An Empirical Research on Piercing the Corporate Veil and Enforcement of Foreign Judgment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".