Dist. Ct. did not err in affirming Bankruptcy Ct.’s order granting plaintiffs-creditors request to pierce corporate veil and hold defendant-owner of bankrupt corporation personally liable for judgment against said corporation. Record showed that plaintiffs had prevailed against corporation, where, as minority shareholders in said corporation, plaintiffs had filed action under Indiana Dissenters’ Rights Statute after defendant, as majority shareholder in said corporation, merged said corporation into different corporation controlled by defendant and then stripped subject corporation of assets to benefit of defendant so as to preclude plaintiffs from collecting on $7,522,879 judgment that plaintiffs had received under Dissenters’ Rights Statute. Ct. found that plaintiffs had met all requirements for piercing corporate veil of subject corporation and rejected defendant’s argument that: (1) Dissenters’ Rights Statute did not allow plaintiffs to obtain piercing corporate veil relief; (2) piercing corporate veil relief did not apply to plaintiffs as minority shareholders in same corporation at issue in piercing corporate veil action; and (3) certain economic questions involving allegations of fraud precluded disposition of instant case via summary judgment.