Contact us with your California corporate & securities law questions (949) 353-6347 or Contact us here

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:

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 the 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!"

Share on:


We offer expert advice with the intricacies of California law.

Our years of experience and expertise allow us to help clients navigate the business laws in California.


Get the latest news and analysis about California Corporate & Securities law. Subscribe to our newsletter today!

We respect your email privacy


30172DBAB0084D3A8F39D7AF0A8E79BC.ashx Keith Paul Bishop
Partner at Allen Matkins
(949) 353-6328
 Contact me
Learn More About Keith


Get the latest news and analysis about California Corporate & Securities law. Subscribe to our newsletter today!

We respect your email privacy


see all