Cited by

The district court instead relies on a veil-piercing theory to “assert[] personal jurisdiction over the moving Defendants.” 8 The veil-piercing factors are similar 8 The district court cites Victoria Elevator Co. of Minneapolis v. Meriden Grain Co.

(describing corporate-veil-piercing factors).

In response, SPB maintains that the district court’s decision to add Rupp as judgment debtor is supported by the evidence, and the need to avoid a fundamental injustice.

14, 2010); (describing liability under an alter-ego theory).

(describing alter ego as a theory of liability).

In determining whether a corporation is the shareholder’s alter ego, “courts are concerned with reality and not form, with how the corporation operated and the i ndividual defendant’s relationship to that 30 operation.” Victoria Elevator Co. v. Meriden Grain Co.

porate undertaking, failure to observe corporate formalities, nonpayment of dividends, insolvency of debtor corporation at time of transaction in question, siphoning of funds by dominant shareholder, nonfunctioning of other officers and directors, absence of corporate records, and existence of corporation as merely facade for individual dealings.”

Victoria Elevator Co. v. Meriden Grain Co.

“Doing business in a corporate form in order to limit individual liability is not wrong; it is, in fact, one purpose for incorporating.”

“In certain circumstances, it is possible to ‘pierce the corporate veil’ and hold a shareholder personally liable.” (Gilbert, J., dissenting) ().

1, 2 (2014); (“Doing business in a corporate form in order to limit individual liability is not wrong; it is, in fact, one purpose for incorporating.”).

hin the ten-year period); see also Snyder Electric Co., d at 866 (plaintiffs obtained their original judgments in 1977 and 1978 and the supreme court was discussing their suit against the defendant shareholder in 1981, so the action against the defendant shareholder necessarily occurred well before the end of the ten-year life of the judgment); (plaintiff obtained a default judgment against a corporation in 1974 and, since the supreme court’s piercing decision occurred in 1979, sought a judgment

Whether IDCA is the Alter Ego of Michael Hogenson and Debra Hogenson In Victoria, the supreme court “approved the ‘alter ego’ or ‘instrumentality’ theory for imposing liability on an individual shareholder.”

(finding shareholder liable for alter ego corporation’s debts).

2 (2006) (stating that veil piercing also applies to limited liability companies)

(stating that avoidance of personal liability is a valid reason for incorporation).

When a corporation is used to accomplish fraud, courts may disregard the corporate entity and permit plaintiffs to “pierce the corporate veil.”

For purposes of disregarding the corporate structure to hold one corporation liable for another’s wrongdoing, this court has adopted a two-part test for piercing the corporate veil

(discussing factors to consider in disregarding corporate entity).

A two-prong test to determine when a

The seminal Minnesota case, involved a sole shareholder who set up and then disregarded a corporate entity, so that he was held personally liable for the corporation’s debt.

(describing the factors a court must find before the court can pierce the corporate veü and hold shareholders individuaUy Hable).