What Doth The Alter Ego Doctrine Require Of Thee, But To “Do Justice”?

Yesterday’s post briefly discussed the internal affairs doctrine and alter ego claims. Professor Stephen Bainbridge responded with this post which discusses the approaches of courts in New York and Delaware. Professor Bainbridge recently wrote an article on reverse veil piercing and the free exercise rights of incorporated employees. He describes reverse veil piercing as “a corporate law doctrine pursuant to which a court disregards the corporation’s separate legal personality, allowing the shareholder to claim benefits otherwise available only to individuals”. You can download his paper here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2229414

Terminology in this area can be a bit confusing. In a typical alter ego case, the corporate entity is disregarded so that the assets of its shareholder can be reached by the corporation’s creditors. In these cases, the corporation and its shareholder are treated as alter ego (other I) of each other – essentially the same person. Often, courts refer to this as “piercing the corporate veil”.

Some cases operate in reverse, imposing liability on the corporation for a shareholder’s obligations. For example, in LFC Marketing Group, Inc. v. Loomis, 8 P.3d 841 (Nev. 2000), the Nevada Supreme Court stated that “The ‘essence’ of the alter ego doctrine is to ‘do justice’ whenever it appears that the protections provided by the corporate form are being abused”. Id. at 845-46. The Court then recognized a reverse alter ego claim when the particular facts and equities:

  • Show the existence of an alter ego relationship; and
  • require that the corporate fiction be ignored so that justice may be promoted.

Id. What is particularly surprising about this case is that the Court found a unity of interest and ownership existed even though the defendant did not own stock in the corporation. The Court did caution that in considering a reverse alter ego claim, a court must consider whether the rights of innocent shareholders or creditors.

For more on the alter ego doctrine as applied in Nevada, see Bishop & Zucker on Nevada Corporations and Limited Liability Companies.

Fight Fiercely Harvard!

Congratulations to the Harvard Crimson on its decisive victory over New Mexico in the NCAA tournament yesterday evening! ”How we shall celebrate our victory? We shall invite the whole team up for tea! How jolly!”


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP on:

Popular Topics
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.