Comments on: The Content of Veil Piercing Complaints

By: Dave Hoffman

Dave Hoffman — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:06:09 +0000

I would delete “piercings’s” spam comment, which originally linked to some commercial site. But I’m so happy to get comments on this work, and so impressed by how close the bot got to something a lawyer would say, that I decided to simply disable the link. Spam bots, I love you guys!

By: Piercings

Piercings — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:53:30 +0000

I believe veil piercings is not a success and most of the people have disliked it.

By: Greg Weston

Greg Weston — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 23:25:21 +0000

Besides the classic attack on limited liability corporate forms, plaintiffs sometimes have statutory shortcuts.

For example, in my practice I utilize the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act’s creation of liability for “indirect” real estate developers who hide behind special purpose entities created to develop particular properties.

Miami attorney Jared Beck has a discussion of this:

http://beckandlee.wordpress.com/2008/06/02/reaching-for-the-deep-pocket-in-real-estate-litigation-does-the-interstate-land-sales-full-disclosure-act-ilsa-have-a-long-arm/

By: Dave Hoffman

Dave Hoffman — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 01:56:20 +0000

You could do worse! Bob’s paper is in the canon for a reason. Our inspiration, obviously, was from his work: we take his basic approach back a step in litigation and try to apply some more complex statistics. But the relevant factors of analysis are very similar.

By: Lawrence Cunningham

Lawrence Cunningham — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 01:14:29 +0000

Dave,

Great work. I was looking for exactly this when updating my Corporations casebook, which now relies on the old Bob Thompson study from Cornell L Rev.

Thanks!

Larry