Birbara v. Locke

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that a corporation sufficiently initially capitalized should not be disregarded simply because it “subsequently fell on hard times” or became insolvent “after a change in the tax laws”
• holding plaintiffs did not establish facts justifying corporate parent’s liability for damages owed for breach of contract by subsidiary and explaining that “under Massachusetts law, the corporate veil will only be pierced in rare situations”
• denying intercorporate piercing where there was no evidence that plaintiffs were misled or confused about the intercor-porate relationship.
• revers-ing jury verdict and finding evidence insufficient to pierce corporate veil of a new parent corporation that purchased and tried to salvage insolvent business
• defining insolvency as “unable to pay its debts as they fell due”
• “TFG was insolvent, unable to pay its debts as they fell due”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).