Brief English Introduction
Vedanta is not a veil-piercing case in the strict sense. It is important because it shows a different creditor-protection route: a parent may owe a direct duty if its own conduct justifies ordinary tort responsibility.
Use It For
Use it after Prest to show that refusing to pierce the veil does not always end group-company liability analysis.
Teaching Notes
Ask whether Chinese law should handle group harms through Article 23 personality denial, controller duties, tort law, environmental law, or a combination.