Analyze the Northeast Iowa Ethanol, Llc v. Drizin case, dealing with ethical misconduct and the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil.

Reflect on the following: the court held that the corporate veil of the company could be pierced to reach one of its shareholders.

Explain what is meant by the terms "piercing the corporate veil" and the alter ego doctrine, keeping in mind the liability limits in business for an individual and for a corporation. Next, discuss ethics and corporate responsibility (accountability) and explain the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002 and why it was enacted. How important is it to have outside independent accounting firms reviewing financial transactions? Finally, the fact that monies were stolen was proven in this case. The issue is not whether monies were stolen; rather, the bigger issue of ethics and lack of oversight. Did the owners of this company have any responsibility for the losses that were suffered? Remember, they may have had the legal right to authorize the defendant to transfer the monies, but did they have an ethical responsibility to their shareholders? Explain.