為保護公司債權人，我國公司法關係企業專章於第369-4條規定，控制公司使從屬公司為不合營業常規或其他不利益經營時，控制公司若不補償，從屬公司可請求損害賠償，此一請求權亦可由從屬公司之債權人代位行使。這類案件於我國司法實務中卻極為罕見，從屬公司債權人較常見以「揭穿公司面紗原則」，要求控制公司對從屬公司之債務負責。過去，實務上對於我國是否承認揭穿公司面紗原則見解分歧，在各方呼籲下，公司法於2013年1月30日修正時新增第154條第2項，加入揭穿公司面紗條款。新法雖提供揭穿公司面紗的法律依據，但應如何適用，仍有頗多疑義，特別是關係企業適用時，是否因其組織與運作上的特點，而應有不同的考量，值得進一步探究。我國制定關係企業專章時，參考德國立法例，如今新法揭穿公司面紗借鏡自美國，故本文將介紹德、美兩國之相關法規與實務見解，並評析我國因雷曼兄弟集團破產後，原告主張揭穿公司面紗，要求雷曼集團之母公司或其他子公司應負賠償責任之相關案件。最後，本文提出修法建議。

To protect corporate creditors in corporate groups, Article 369-4 of Taiwan Company Law provides that when a controlling company has caused its subsidiary to conduct any business contrary to normal business practice and failed to pay an appropriate compensation, such controlling company shall be liable for the subsidiary's damage; creditor of the subsidiary may claim damages for the company. However, in practice such suits have been extremely rare. Instead, creditors of the subsidiary often argue the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil and demand the controlling company to pay for the debt of the subsidiary. Before the Company Law provides the piercing the corporate veil in its 2012 amendment, courts' opinions were divided on this matter. Along with the recent amendment, new issues require attention. By analyzing relevant laws and cases in Germany and the United States, this paper aims to provide suggestions on how the new laws apply, especially in the context of corporate groups.