CHAPTER 7 Corporations 51
©2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or
service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.
caused an accident that left Hitchcock perma-
nently brain damaged, as well as Elmyer Enter-
prises, Inc., the owner and operator of the bar
that served Gordon, and William Elders, share-
holder of Elmyer Enterprises.
In the first portion of the bifurcated trial in this
matter, damages of $1.5 million were awarded
against Gordon and Elmyer Enterprises. The
second phase of the trial, which is the subject of
the appeal, resulted in a holding that Elders was
the alter ego of Elmyer Enterprises, justifying
piercing the corporate veil, thereby holding El-
ders personally liable for the $1.5 million ver-
dict. Evidence presented at trial indicated that
corporate formalities were not followed for
Elmyer Enterprises and that the corporation was
undercapitalized. Testimony by one expert wit-
ness, a forensic accountant, indicated that Elders
siphoned off between $400,000 and $800,000
from the business over a three-year period. Tes-
timony by another expert witness indicated that
Elmyer Enterprises had income that was unac-
counted for and profit that was not adequately
revealed. He further testified that, in his opinion,
Elders was the alter ego of Elmyer Enterprises.
Issue: Should the corporate veil be pierced be-
cause corporate formalities were disregarded by
the defendant/appellant and because the defend-
ant apparently siphoned money from the corpo-
ration, which was undercapitalized?
Holding: Yes
Reasoning: “If any general rule can be laid
down, it is that a corporation will be looked up-
poration as an association of persons….”
In this case, the court used a two-
pronged test (Sturkie v. Sifly, 313 S.E.2d 316,
318 [Ct. App. 1984]) to justify piercing the cor-
porate veil and finding defendant/appellant El-
ders personally liable for the debt of Elmyer En-
terprises. The first part of the test considers
whether corporate formalities were observed by
the dominant corporate shareholders. In this
case, the court found they were not. The second
prong of the test requires “that there be an ele-
ment of injustice or fundamental unfairness if
the acts of the corporation be not regarded as the
acts of the individuals” (Sturkie). In this case,
the court found that Elders knew of the plain-
tiff’s claim against the corporation and that he
nevertheless acted in a self-serving and unfair
manner by siphoning off substantial sums of
money, commingling and transferring assets to
different entities, transferring stock in the corpo-
ration to other individuals, and then finally dis-
solving the corporation. The court further found
that “the essence of the fairness test is simply
that an individual businessman cannot be al-
lowed to hide from the normal consequences of
carefree entrepreneuring by doing so through a
corporate shell.” The court found that Elders’s
actions satisfied the second prong of the test for
piercing the corporate veil and found Elders to
be the alter ego of Elmyer Enterprises and per-
sonally liable for that corporation’s obligation to
the plaintiff.
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. What are four characteristics of a corpora-
tion that distinguish it from the sole propri-
etorship and the partnership?
1. The corporation is an artificial entity
created by law.
2. The corporation is an entity separate
from its owners or managers.
2. If a corporation defaults on its debts, may
the creditors typically look to the share-
holders for payment?
No
Under what circumstances might the
shareholders become personally liable for
the debts of the corporation?