GRUENDL V. OEWEL Citizenship Inc: Case Study

679 Words3 Pages
Alter ego is defined as, “Legal doctrine whereby the court finds a corporation lacks a separate identity from an individual or corporate shareholder, resulting in injustice to the corporation’s debtors. Finding alter ego gives the court cause to pierce the corporate veil and hold individual shareholders personally liable for debts of the corporation” (Alter Ego. LII / Legal Information Institute, n.d.).
The case of GRUENDL v. OEWEL PARTNERSHIP INC. the overall partnership of the OPL is OPI and not a plaintiff exclusively, a circumstance of which the defendant was mindful. Thomas Paine, Ellman, Burke, Hoffman & Johnson, Timothy F. Perry, San Francisco, for defendants and plaintiffs. Harvey Sohnen, Walnut Creek, Patricia M. Kelly, Page & Sohnen,
…show more content…
They also determine the court made a mistake as difficulty of the law by definition; the plaintiff is independently liable for the judgment against OPL, a limited liability partnership preceding an alter-ego viewpoint. Therefore, the judgment should be reversed, and return to the courts for issuance of a statement of verdict and a new judgment should be made. They did not reached the dispute of whether significant evidence supported the court 's discovery that the plaintiff stands as the alter ego of OPI. The plaintiff may possibly be judged to have contributed in the governing of OPL simply because he implemented his responsibilities as president of OPI or because he may have represented as an indemnity for, or loan funds to, OPL. Furthermore, nothing in the records suggests that the plaintiff, in his capability as a limited partnership, should be held accountable for OPL 's partnership…show more content…
The district court decided the respondent’s motion for immediate judgment on all of the plaintiff’s philosophies; the United States Courts of Appeal on behalf of the Second Circuit confirmed the courts judgment. For the courts to conclude whether or not a company is simply an alter ego of the shareholders, that court must ponder numerous effects to comprise the nonexistence of a company bureaucracies, individual use of commingling of company assets, insufficient capitalization, statutorily executed shareholder legal responsibility, continuance of scheme by use of a company to sanction pre corporate agreements (Maffei, 2011). If the courts existed to section the shroud of a company for individual use in addition to commingling the company’s funds, the courts has to decide if the company financial dealings are actuality directed over the company’s financial records and not done over shareholders and private accounts. All companies should require separate financial records and separate income tax
Open Document