Fusilier v. Russell

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that an outside reverse pierce is warranted when a controlling shareholder attempts to “deceive or defraud his personal creditors”
• \[t]he usual result of piercing the corporate veil is that the controlling shareholder or shareholders become liable for the corporate liabilities\
• “A corporation’s veil will be pierced where the corporation’s controlling shareholder formed or used the corporation to defraud creditors by evading liability for preexisting obligations.” (emphasis added)
• shareholder transferred personal funds to corporation to avoid creditors
• applying the doctrine to “a controlling shareholder”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).