On July 16, 2020, Justice Scarpulla of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Ezra v. Wilton Group, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op. 32351(U), allowing reverse veil-piercing claims to go forward, explaining: In opposition, defendants first argue that, because most of the defendants are Delaware entities, New York’s choice of law dictates... Read more »
Blogs
Posts Categorized: Veil-piercing
Individual Owner Can be Held Liable Under Veil Piercing Claim for the Torts of Owner’s Company
On February 21, 2020, Justice Schecter of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Forefront Partners LLC v. Omanoff, 2020 NY Slip Op. 30490(U), holding that an individual owner can be held liable under a veil-piercing theory for torts committed by the owner’s company, explaining: Forefront seeks dismissal of the breach of... Read more »
Veil Piercing Claim Against Parent Fails Because Plaintiff Was Aware of Subsidiary’s Financial Condition
On January 22, 2020, Justice Borrok of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in 165 E. 72nd Apt. Corp. v. Invite Health Stores, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op. 30266(U), dismissing veil-piercing claims because the plaintiff knew of the defendant subsidiary’s financial condition, explaining: For its remaining claims, the Landlord seeks to pierce... Read more »
Veil Piercing Claim Upheld Based on Allegations of Fraudulent Inducement
On January 31, 2020, the Fourth Department issued a decision in Clark Rigging & Rental Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op. 00760, upholding a veil piercing claim based on alleged fraudulent inducement, explaining: Affording the allegations in the complaint every possible favorable inference, we conclude that plaintiff sufficiently alleged that Tri-Krete... Read more »
Veil Piercing Claim Rejected; Alleged Domination and Control Unrelated to Basis of Claim
On December 18, 2019, Justice Ostrager of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Lam Pearl St. Hotel, LLC v. Golden Pearl Constr., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op. 33750(U), rejecting a veil piercing claim because the alleged domination and control were unrelated to the basis for the plaintiff’s claim, explaining: Plaintiff Lam... Read more »
Court Rejects Veil-Piercing Claim
On March 21, 2019, Judge Wilson of the Bergen County Superior Court (Law Division) issued a decision in Cajoeco LLC v. Bensi Enterprises, LLC, Docket No. BER-L-3477-16, rejecting veil-piercing claims, explaining: It is well settled New Jersey law that a corporation is a separate entity from its shareholders and that a primary reason for incorporation... Read more »
Bank Holding Company Not Liable for Acts of its Banking Subsidiary
On September 5, 2019, Justice Scarpulla of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Akhtar v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 2019 NY Slip Op. 32646(U), holding that a bank holding company was not liable for the acts of its banking subsidiary, explaining: There is no dispute that JP Morgan Chase is a... Read more »
Court Analyzes Question of Successor Liability
On August 22, 2018, Judge Vignuolo of the Middlesex County Superior Court (Law Division) issued a decision in Babulal v. Dynamic Metals Processing, Inc., Docket No. L-1508-14, analyzing whether two defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing claims based on successor liability, explaining: We turn now to the substance of Gary Metal and Gary Machinery’s... Read more »
Claim Based on Alter Ego Theory Survives Motion to Dismiss
On July 2, 2018, Justice Ostrager of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Aspire Music Group, LLC v. Cash Money Records, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op. 31444(U), refusing to dismiss a claim based on an alter ego theory of equitable ownership, explaining: Aspire has adequately alleged that Universal is the equitable... Read more »
Veil Piercing Claims Should Have Been Dismissed
On June 12, 2018, the First Department issued a decision in Shawmut Woodworking & Supply, Inc. v. ASICS America Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op. 04291, holding that veil piercing claims should have been dismissed, explaining: There is no basis in the complaint and supporting materials for applying the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil, which... Read more »
- 1
- 2