[DOWNLOAD] Piercing the Corporate Veil (Litigator Series) by LandMark Publications ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of 136 U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that apply alter ego doctrine and discuss whether it is appropriate to pierce a corporate veil. The selection of decisions spans from 2003 to the date of publication. For each circuit, the cases are listed in the order of frequency of citation. The most cited decisions appear first. A corporate entity is liable for the acts of a separate, related entity only under extraordinary circumstances, commonly referred to as 'piercing the corporate veil.'" Arctic Ocean Int'l, 622 F. Supp. 2d at 53 (quoting Dolco Invs., Ltd. v. Moonriver Dev., Ltd., 486 F. Supp. 2d 261, 271 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)). "Although decisions to pierce a corporate veil, exposing those behind the corporation to liability, must be taken reluctantly and cautiously, courts will not hesitate to take such action when justice so requires." Keffer v. H.K. Porter Co., Inc., 872 F.2d 60, 64 (4th Cir. 1989) (citing In re County Green Ltd. P'ship, 604 F.2d 289, 292 (4th Cir. 1979)). "In extraordinary cases, such as the corporate form being used for wrongful purposes, courts will pierce the corporate veil and disregard the corporate entity, treating the parent corporation and its subsidiary as a single entity." Corrigan v. U.S. Steel Corp., 478 F.3d 718, 724 (6th Cir. 2007). Vitol, SA v. Primerose Shipping Company Ltd., (4th Cir. 2013)Illinois allows the corporate veil to be pierced—which is to say exposes the corporation's owner to personal liability for the corporation's debts—if two conditions are satisfied: (1) The owner has failed to operate it as a corporation, neglecting such requisites of the corporate form as adequate capitalization, election of directors and officers, and separation of corporate from personal funds; and (2) refusing to pierce the veil would "sanction a fraud or promote injustice." On Command Video Corporation v. Roti, (7th Cir. 2013)