I am looking for about 10 examples of the corporate veil of a company
was pierced in lawsuits.  Examples of it being pierced because the
company failed to meet state or goverment compliance.

---

Request for Question Clarification by pafalafa-ga on 30 Apr 2005 06:02 PDT

There are a ton of cases that address the issue of the corporate veil
-- and even discuss when piercing the veil might be warranted -- but
it's actually a heck of a lot of work to pinpoint which cases actually
ended in a decision to have the veil pierced, as it were.  More
effort, I'm afraid, than can be justified for a $40.00 question.

There seems to be a good overview of the topic -- with references to
some key cases -- at this link:


http://www.firstam.com/faf/html/cust/jm-piercing.html


and a bit more here:


http://www.quickmba.com/law/corporation/corporate-veil/


Let me know if this helps at all.


pafalafa-ga

---

Request for Question Clarification by pafalafa-ga on 30 Apr 2005 06:18 PDT

There's also a recent case on the topic with a good discussion of
precedent cases here:


http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/judges.nsf/0/5dd0d3664558959088256e600073be04/$FILE/99-2506.pdf


http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/judges.nsf/0/5dd0d3664558959088256e600073be04/$FILE/99-2506.pdf


LARRY BOWOTO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHEVRON TEXACO CORP

A. Piercing the corporate veil

?Although the tests employed to determine when circumstances
justifying ?veil-piercing? exist are variously referred to as ?alter
ego?, ?instrumentality? or ?identity? doctrines, the formulations are
generally similar and courts rarely distinguish between them.? Pearson
v. Component Tech. Corporation, 247 F.3d 471, 485 (3d Cir. 2001).
Pearson, a case decided under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification (WARN) Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2101-09, noted that the biggest
difference across jurisdictions is whether fraudulent intent in
incorporation is necessary for veil-piercing. Pearson further observed
that federal courts are more likely to pierce the corporate veil where
necessary to effectuate a federal statute that would otherwise be
frustrated by the state?s corporate laws. In the Ninth Circuit, cases
suggest, at least in contexts arising from California, that fraudulent
intent in incorporation need not be shown to pierce the veil, as long
as it can be shown that the separate identity of the corporation has
not been respected and that respecting the corporate form would work
an injustice on the litigants. RRX Industries Inc. v. Lab-Con Inc, 772
F.2d 543, 596 (9th Cir. 1985). The test for alter ego liability
appears almost interchangeable with the veil-piercing test. See Mobil,
718 F.Supp. at 266, defining alter ego as lack of attention to
corporate formalities, commingling of assets, and intertwining of
operations. Alter-ego requires demonstrating that the two corporations
functioned as a single entity.


There's more discussion strewn throughout the decision, as well.


Hope that helps.

paf

---

Request for Question Clarification by easterangel-ga on 08 May 2005 22:35 PDT

Hi!

Should the example be specifically for failing to meet government
compliance or is this just an additional sample of your question to
help a researcher? Would cases involving just individuals or companies
vs other companies be ok as well?

Thanks!

You will be able to find some cases at findlaw.com or expertlaw.com. 
You should be able to find cases on piercing the corporate veil
(sometimes called piercing the veil), but it may be tougher to find
cases based on compliance with government regulations.  Sometimes
there isn't a whole lot published out there.  If the case was never
appealed or if the case settled, the information might not be in the
public domain.