Insight

A Corporate Veil Remains Unpierced

How an Unwinnable Case was Won

A Corporate Veil Remains Unpierced
PM

Peter McGlynn

September 11, 2019 02:30 PM

“Based upon the documentation you have provided, the plaintiff appears to have a reasonable case to pierce the corporate veil between your entities, and, therefore, reach directly to you.”

This was the assessment made by prior counsel in a privileged communication sent to our clients —several corporations and their sole shareholder—who were defendants in a corporate veil-piercing case brought by a multibillion-dollar global company. Unfortunately, the trial court had ordered this and all other communications exchanged by prior counsel and our clients to be produced to the plaintiff along with $75,000 in legal fees as a discovery sanction.

The above quote, and similar damaging language contained in communications between our clients and their prior counsel, was extensively cited by the plaintiff in virtually every pleading it filed in the case and with devastating effect. The trial court twice allowed wide-ranging injunction orders freezing our clients’ assets concluding, in both instances, that the plaintiff was likely to succeed at trial.

This virtually ensured that our effort to settle the case during a pretrial mediation session would fail. It did.

Compounding the difficulties we already had in defending this case was the trial court’s denial of our request to depose the plaintiff’s expert witness and to offer expert witness testimony on behalf of the defendants.

What’s more, the plaintiff filed this factually intense and legally complex case in another state. The defendants opted not to defend the case, were defaulted, and judgment was entered against two of the corporate defendants for substantial monetary damages. The plaintiff then filed a new case in Massachusetts to domesticate the foreign judgment and asserted claims based on that foreign judgment against the other related corporate defendants and their principal shareholder on corporate veil piercing and alter ego liability theories.

In effect, the plaintiff was attempting to bootstrap the foreign judgment in order to hold our clients liable for the foreign judgment because the two corporate defendants initially sued by the plaintiff in the other state had gone out of business.

On the surface, the plaintiff appeared to have a strong case: There was evidence that the defendant corporations were commonly owned by one individual or by an entity he controlled; the defendant corporations were thinly capitalized and hadn’t paid any dividends; there were numerous intercorporate loans that were not supported by promissory notes or board of directors approval; there was evidence that funds belonging to some of the defendant corporations were utilized by the other defendant corporations; and one of the defendant corporations provided accounting, bookkeeping, and other administrative services to all of the other defendant corporations.

"Corporate veil piercing is one of the more highly litigated commercial claims in the United States and remains among the most complex and least understood legal concepts in American jurisprudence."

The plaintiff also enlisted the cooperation of one of the defendant corporation’s ex-CEOs who provided the plaintiff with affidavits purportedly demonstrating that corporate assets were being siphoned off by the defendant corporations’ sole shareholder. The plaintiff served notice that this ex-CEO would also provide damaging trial testimony against the defendant corporations’ sole shareholder.

We were confident, however, that the defendants’ expected evidence on many of these issues would counter the plaintiff’s claims and that, overall, the defendants had not done anything improper or illegal. We also felt we had a better chance of explaining about the complex intercorporate transactions and the thousands of pages of financial records to a trial judge rather than a jury. Neither the plaintiff’s counsel nor the defendants’ prior counsel had requested a jury trial.

Even though a substantial amount of discovery in the case had already been conducted before we took over, with the remaining depositions we were able to neutralize the more damaging facts contained in the ex-CEO’s affidavits and demonstrated through other deposition testimony that many of the factual allegations contained in the plaintiff’s complaint were erroneous. We were also successful in opposing the plaintiff’s efforts to amend its complaint to add additional claims, including those based upon unfair and deceptive acts and practices under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, which, if proven, would have exposed our clients to multiple damages and attorney’s fees.

Shortly before the trial began, we were also successful in excluding the plaintiff’s use of the privileged communications exchanged between the defendants and their prior counsel and we were able to utilize nonexpert testimony to counter the plaintiff’s expert witness testimony since we had been precluded from introducing our own expert witnesses.

Following a nine-day bench trial, in a detailed opinion, the trial judge declined to pierce the veils of the corporate defendants and their sole shareholder. The trial court’s decision was affirmed on appeal in a 25-page decision by the appeals court.

Although, as noted above, the defendants were successful in defeating the plaintiff’s veil-piercing claims, that success came at a heavy price. The attorney’s fees and the innominate costs for the defendants and their employees, burdened by defending the case while trying to operate their businesses during the four-plus years the case remained active, were enormous.

Corporate veil piercing is one of the more highly litigated commercial claims in the United States and remains among the most complex and least understood legal concepts in American jurisprudence. Corporations, both large and small, who believe their officers, directors, and shareholders are insulated from liability simply because they are incorporated, could find themselves, like the defendants in our case, enmeshed in expensive, “bet the company” litigation. Simply relying on the corporate form without gaining a complete understanding of corporate veil piercing and alter ego principles and taking steps to minimize exposure to veil-piercing claims could lead to costly, time-consuming, and highly risky litigation.



Contributing Author: Robert Stetson


Peter B. McGlynn, a partner at Bernkopf Goodman LLP is a trial attorney specializing in construction, surety, malpractice, commercial and bankruptcy cases. Peter has tried to verdict or decision in excess of 150 cases throughout the United States representing general contractors, subcontractors, architects, engineers, lenders, sureties and owners, among others, on a wide array of commercial, construction, surety and bankruptcy disputes.


Robert W. Stetson, a partner with Bernkopf Goodman LLP, has significant experience in disputes involving corporations and other business organizations, construction projects, contracts, real estate, landlord-tenant, and shareholder disputes. Bob represents a variety of clients ranging from individuals to multi-national corporations in all phases of litigation including trial and appellate practice.

Related Articles

Effective Communication: A Conversation with Jefferson Fisher


by Jamilla Tabbara

The power of effective communication beyond the law.

 Image of Jefferson Fisher and Phillip Greer engaged in a conversation about effective communication

Changing for the Better


by Justin Smulison

Joseph Brophy’s Austin-based boutique firm comprises some of the most talented and experienced civil litigators in Texas.

Betting on Finance, Civil Litigation Success

The 5 W’s of Bankruptcy Communications


by Eden Gillott

You might be an expert on bankruptcy, but communicating its practical realities to clients can get complicated.

The Who, What, and Why of Bankruptcy

Who Gets the Nod When Deciding Between Expert Witnesses?


by Safra Ducreay

It’s not just a matter of experience—often you need to look deeper than what's on the resume.

How to Choose Between Expert Witnesses

Millennials


by Joanna Barsh, Lauren Brown, and Kayvan Kian

Burden, blessing, or both?

Millennials

Trending Articles

Introducing the 2026 Best Lawyers Awards in Australia, Japan, New Zealand and Singapore


by Jennifer Verta

This year’s awards reflect the strength of the Best Lawyers network and its role in elevating legal talent worldwide.

2026 Best Lawyers Awards in Australia, Japan, New Zealand and Singapore

Revealing the 2026 Best Lawyers Awards in Germany, France, Switzerland and Austria


by Jamilla Tabbara

These honors underscore the reach of the Best Lawyers network and its focus on top legal talent.

map of Germany, France, Switzerland and Austria

Effective Communication: A Conversation with Jefferson Fisher


by Jamilla Tabbara

The power of effective communication beyond the law.

 Image of Jefferson Fisher and Phillip Greer engaged in a conversation about effective communication

The 2025 Legal Outlook Survey Results Are In


by Jennifer Verta

Discover what Best Lawyers honorees see ahead for the legal industry.

Person standing at a crossroads with multiple intersecting paths and a signpost.

The Best Lawyers Network: Global Recognition with Long-term Value


by Jamilla Tabbara

Learn how Best Lawyers' peer-review process helps recognized lawyers attract more clients and referral opportunities.

Lawyers networking

Jefferson Fisher: The Secrets to Influential Legal Marketing


by Jennifer Verta

How lawyers can apply Jefferson Fisher’s communication and marketing strategies to build trust, attract clients and grow their practice.

Portrait of Jefferson Fisher a legal marketing expert

Is Your Law Firm’s Website Driving Clients Away?


by Jamilla Tabbara

Identify key website issues that may be affecting client engagement and retention.

Phone displaying 'This site cannot be reached' message

A Guide to Workers' Compensation Law for 2025 and Beyond


by Bryan Driscoll

A woman with a laptop screen reflected in her glasses

Best Lawyers Launches CMO Advisory Board


by Jamilla Tabbara

Strategic counsel from legal marketing’s most experienced voices.

Group photo of Best Lawyers CMO Advisory Board members

Common Law Firm Landing Page Problems to Address


by Jamilla Tabbara

Identify key issues on law firm landing pages to improve client engagement and conversion.

Laptop showing law firm landing page analytics

Changes in California Employment Law for 2025


by Laurie Villanueva

What employers need to know to ensure compliance in the coming year and beyond

A pair of hands holding a checklist featuring a generic profile picture and the state of California

New Employment Law Recognizes Extraordinary Stress Is Everyday Reality for NY Lawyers


by Bryan Driscoll

A stressed woman has her head resting on her hands above a laptop

Turn Visitors into Clients with Law Firm Website SEO That Converts


by Jamilla Tabbara

Learn how to create high-converting law firm landing pages that drive client engagement and lead generation.

Laptop screen displaying website tools to improve client conversion rates

Best Lawyers Introduces Smithy AI


by Jamilla Tabbara

Transforming legal content creation for attorneys and firms.

Start using Smithy AI, a content tool by Best Lawyers

SEO for Law Firms: Overcoming Common Challenges


by Jamilla Tabbara

Tackle common SEO challenges and take the next step with our guide, How to Make Your Law Firm Easier to Find Online.

Graphic image of a phone displaying SEO rankings, with positions 1, 2 and 3 on the screen

Medical Malpractice Reform Trends in Texas, Utah, Georgia and SC


by Bryan Driscoll

A fresh wave of medical malpractice reform is reshaping the law.

Medical Malpractice Reform Trends hed