An Empirical Research on Piercing the Corporate Veil and Enforcement of Foreign Judgment
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
TABLE OF CONTENTSINTRODUCTION 104I. BACKGROUND 108A. Piercing the Corporate Veil 108B. Enforcement of Foreign Judgment in the United States 109C. The Four Possible Scenarios 1111. Scenario 1 1112. Scenario 2 1113. Scenario 3 1124. Scenario 4 112D. Conflict Issues with Enforcement Piercing 1131. Choice-of-Law 113a. First Approach-FI Piercing Law 114b. Second Approach-Same Approach as First-Instance Piercing 114c. Third Approach - Lex Fori 1152. Personal Jurisdiction 1163. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 1194. Notice 1205. Res Judicata 1216. State Procedural Rule 122II. METHODOLOGY 123A. Survey Period 123B. Types of Cases 124C. Covered Jurisdiction 124D. Related Research.........125E. Limitation 125III. FINDINGS OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH.........125A. Choice of Law 131B. Enforcement Limitations 1341. Personal Jurisdiction 1362. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 1363. Notice 1364. Res Judicata 1375. State Procedural Rule 1376. International Cases 1387. Tort v. Contract 139CONCLUSION 141INTRODUCTIONPiercing the corporate veil, a judicial process whereby the separate legal personality of a company is disregarded, has long attracted academic discussion due to its dramatic impacts on the liability of shareholders.1 Most of the time, a shareholder is sued for piercing the corporate veil in the same trial in which the defendant company is sued for the underlying cause of action (for example, the company's breach of contract).2 The piercing claim will be successful only if the plaintiff succeeds on both the underlying claim against the company and the piercing claim against the shareholder.1 Nonetheless, plaintiffs do not necessarily seek to pierce the corporate veil in the same trial as the underlying substantive cause of action.4 The plaintiff may eliminate the legal personality of the defendant company in the first trial and then pierce the corporate veil in a subsequent proceeding to enforce a judgment against the shareholder of the company.' Thus, discussions on piercing the corporate veil should consider both the substantive underlying liability in the original trial (first-instance piercing), and subsequent enforcement proceedings.'1 Enforcement of a judgment by piercing the corporate veil (Enforcement Piercing) is rarely examined in detail by academics.7 Through an empirical study of Enforcement Piercing cases, this Article explores the various conflict-of-laws aspects that impact Enforcement Piercing cases as compared to standard first-instance piercing cases.Enforcement Piercing is not uncommon. It is often employed in cases where the plaintiff finds out only during or after the original trial that there exists a close relationship between the defendant company and the shareholder, or in cases where the defendant company's assets have been removed by the shareholder after the defendant company lost the case.4 However, Enforcement Piercing is a worthwhile topic to discuss not only because of its frequency,1 but also because of the potential advantages it could bring to the plaintiff in his or her piercing-the-corporate-veil claim. An illustration will be helpful.In Bank of Montreal v. SK Foods, LLC, the plaintiff bank first obtained a judgment against the defendant company for its liability as a guarantor of a default loan in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».