Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Piercing The Corporate Veil Outline

Law Outlines > Corporations Outlines

This is an extract of our Piercing The Corporate Veil document, which we sell as part of our Corporations Outlines collection written by the top tier of Georgetown University Law Center students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Corporations Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Piercing the Corporate Veil A. Generally speaking, "a corporation is an entity, separate and distinct from its officers and stockholders, and the individual stockholders are not responsible for the debts of the corporation." Kinney Shoe Corp. v. Polan pg. 284 B. Nevertheless, the courts may disregard the corporate form or pierce the corporate veil whenever necessary "to prevent fraud or to achieve equity." Walkovszky v. Carlton - pg. 266 C. As such, piercing the corporate veil is an equitable remedy that the court can impose in order to avoid injustice. i. Tort a) TEST (Radaszewski v. Telecom Corp. - pp. 272-73)
? (1) Complete Domination
? (2) Fraud or Wrong
? Under Missouri Law, undercapitalizing a subsidiary is a proxy for this prong of the test
? In the tort context, case law shows that a court will decline to pierce the corporate veil UNLESS it is shown that the defendant is both (1) undercapitalized AND (2) has failed to carry insurance that is either in compliance with statutory requirements or would be considered financially responsible under the circumstances. See, e.g., Walkovszky v. Carlton (declining to pierce the corporate veil as to individual shareholder where corporation was undercapitalized but carried statutorily required liability insurance); Radaszewski v. Telecom Corp. (declining to pierce the corporate veil as to parent company where company was undercapitalized but had insurance that was considered financially responsible under the applicable federal regulations); Gardemal v. Westin Hotel Co. (declining to pierce the corporate veil as to parent company where there was insufficient evidence to show that the subsidiary was either undercapitalized or uninsured)
? (3) Proximate Cause ii. Contract a) TEST (See Freeman v. Complex Computing Co., Inc. - pg. 280)
? (1) Complete Domination
? FACTORS
? (1) disregard of corporate formalities; (2) inadequate capitalization; (3) intermingling of funds; (4) overlap in ownership, officers, directors, and personnel; (5) common office space, address and telephone numbers of corporate entities; (6) the degree of discretion shown by the allegedly dominated corporation; (7) whether the dealings between the entities are at arms length; (8) whether the corporations are treated as independent profit centers; (9) payment or guarantee of the

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Corporations Outlines.