Veil-PiercingTexas Law Review (2010)
AbstractFrom its inception veil-piercing has been a scourge on corporate law. Exactly when the veil of limited liability can and will be circumvented to reach into a shareholder’s own assets has befuddled courts, litigants, and scholars alike. And the doctrine has been bedeviled by empirical evidence of a chasm between the theory and practice of veil-piercing; notably, veil-piercing claims inexplicably seem to prevail more often in Contract than Tort, a finding that flouts the engrained distinction between voluntary and involuntary creditors. With a dataset of 2,908 cases from 1658 to 2006, this study presents the most comprehensive portrait of veil-piercing decisions yet. Unlike predecessors, this study examines Fraud, a long-suspected accessory to veil-piercing, as well as specific subclaims in Contract, Tort, and Fraud, to provide a fine-grained portrait of voluntary and involuntary creditors. And this study analyzes the rationales instrumental to a piercing decision. The findings largely comport with our legal intuitions. The most successful civil veil-piercing claims lie in Fraud or involve specific evidence of fraud or misrepresentation. Further, claims not only prevail more often in Tort than Contract, but they also adhere to the voluntary–involuntary creditor distinction. Surprisingly, though, veil-piercing presents a greater risk to individual shareholders than corporate groups.
- Contract v. Tort,
- Corporate Disregard,
- Limited Liability,
- Piercing the Corporate Veil,
Citation InformationPeter B. Oh. "Veil-Piercing" Texas Law Review Vol. 89 Iss. 1 (2010)
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/peteroh/8/