Page 14 - John Hundley 2014
P. 14

separate identities would sanction a fraud or promote injustice."  It said veil-piercing requests had to meet
        two tests: "(1) there is such a unity  of interest and ownership that the separate  personalities of the
        corporation  and  the  parties  who  compose  it  no  longer  exist,  and  (2)  circumstances  are  such  that
        adherence to the fiction of a separate corporation would promote injustice or inequitable circumstances."

            Defendant's defense of the trial court ruling focused principally on the first prong and was based on the
        fact that he was neither an officer, director or shareholder of the corporation.  Finding that none of these is
        required, the panel purported to apply Illinois law but plainly based its decision on a survey of corporate
        law nationwide.  While it noted that caselaw was not uniform, it said "the weight of authority supports the
        conclusion that lack of shareholder status -- and, indeed, lack of status as an officer, director, or employee
        -- does not preclude veil-piercing."

            "Equitable Ownership" Key:   Key to the court's  holding  on  that point  was the concept of
        "equitable ownership".  It noted that the complaint alleged the corporation had not issued any stock to
        anyone.  "If plaintiffs' allegation is true, the reason defendant was not a Silver Fox shareholder is that
        Silver Fox had no shareholders.  It would make little sense to hold that, where a corporation fails to issue
                           stock, defendant's status as a nonshareholder both precludes veil-piercing and is a
                           factor in favor of it."

                               It  said  that in  deciding  whether  the  "unity  of  interest  and  ownership"  test  is met,
                           courts  generally  examine  many  factors,  including  "(1)  inadequate  capitalization;  (2)
                           failure  to  issue  stock;  (3) failure  to  observe  corporate  formalities;  (4)  nonpayment of
                           dividends; (5) insolvency of the debtor corporation; (6) nonfunctioning of  the other
                           officers or directors; (7) absence of corporate records; (8) commingling of funds; (9)
                           diversion of assets from the corporation by or to a stockholder or other person or entity
                           to the detriment of creditors; (10) failure to maintain arm's-length relationships among
                           related entities; and (11)  whether, in fact, the corporation is a mere facade  for the
        operation of the dominant stockholders."

            Second  Test  Also  Met:    The  panel  also  found  the  "promote  injustice  or  inequitable
        circumstances" test was met.  Noting allegations leading to the inference that defendant hired plaintiffs'
        head baker simply to obtain their customer lists and recipes in violation of the Illinois Trade Secrets Act
        (765 ILCS 1065), the panel said this alleged conduct was not benign and was unlawful.

            Comment:  On the issue of piercing corporate veils, Buckley arguably extends
        Illinois law, and at least answers  questions  which  were previously  unclear under
        Illinois law.  An argument can be made that that effort was unnecessary, however.
        As  noted  above,  plaintiffs  alleged  that  the  corporation  never  issued  any  shares,
        never elected directors, never had shareholder or board meetings, and never filed
        annual reports with the state.  The case thus silently seemed to raise the question
        whether formalities had been sufficiently obeyed so as to raise the corporate veil in
        the first place.  It is hornbook law that when a corporation is defectively formed, that
        leaves the  promoters  personally liable.  For some reason, this issue  was not
        explored in Buckley.

        Brenda\SharpThinking\#113.pdf
        ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
                                                      THE  SHARP  LAW  FIRM,  P.C.

                               1115 Harrison, P.O. Box 906, Mt. Vernon, IL 62864 • Telephone 618-242-0246 • Facsimile 618-242-1170
                                                               www.thesharpfirm.com

                             Business Transactions • Litigation • Financial Law • Problem Finances • Real Estate • Corporate • Commercial Disputes
                                         • Creditors’ Rights • Arbitration & Mediation • Estate Planning • Probate • Family Law

                                        Terry Sharp: Tsharp@lotsharp.com; John T. Hundley: Jhundley@lotsharp.com;
                                   Rebecca L. Reinhardt: Rreinhardt@lotsharp.com; Darren M. Taylor: Dtaylor@lotsharp.com

                                                                   Advertising Material
   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19