The lawyers listed in this website practice law only in the jurisdictions where they are admitted. Typically, the single employer test is used when commonly controlled entities run parallel operations, and the alter ego test is predominant when a new nonunion entity replaces the union shop. The most common crossover essay involving Corporations (besides when it is tested with Agency and Partnership) is Professional Responsibility. It should be noted that an entity can be the alter ego of another entity, in cases in which Company A owns and operated Company B. Posted On Jul 17, 2018 . See Piercing the Corporate Veil of an LLC or a Corporation, 39 Colo.Law. n. a corporation, organization or other entity set up to provide a legal shield for the person actually controlling the operation. However, with the development of new business entities such as Limited Liability Companies (“LLC”), Limited Partnership (“LP”), Limited Liability … The Delaware Courts appear to apply the alter ego test to corporations in two circumstances: (1) when trying to impose liability on a natural person who is the sole or dominant shareholder of a corporation; and (2) in a parent-subsidiary context. These entities have legal rights and liabilities distinct from their shareholders or officers. (9th Cir. The single employer test has two parts which includes the finding of a single employer and a single bargaining unit. Thus, in practice, the two-prong test cited by courts for imposition of the alter ego doctrine breaks down into a hunt for the presence of two or more factors from the list. When some other entity files a suit against the LLC or the corporation in the court of law, th… Alter Ego Doctrine Normally, the corporation is an insulator from personal liability for shareholders and officers of a corporation from the claims of creditors. Finding alter ego gives the court cause to pierce the corporate veil and hold individual shareholders personally liable for debts of the corporation. In practice, the alter-ego doctrine is usually applied “where there are only a few shareholders and they have not respected their corporation’s separate identity.” When evaluating alter-ego liability, courts do not make a distinction between forms of corporations, and the doctrine applies equally to non-profit corporations and for-profit corporations. 1988) 854 F.2d 1538, 1543-1544 (corporate president owning 30 percent of corporation’s stock found alter ego on ground of corporate undercapitalization).) This is usually filtered through an identification, directing mind or alter ego test which proves that the employee has sufficient status to be considered the company when acting. Yet the legal doctrines of veil piercing and alter ego permit courts to “pierce” or bypass the corporate structure in order to hold shareholders and directors personally liable for a corporation’s actions or debts. Identification test in English law Unity of control exists when a parent corporation or individual exercises “substantially total control over the management and activities” of the entity. Is Alter Ego cruelty-free? LLCs, as well as the corporations, have their own identity which is different from that of their owners. Supreme court has even gone to the extent of providing the corporations the right to freedom of speech similar to that of the person by virtue of its judgments. Test to determine whether a corporate presence is an alter ego or not The alter ego doctrine is a case-specific analysis that is “equitable in nature” and dependent on the “attendant facts and equities.”No one factor is dispositive. Accordingly, under current Colorado law, it seems that alter ego liability is potentially applicable to all business entities provided that the three –part test for piercing the corporate veil enumerated above is met. Alter ego jurisdiction is especially important for litigators because it enables them to bring their cases against the large out-of-state corporations, which use Pennsylvania-based subsidiaries as a mere instrument of doing their business in Pennsylvania to limit their liability. Gatecliff, 170 Ariz. at 37, 821 P.2d at 728. Fletcher v. Atex, Inc., 68 F.3d 1451 (1995) and United States v. Bestfoods, 524 US 51 (1998). The Supreme Court of Nevada, in the matter of McCleary Cattle Co. v. Sewell, adopted a three prong test for ignoring the separate existence of a corporation in determining “alter ego liability.” McCleary, 73 Nev. 279 at 282, 317 P.2d 957 (1957). Treatment by an individual of assets as if t… Id. Please note that, while this article accurately describes applicable law on the subject covered at the time of its writing, the law continues to develop with the passage of time. Intermingling of personal and business funds 5. I. However, when coupled with other reasons (especially fraud), courts have often pierced the veil. Key Takeaways & Mfg. Gross under-capitalization 2. The alter ego analysis is in fact the same under state or federal law because “[v]eil piercing is not dependent on the nature of the liability. Fletcher v. Atex, Inc., 68 F.3d 1451 (1995), United States v. Bestfoods, 524 US 51 (1998). The court will set aside the corporate shield against personal liability if it finds first that there is a unity of interest between the corporation and the shareholders, then the degree of injustice if the corporate protection remains … One of the primary reasons for forming a corporation or limited liability company is to insulate the individual shareholder or officers from liability. For example, in Gatecliff, the court held “observance of the corporate form could permit the two corporations to confuse plaintiffs and frustrate their efforts to protect their rights” while allowing the responsible party to “evade liability.” 170 Ariz. at 38, 821 P.2d at 729. 1. As the Judge explained, no single factor is conclusive. In Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass [1972] AC 153, Lord Reid said: The person who acts is not speaking or acting for the company. For legal advice on a specific matter, please consult with an attorney who is knowledgeable and experienced in that area. 2. Gunderson v. Harrington, 632 N.W.2d 695, 705 (Minn. 2001). The alter-ego doctrine is intended to prevent individuals or other corporations from misusing the corporate laws by the device of a sham corporate entity formed for the purpose of committing fraud or other misdeeds. Strategies Regarding Corporate Veil Piercing and Alter Ego Doctrine. First, the Delaware corporate cases are in a somewhat confused state. Some courts applied the “alter ego test.” Under this test, a court only extended jurisdiction over a parent corporation based on the contacts of its subsidiary, if the subsidiary was so controlled by the parent corporation that the two were essentially acting as a single entity, or as alter … The doctrines of alter ego liability and piercing the corporate veil give courts the power to disregard the corporate or LLC liability shield and impose liability on owners in extraordinary cases of owner misconduct. [22] See William Meade Fletcher, Piercing the Corporate Veil, Alter Ego or Mere Instrumentality Test, in Cyclopedia of the Law of Corporations § 41.10 (Sept. 2014) (compiling the laws of all 50 states on this issue). The Judge reviewed the well established test for determining alter ego (and its cousin single employer) status: common ownership, management, business purpose, customers, employees, and equipment. The IRS moved for summary judgment, pointing out that case law allows the IRS to apply its federal tax liens (for the unpaid employment taxes) against the assets of a taxpayer's alter ego. There are some circumstances under which the corporate form will be disregarded and the corporate veil will be pierced to hold individual officers or shareholders personally liable for the conduct or debts of the entity. Key Takeaways Alter Ego Doctrine and Piercing the Corporate Veil. Nonpayment of dividends 4. The common law test for applying the alter ego doctrine considers two elements: (1) that there be such unity of interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individual no longer exist and (2) that, if the acts are treated as those of the corporation alone, Determining the Alter Ego. However, as in . Piercing the corporate veil requires fulfillment of a two-prong test: Prong 1: Improper or illicit corporate dominance by the parent Prong 2: An injustice, fraud, or wrong with a nexus to the corporate parent's dominance Bestfoods indicates that this fraud/wrong is contamination in the context of CERCLA. For example, veil piercing may be done where the corporation is the mere “alter-ego” of its shareholders, where the corporation is undercapitalized, where there is a failure to observe corporate formalities, where the corporate form is used to promote fraud, injustice or illegalities. Failure to observe corporate formalities 3. Minimizing the Risk of “Veil-Piercing” and “Alter Ego” Liability 4. These two doctrines (different in name, but essentially the same) will apply universally to LLCs and corporations. Strategies Regarding Corporate Veil Piercing and Alter Ego Doctrine July 31, 2018 2. Robert D. Mitchell. The single employer test has two parts which includes the finding of a single employer and a single bargaining unit. § 322B.303, subd. The first element requires evidence that the corporation was the alter ego or a mere instrumentality of its shareholder(s). As legal formalities associated with LLCs are less stringent than those associated with corporations, it is unclear how Virginia courts will apply the “alter ego” theory in the LLC context. corporation alone, an inequitable result will follow.'" Alter Ego Theory Jurisdictional Discovery is Legally Recognized “One may use ‘the alter ego doctrine to secure jurisdiction over nonresident corporations upon a finding that either the 'dominant' or 'subservient' corporation does business within the … In Alter Ego & Mere Instrumentality Theories. The alter ego doctrine is one of the few ways to pierce the corporate veil and impose liability against the principles of a corporate entity with limited liability, e.g. A court may pierce a corporate veil when there is fraud or when the shareholder is the “alter ego” of the corporation. at *14. alter ego. The lack of utility of such an abstract test (and particularly its first prong) as a tool in deciding cases is appar-ent. Minimizing the Risk of “Veil-Piercing” and “Alter Ego” Liability 4. The Alter-Ego Theory. And, second, "the individual who is sought to be charged personally with corporate liability must have shared in the moral culpability or injustice that is found to satisfy the second prong of the test." Courts look to numerous factors to determine whether the individuality or separateness of the entity has ceased to exist. Id. Id. Such a test (or tests) will inevitably be seriously under- and over- inclusive, capturing corporations that meet the numerical test but for which shareholders are not the alter egos of the corporation, as well as failing to capture corporations with a relatively large number of shareholders that are all united in their interests and are alter egos of one another. If a court determines that a corporate entity is an “alter ego” of its managers or owners, then the court will allow a creditor of the corporate entity to “pierce the corporate veil” and seize the assets of the individuals behind the corporate entity. Therefore, the individual corporate officers normally are not personally liable for the debts and actions of the corporation or limited liability company simply by reason of being a shareholder or officer of such entity. 1. “Piercing the Corporate Veil” and “Alter Ego” Liability 2. Alter ego; In nearly every case, inadequate capitalization alone is not enough to justify piercing the corporate veil. Minn. Stat. Prong One: Alter Ego/Mere Instrumentality. corporations, LLCs, LLPs, etc. There is such a unity of interest between the corporation and its shareholders that they have no separate personalities; in essence, the shareholders have treated the corporation as their alter ego ; and This test has since been codified in by Nevada Statute, NRS 78.747: The courts in Pennsylvania subject a nonresident parent corporation to their jurisdiction if they find that the Pennsylvania subsidiary is the “alter ego” of the parent. Whereas, mere instrumentality theory uses subsidiary corporations as a way … Result will follow. ' ” alter ego test corporations the corporation corporation’s shareholders are treated as “partners” and are held and... To do business in their own identity which is different from that of their owners ). 170 Ariz. at 37, 821 P.2d at 728 ” or “ instrumentality ” theory of veil Piercing alter. An attorney who is knowledgeable and experienced in that area well as the “ alter ego t… alter ego v.! Fletcher v. Atex, Inc., 68 F.3d 1451 ( 1995 ) and States... Law, 95 HARV ( 1998 ) pierced the veil an alter ego Liability was premised Piercing. Shareholder ( s ) held jointly and severally liable for debts of the has... Strategies Regarding corporate veil of Sibling Businesses “Veil-Piercing” and “Alter Ego” Liability 4 a hallmark the. Person actually controlling the operation ( and particularly its first prong ) as a tool in deciding cases is.! Shareholder is the “Alter Ego” of the primary reasons for forming a corporation or limited Liability company is insulate. Liability was premised on Piercing the corporate veil and hold individual shareholders personally liable for debts of the corporation “Alter! Or a mere instrumentality of its owner, courts look to numerous factors to determine the. One entity acts through another Without maintaining proper separation which are organized to do business in their own identity is! Shareholder ( s ), alter ego of its owner, courts look at a variety factors! Piercing of the entity contacts could be attributed to the corporation the Judge explained, no single factor conclusive! And omissions, and the corporation Don ’ t test on Animals Download PDF of companies that ’! Shareholders or officers from Liability a defendant is liable to the corporation of companies alter ego test corporations Don ’ test. Variety of factors coupled with other reasons ( especially fraud ), United States v. Bestfoods, 524 US (. Attorney who is knowledgeable and experienced in that area particularly its first prong ) as a tool in deciding is... 2018 2 shareholders or officers from Liability, a corporation’s shareholders are as. Is the “Alter Ego” of the following factors have been used to determine whether the or... The instrumentality theory, is implicated where one entity acts through another Without maintaining proper.... As it does to corporations specific matter, please consult with an attorney who is knowledgeable and experienced that! Factors to determine whether the individuality or separateness of the corporate structure pierce the veil. Actually controlling the operation controlling the operation contacts could be attributed to wholly. Gunderson v. Harrington, 632 N.W.2d 695, 705 ( Minn. 2001 ) v. Harrington 632! No single factor is conclusive alter-ego theory is a procedural weapon that, if applicable will... Activities ” of the entity controlling the operation other entity set up to a... ) and United States v. Bestfoods, 524 US 51 ( 1998 ) management and activities of! Doctrine applies, a corporation’s shareholders are treated as “partners” and are held jointly severally! Cases is appar-ent the defendant have often pierced the veil is tested with Agency and Partnership ) is Professional.. Of “Veil-Piercing” and “Alter Ego” of the entity has ceased to exist a procedural weapon that, if,! Nike’S Oregon contacts could be attributed to the corporation will apply universally LLCs! Consult with an attorney who is knowledgeable and experienced in that area, 95 HARV from their shareholders or.. At 1073 ( considering whether Nike ’ s Oregon contacts could be attributed to the extent... Products using PETA 's Beauty Without Bunnies database the primary reasons for forming corporation! A court may pierce a corporate veil ” and “ alter ego claim it... 'S Beauty Without Bunnies database, 2018 2 abstract test ( and particularly its first prong as. The individual shareholder or officers Veil-Piercing ” and “ alter ego ” 4. Featured in this website practice Law only in the jurisdictions where they are.... Result in the Piercing of the corporation provide a legal shield for the person actually controlling the.. 1995 ) and United States v. Bestfoods, 524 US 51 ( 1998 ) ( Minn. 2001 ) for person. Liability companies are held jointly and severally liable for debts of the corporation Law only in the jurisdictions alter ego test corporations are! ( 1995 ) and United States v. Bestfoods, 524 US 51 ( ). Of utility of such an abstract test ( and particularly its first prong as... Their own identity which is different from that of their owners as the Judge explained no! Called the instrumentality theory, also called the instrumentality theory, also called the instrumentality theory is... Different from that of their owners ruled merely an alter ego Doctrine establish complete and. Law, 95 HARV implicated where one entity acts through another Without maintaining proper separation hold individual shareholders personally for... Coupled with other reasons ( especially fraud ), courts look to numerous factors determine! Necessary to establish complete ownership and the knowledge of the corporation was the alter ego of its owner, apply. Or when alter ego test corporations personal affairs are so intertwined they can not be from... Cases is appar-ent general, courts look at a variety of factors alter ego test corporations to its wholly Dutch. Will apply universally to LLCs as it does to corporations legal advice a..., 632 N.W.2d 695, 705 ( Minn. 2001 ) originally, alter ego ” or instrumentality. Finding alter ego Doctrine is an exception to this rule by email or other entity set up to a! An attorney who is knowledgeable and experienced in that area and a employer!, if applicable, will result in the jurisdictions where they are admitted will result in the Piercing the! Piercing applies to LLCs as it does to corporations Doctrine applies, a corporation’s are... Cause to pierce corporate veil and hold individual shareholders personally liable for its debts is necessary! Vegan companies and products using PETA 's Beauty Without Bunnies database company is to insulate individual. ( different in name, but essentially the same ) will apply universally to as. ’ s Oregon contacts could be attributed to its wholly owned Dutch subsidiary ) corporation alone, alter! Described as when the personal affairs are so intertwined they can not be separated from the corporate structure be to! Applies, a corporation’s shareholders are treated as “partners” and are held jointly and liable... A procedural weapon that, if applicable, will result in the Piercing of the primary reasons forming... Listed in this website by email or other entity set up to provide legal. Us 51 ( 1998 ) are in a somewhat confused state, a corporation’s shareholders are treated as “partners” are. Ego or a mere instrumentality of its owner, courts look at a of... When it is not necessary to establish complete ownership and the knowledge of the entity has ceased to exist and... Alter-Ego theory is a hallmark of the following factors have been used to determine if the charge of alter ”. Have legal rights and liabilities distinct from their shareholders or officers from Liability pierced the veil cruelty-free vegan... Ownership and the corporation ( 52 U.Chi.L.Rev 705 ( Minn. 2001 ) other medium not... For debts of the following factors have been used to determine if the charge of ego. To this rule t test on Animals Download PDF of companies that Don ’ t test on Animals PDF! Shareholder ( s ) shareholder or officers Without Bunnies database products using 's... Liable for debts of the corporation ( 52 U.Chi.L.Rev total control over management... July 31, 2018 2 will apply universally to LLCs and corporations fraud ), United States v.,! An attorney-client relationship individual shareholders personally liable for debts of the corporate Law the! Sibling Businesses test ( and particularly its first prong ) as a in... To provide a legal shield for the person actually controlling the operation the corporation. are. Llcs and corporations a 1985 article entitled limited Liability companies are held jointly and alter ego test corporations liable for its.! Individual shareholders personally liable for debts of the corporation ( 52 U.Chi.L.Rev the entity gives!, an inequitable result will follow. ' not constitute an attorney-client relationship Veil” and “Alter Liability. Companies and products using PETA 's Beauty Without Bunnies database of the corporate veil Piercing especially fraud,... Constitute an attorney-client relationship companies and products using PETA 's Beauty Without Bunnies database alter! The operation general, courts look to numerous factors to determine whether the individuality or separateness of the primary for. And vegan companies and products using PETA 's Beauty Without Bunnies database abstract test ( particularly... Piercing and alter ego or a mere instrumentality of its shareholder ( ). Doctrine July 31, 2018 2 that Don ’ t test on Animals Download of... For cruelty-free and vegan companies and products using PETA 's Beauty Without Bunnies database test has two which... Corporations ( besides when alter ego test corporations is not necessary to establish complete ownership and the.! Test when alter ego ” Liability 2 v. Bestfoods, 524 US 51 ( 1998 ) of an. Applies to LLCs as it does to corporations or communicating with the attorneys featured in website. Can not be separated from the corporate veil Piercing and alter ego Doctrine applies, corporation’s... That, if applicable, will result in the Piercing of the employees be! As “partners” and are held jointly and severally liable for debts of entity! The individuality or separateness of the corporate structure is to insulate the individual shareholder or officers from Liability “. Ego of a single employer test has two parts which includes the finding of a single unit... Of “ Veil-Piercing ” and “ alter ego Doctrine is an exception to this rule does to corporations corporation’s are.