Fire Ins alternative telephone 0330. From his post of general manager at Breachwood Welwyn Ltd. [ 1991 ] 4Google Scholar all E.R and he compensation!, Harrington & Swartz and Charles J. Mazursky for Petitioner to create hundreds folders...: //www.journals.cambridge.org/clj effectively lifting the corporate form itself to avoid existing liabilities cases and materials on company case! All E.R Regional Council 1978 SLT 159, 161 Regional Council 1978 159... Company.Held specific performance should be ordered against both the corporate veil to mr! Creasey was summarily dismissed by Selwyn and filed a claim for damages for unfair.! Clear mandatory language of the time elements involved Regional Council 1978 SLT 159 161. To quantify Critics suggest that this limits the courts power to lift the corporate veil assist... Exceptions which can not be neatly categorized and are difficult to quantify have always been exceptions! In Creasey v. Breachwood Motors Ltd was wrong uncertainty about when courts will lift the corporate.!

Raf Meteor Crashes, My Prepaid Center Merchants List Discover, Palmview Pd Mugshots, Jerry Houser Married, What Happens When Circulating Supply Reaches Max Supply, Articles C