Piercing the Corporate Veil Tag Archives

Kang and Kovalsky Present CLE for Federal Bar Association: Piercing (and Protecting) the Corporate Veil

January 25, 2023 | Kang Haggerty LLC

On January 25, 2023, Edward T. Kang and Kandis L. Kovalsky were joined by colleagues Nelson Bellido of Roig Lawyers and Michael Moder of AILA Limited to present Piercing (and Protecting) the Corporate Veil. The CLE focused on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mortimer v. McCool and various theories of how to both uphold/enforce and avoid a claim to “pierce the corporate veil.”

You can access the on-demand webcast of Piercing (and protecting) the Corporate Veil, on the Federal Bar Association’s website here. This CLE was co-sponsored by myLawCLE.

Legal Intelligencer: Enterprise Liability and When to Seek Piercing the Corporate Veil, Part II

May 13, 2022 | Edward T. Kang

Because veil piercing is a highly fact-intensive inquiry, it can be difficult to predict in advance when a court will grant such a remedy. This is because, in addition to the multi-factor analysis that often goes into the decision of whether to pierce, there are also a variety of different forms that veil piercing can take.

In the May 12, 2022 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang of Kang Haggerty co-authored “Enterprise Liability and When to Seek Piercing the Corporate Veil, Part II.” Continue reading ›

Kang Presents CLE for Strafford Publications: Piercing the Corporate Veil: Single Business Enterprise Theory

November 11, 2021 | Kang Haggerty LLC

The CLE webinar will provide corporate counsel with guidance on piercing the corporate veil under the single business enterprise theory. The panel will address the increased potential liability for related businesses and the expanded circumstances under which the court may disregard the corporate form. The panel will discuss the implications of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Mortimer v. McCool.

Panelists are Kang Haggerty managing member Edward T. Kang, Oscar A. Gomez, and Anneke Cronje.

Piercing the Corporate Veil: Single Business Enterprise Theory After the Mortimer Decision is presented by Strafford Publications. The webinar will take place on Thursday, November 18th from 1:00 – 2:30 PM EST.

Legal Intelligencer: Qui Tam Suits and Veil Piercing: A Powerful Combo for Combating Health Care Fraud

November 4, 2021 | Edward T. Kang

Scale with medication on one side and money on the other

This article will discuss briefly the history of qui tam litigation, its interplay with piercing theories and the particular utility of these types of suits in the health care context.

In the November 4, 2021 edition of of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang of Kang Haggerty co-authored “Qui Tam Suits and Veil Piercing: A Powerful Combo for Combating Health Care Fraud.”

In 2019, the United States federal government spent $1.1 trillion, or approximately 25% of the overall federal budget, on just four government health care programs; Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In addition to these well-known programs, the Department of Defense spends tens of billions of dollars every year providing health care to service members, veterans and their families through programs like TRICARE. Likewise, all states administer their own Medicaid programs and typically match the funding provided by the federal government, pumping even more public money into this sector. Continue reading ›

Legal Intelligencer: Enterprise Liability and When to Seek Piercing the Corporate Veil

September 9, 2021 | Edward T. Kang

In this column, we discuss Mortimer, the enterprise theory of liability generally, and the common sequencing decisions plaintiffs need to make when bringing a veil piercing claim.

In the September 9, 2021 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang of Kang Haggerty co-authored “Enterprise Liability and When to Seek Piercing the Corporate Veil.” Continue reading ›

Legal Intelligencer: Pa. Supreme Court to Review Veil-Piercing Appeal Based on Enterprise Theory

November 5, 2020 | Edward T. Kang

Org-Chart-1024x576 In June, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted an appeal that could radically alter existing state law on corporate liability based on the veil-piercing theory. The case, arising from a dram shop tort action, is poised to test Pennsylvania law’s “strong presumption” against piercing the corporate veil.

In the November 5, 2020 edition of The Legal Intelligencer Edward T. Kang, managing member of Kang Haggerty wrote “Pa. Supreme Court to Review Veil-Piercing Appeal Based on Enterprise Theory.”

In June, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted an appeal that could radically alter existing state law on corporate liability based on the veil-piercing theory. The case, arising from a dram shop tort action, is poised to test Pennsylvania law’s “strong presumption” against piercing the corporate veil. Hoping to recover damages from an affiliated corporation that was not a defendant at trial, the plaintiff in Mortimer v. McCool, was granted an appeal on the basis of the so-called “single business enterprise” or “single entity” theory. See Mortimer v. McCool, Nos. 20 MAL 2020, (Pa. June 22, 2020). Not currently adopted in Pennsylvania, the theory may be applied to allow a plaintiff to reach the assets of one or more affiliated corporations of the debtor when those “corporations share common ownership and are, in reality, operating as a corporate combine.” See Miners v. Alpine Equipment, 722 A.2d 691,695 (Pa. Super. 1998). Courts discussing or adopting the enterprise theory have found its rightful target to be corporate entities that have integrated business ownership and assets to achieve a common business purpose. Thus, in an important sense, by operating what is essentially a “single business enterprise” split into multiple affiliated entities (often purely for the sake of avoiding liability), owners of such enterprises open the door for the courts to impose shared liability. In the past, I have written about veil-piercing in Pennsylvania generally, as well as in specific regard to LLCs and the “alter ego” theory. This column addresses the implications of the Mortimer appeal and the “enterprise” theory for Pennsylvania corporate liability law.

Legal Intelligencer: Piercing the Corporate Veil of LLCs Under Pennsylvania Law

September 3, 2020 | Edward T. Kang

Piercing the veil of limited liability companies (LLCs) allows a court to disregard the separate corporate personality of the company and its member(s) to reach the assets of the members and hold them liable for all or part of the LLC’s debts under Pennsylvania law.

In the September 3, 2020 edition of The Legal Intelligencer Edward T. Kang, managing member of Kang Haggerty wrote “Piercing the Corporate Veil of LLCs Under Pennsylvania Law.”

Piercing the veil of limited liability companies (LLCs) allows a court to disregard the separate corporate personality of the company and its member(s) to reach the assets of the members and hold them liable for all or part of the LLC’s debts under Pennsylvania law. Previously, I’ve written on the general substantive and procedural requirements of piercing the corporate veil of an entity and alter ego jurisdiction over corporate groups. This column addresses the Pennsylvania law on the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil as applied to LLCs.