For your 2ND POST, please do the following:

In your text, the author explains:

Piercing the Corporate Veil

Shareholders of a corporation generally have limited liability (i.e., they are liable for the debts and obligations of the corporation only to the extent of their capital contribution), and they are not personally liable for the debts and obligations of the corporation. However, if a shareholder or shareholders dominate a corporation and misuse it for improper purposes, a court of equity can disregard the corporate entity and hold the shareholders of the corporation personally liable for the corporation's debts and obligations. This doctrine is commonly referred to as piercing the corporate veil. It is often resorted to by unpaid creditors who are trying to collect from shareholders a debt owed by the corporation. The piercing the corporate veil doctrine is also called the alter ego doctrine because the corporation becomes the alter ego of the shareholder.

Courts will pierce the corporate veil if: (1) the corporation has been formed without sufficient capital (i.e., thin capitalization) or (2) separateness has not been maintained between the corporation and its shareholders (e.g., commingling of personal and corporate assets, failure to hold required shareholders' meetings, failure to maintain corporate records and books). The courts examine this doctrine on a case-by-case basis.

Find a case in which one litigant was successful in an action by using the doctrine of Piercing the Corporate Veil.

Tell us about the case, and then list each specific reason the court gave for finding that under the circumstances that it was proper to pierce the veil.

Before searching for a case, I suggest reading an article about piercing the veil. This article, by Charles B. Jimerson and Brittany N. Snell, of Jimerson & Cobb P.A., is excellent. Of course you can also search for others.

The Five Most Common Ways to Pierce the Corporate Veil and Impose Personal Liability for Corporate Debts(Links to an external site.)

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4ff8ebf0-4bca-426e-8273-758140f6d0eb

You don't have to use the IRAC format, however, if you find it helpful, go for it.

Just be sure to provide me with the LEGAL citation for the case.

Thanks!