Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag Archives: Piercing the Veil

Tort/Negligence – Breach of Fiduciary Duty – Corporate – Piercing the Veil – Unfair Trade Practices

Green v. Freeman Where corporate documents listed defendant Corrina Freeman as majority shareholder, “Chairperson,” “CEO,” and “Owner/Chairperson,” a juror could reasonably infer that Ms. Freeman was an officer or director in the defendant-companies and a majority shareholder and therefore owed a fiduciary duty to plaintiffs as minority shareholders.

Read More »

Civil Practice – Subject Matter Jurisdiction – First Impression — Judgments – Execution – Supplemental Proceedings – Corporate – Piercing the Veil

Travelers Indemnity Co. of Connecticut v. Triple S Marketing Group North Carolina’s supplemental proceedings statutes do not afford a trial court jurisdiction over a motion to pierce the corporate veil of a judgment debtor. We reverse the trial court’s order allowing plaintiff to execute its judgment against individuals who were not party to the underlying lawsuit.

Read More »

First-impression: Builder faces personal liability for negligence

"The corporate veil was not pierced here," Wilmington attorney Ryal Tayloe told Lawyers Weekly. But the president and sole shareholder of Wrightsville Beach-based Collins Building, Inc., will still face plaintiffs in his individual capacity, after the Court of Appeals reversed a New Hanover County Superior Court judge's dismissal of claims against Collins. The Jan. 4 apparent first-impression decision is White v. Collins Bldg., Inc.

Read More »

Corporate – Piercing the Veil – Shareholder & Officer – Operator’s Wife – Employee

American Decorative Fabrics, LLC v. Jordan Alexander, Inc.. Plaintiff alleged and proved that defendant Jackie Teague's husband dominated and controlled the corporate defendant. Although Mrs. Teague owned half of the stock in the corporation and was nominally one of its officers, her responsibilities were only those of an employee: selecting and coordinating fabrics for the corporation to purchase, which she did from home. We affirm the trial court's refusal to pierce the corporate veil as to Mrs. Teague.

Read More »