Corporate Law Reporter

Home » Veil Piercing » Macey & Mitts: The Three Justifications for Piercing the Corporate Veil

Macey & Mitts: The Three Justifications for Piercing the Corporate Veil

Contact

Jonathan R. Macey (Yale Law School) and Joshua Mitts (Sullivan & Cromwell LLP ; Yale Law School – J.D., 2013) have posted “The Three Justifications for Piercing the Corporate Veil“.

The abstract is as follows:     

Few doctrines are more shrouded in mystery and yet more litigated than piercing the corporate veil. We develop a new theoretical taxonomy which postulates that veil-piercing decisions fall into three categories: (1) achieving the purpose of a statutory or regulatory scheme, (2) preventing shareholders from obtaining credit by misrepresentation, and (3) promoting the bankruptcy values of achieving the orderly, efficient resolution of a bankrupt’s estate. We analyze the facts of several veil-piercing cases to show how the outcomes are explained by the three theories we put forth and show that undercapitalization is rarely, if ever, an independent grounds for piercing the corporate veil. In addition, we employ modern quantitative machine learning methods never before utilized in legal scholarship to analyze the full text of 9,380 judicial opinions. We demonstrate that our theories systematically predict veil-piercing outcomes, the widely-invoked rationale of “undercapitalization” of the business poorly explains these cases, and our theories most closely reflect the textual structure of the opinions.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: