From your own link - Except where it is necessa
Post# of 153844
(Total Views: 521)
Posted On: 09/23/2023 5:19:57 AM
From your own link -
Billing for work not done is certainly fraud. Siphoning funds directly to the parent company to avoid seizure based on an arbitration could be considered fraud.
Quote:
Except where it is necessary to prevent fraud or enforce a paramount equity, the corporate veil will not be pierced. Bart Arconti & Sons, Inc. v. Ames-Ennis, Inc., 275 MD 295, 310 (1975). Although this standard appears on its face to present two separate circumstances for when the corporate veil may be pierced, the Court of Special Appeals in Serio v. Baystate Properties, LLC held that absent a finding of fraud, the corporate veil will not be pierced. Specifically noted by the Court in Serio was the lack of precedent in Maryland case law where the corporate veil was pierced to remedy a paramount equity. The Court of Special Appeals additionally noted that in all Maryland cases where alternate grounds for piercing the corporate veil were found, those grounds still included an element of fraud. The Serio ruling reinforced the Maryland court’s aversion to piercing the corporate veil but left many confused as to the application of the Maryland standard. Many viewed the paramount equity language in Maryland’s standard as simply redundant in light of the ruling.
https://btlg.us/piercing-the-corporate-veil-f...-equities/
Billing for work not done is certainly fraud. Siphoning funds directly to the parent company to avoid seizure based on an arbitration could be considered fraud.
Quote:
SERIO v. BAYSTATE PROPERTIES, LLC (Ct. Special App. Md., March 8, 2012)
Under Maryland law, members of LLCs will not be held individually liable for the debts or obligations of the limited liability company absent of fraud or as necessary to enforce paramount equity.
Reviewing the trial court’s decision based upon an abuse of discretion standard, the appellate court reversed. In so doing, it noted that there are generally three grounds for disregarding the “fiction” of the corporate entity:
(3) Where stockholders themselves, or a parent corporation owning the stock of a subsidiary corporation, fail to observe the corporate entity, operating the business, or dealing with the corporation’s property as if it were their own, the courts will also disregard the corporate entity for the protection of third persons.
https://casetext.com/analysis/in-case-of-firs...-of-an-llc
(11)
(0)