On Command Video Corp. v. Roti

Dist. Ct. erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment seeking to impose on defendant-owner of shell corporation $641,959.54 judgment for debt incurred by said corporation on contract with plaintiff. While plaintiff argued that defendant improperly substituted shell corporation for another corporation (also owned by defendant) that had more substantial assets, had actually made initial payments on said contract, and had received benefits of said contract, plaintiff could not seek recovery against defendant on piercing corporate veil theory since defendant did not shield his personal assets from plaintiff by substituting shell corporation for more fully funded corporation, and since defendant was not otherwise holding personal assets that plaintiff expected to be available for payment for shell corporation’s debt. As such, plaintiff could only have sought recovery on piercing corporate veil theory against more fully funded corporation.