Every Business Owner’s Worst Fear: Piercing the Corporate Veil

By Sara A. Bradley, Attorney
February 2018

One reason business owners or managers form corporations or limited liability companies (LLCs) is to ensure they are not personally liable for business debts if the company cannot pay its creditors. There are times, however, when courts will hold the corporation or LLC’s owners, officers, shareholders, or members personally liable for the business’s debts. This is commonly referred to as “piercing the corporate veil” or establishing “alter-ego” liability.[1]

Requirements for Piercing the Corporate Veil

Courts evaluate the circumstances of each case rather than using a specific test to determine when to pierce the corporate veil.[2] They look to see whether the case meets two general requirements:

  • Unity of Interests; i.e., there is such unity of interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individual no longer exist, and;
  • Inequitable Result; i.e., if the acts are treated as those of the corporation alone, an inequitable result follows.[3]

Factors Courts Consider in Piercing the Corporate Veil

California courts use a non-exclusive, multi-factor test when deciding whether to pierce the corporate veil. These factors include:

a) using the corporate form to commit fraud, circumvent a statute, or accomplish another wrongful or inequitable purpose;[4]
b) adding or withdrawing capital from the corporation at will;[5]
c) comingling funds and other assets;
d) failing to segregate funds of the individual and the corporation;
e) the unauthorized diversion of corporate funds to other than corporate purposes;
f) the individual’s treatment of corporate assets as his own;
g) failing to seek authority to issue stock or issue stock under existing authorization;
h) the representation by an individual that he is personally liable for corporate debts;
i) failing to maintain adequate corporate minutes or records;
j) intermingling individual and corporate records;
k) the ownership of all the stock by a single individual or family;
l) the domination or control of the corporation by the stockholders;
m) using a single address for the individual and the corporation;
n) inadequate corporate capitalization;
o) using the corporation as a conduit for an individual’s business;
p) concealing the ownership of the corporation;
q) disregarding corporate formalities and failing to maintain arm’s-length transactions with the corporation; and
r) attempting to segregate liabilities to the corporation.[6]

Examples of Courts Applying the Alter-Ego Doctrine

            OLILANG v. Herrera[7]

In this 2017 unpublished decision, the court pierced the corporate veil and held defendants liable for several companies’ debts to plaintiffs. Evidence in support of the unity of interests requirement included that Defendant Michael Herrera owned most of the properties managed by one company. “[E]very transaction” a second company entered into involved Herrera. Herrera used a third company to hold properties he owned before transferring them for nominal consideration to shell entities “for the sole purpose of protecting them from plaintiffs[.]”[8] Additionally, substantial evidence supporting fraud meant an inequitable result would arise if the court did not apply the alter ego doctrine.

KH CORPORATION (HK) LIMITED v. Kim[9]

In another 2017 unpublished decision, the court found that Defendant Mr. Kim was not the alter ego of corporation Five Stones. Kim did not comingle funds, he and Five Stones maintained separate accounts, and Five Stones observed formalities such as taking meeting minutes. The plaintiff did not offer evidence of comingled funds or assets, inadequate capitalization, or other support for the court to conclude it would be inequitable to treat Kim separately from Five Stones.

Evidence, however, that Kim was the sole owner of Five Stones, he invested $400,000 to launch Five Stones without a promissory note from Five Stones, and inconsistencies in Kim’s testimony regarding issued stock was “relevant but insufficient” for the court to find Kim was the alter ego of Five Stones.

 Your Next Move

Check to see if any of the factors discussed above apply to you or your corporation or business. As the list is not exhaustive, discuss your current business practices and any concerns with a local attorney to make sure you and your personal assets are protected.


About the Author

Sara A. Bradley graduated magna cum laude from the University of San Diego School of Law in 2013 and the University of Notre Dame with a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics in 2002. She most recently practiced law at Morrison & Foerster LLP in San Diego, California. She is also a California-credentialed high school mathematics teacher and taught for several years at the Academy of Our Lady of Peace in San Diego. In her spare time, Sara, her husband, and daughter enjoy being outdoors, and hiking and exploring Southern California.


DISCLAIMER. The content contained herein does not constitute the provision of legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading or viewing or responding to this website. Submitting or posting to this website does not create an attorney-client relationship, nor does receiving a response from any submission. Any statements or posts in this website are generalized opinion, not advice on any individual specific circumstances. If you are in need of legal advice, please contact a local attorney.


[1] Alter-ego liability is an equitable practice based on the idea that the court is not adding a new defendant but is instead adding the name of the real defendant. NEC Electronics Inc. v. Hurt, 208 Cal. App. 3d 772, 778 (1989).

[2] Mesler v. Bragg Mgmt. Co., 39 Cal. 3d 290, 300 (1985).

[3] Associated Vendors, Inc. v. Oakland Meat Co., 210 Cal. App. 2d 825, 837 (1962) (citing Automotriz etc. De California v. Resnick, 47 Cal. 2d 792, 796 (1957)) (quotations omitted, emphasis added). To apply the alter-ego doctrine, both requirements must be met. Id.

[4] Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 824, 836 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000). See also Broward Marine, Inc. v. S/V Zeus, No. 05-23105CIVOSULLIVAN, 2010 WL 427496 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 1, 2010) (court pierced the corporate veil finding the corporation’s dominant shareholder personally liable for the corporation’s torts after the corporation transferred all its assets to hinder, delay, or defraud the plaintiff).

[5] Minton v. Cavaney, 56 Cal. 2d 576, 579 (1961).

[6] Associated Vendors, 210 Cal. App. 2d at 838-40 (see Morrison Knudsen Corp. v. Hancock, 81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 425, 442 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999), for a variation of the factors enumerated above).

[7] OLILANG v. Herrera, No. B254220 (Cal. Ct. App. May 23, 2017).

[8] Defendants argued the court should not apply the alter ego doctrine because that they followed corporate formalities. The court disagreed saying that is only “one possible and nondeterminative factor courts consider in determining whether to apply the alter ego doctrine.” Id.

[9] KH CORPORATION (HK) LIMITED v. Kim, Nos. B271495, B271501 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2017).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*