搜索
JohnWalkovszky,Respondent,v.WilliamCarlton,Appellant,etal.,Defendants•Limitedliability(theliabilityofitsshareholdersislimitedtotheirinvestments)istherule,nottheexception;andonthatassumptionlargeundertakingsarerested,vastenterprisesarelaunched,andhugesumsofcapitalattracted.•Asurrenderofthatprincipleoflimitedliabilitywouldbemade'whenthesacrificeisessentialtotheendthatsomeacceptedpublicpolicymaybedefendedorupheld.•Thedoctrineofpiercethecorporateveil“isanexceptiontotheprivilege,whenevernecessarytopreventfraudortoachieveequity.•Theterminology'alterego'and'disregardofthecorporateentityisgenerallyusedtorefertothevarioussituationsthatareanabuseofthecorporateprivilege.•Theequitableownersofacorporation,forexample,arepersonallyliablewhentheytreattheassetsofthecorporationastheirownandaddorwithdrawcapitalfromthecorporationatwill,whentheyholdthemselvesoutasbeingpersonallyliableforthedebtsofthecorporation;orwhentheyprovideinadequatecapitalizationandactivelyparticipateintheconductofcorporateaffairs.•在承认公司具有独立法人人格的前提下，为了阻止公司独立人格的滥用和保护公司债权人利益及社会公众利益，就具体法律关系中的特定事实，否认公司的独立人格及股东的有限责任，责令公司的股东对公司债权人或社会公众直接负责。•“揭开公司面纱”是一种司法程序，通过此种司法程序，法院将否认公司成员或管理人员通常所享有的对公司行为不承担责任的豁免权。FromBlack’sLawDictionary,6thedition,p1147.1.代理说(theAgencyDoctrine)•代理说是美国法院追究股东或关联公司责任时运用的一种理论依据。美国法院的一些判例认为，如果（母公司）股东对（子）公司实施了过度的控制（ExcessiveControl），会使（子）公司成为其普通法意义上的代理人，从而（母公司）股东应当作为本人对（子）公司的行为承担责任。2.工具说(theInstrumentalityDoctrine)•根据这一原则，主张“揭开公司面纱”的原告必须举证证明某股东对公司有过度控制的行为，以至于从某种意义上讲，公司已成为该股东操纵的工具，从而导致了对第三人的不公平或不公正的后果。工具说包括三个要素：(1)过度控制(ExcessiveControl)；(2)不良动机(ImproperMotive)；(3)行为与损害或损失之间存在直接的因果关系(ProximateCausation)。因此，这一原则也被称为三要素测试(TripartiteTest)或Collet公式(ColletFormulation)。3.另一自我说(theAlterEgoDoctrine)•根据另一自我说，在股东与公司之间或者关联公司之间存在所有权和利益的统一性以致都丧失各自的独立性而且子公司已经沦为股东或者母公司的“另一自我”时，如果仍然将公司或子公司视为独立的实体，将鼓励欺诈或不正当行为或者导致不公平的结果，此时可以“揭开公司面纱”。通常当出现下面的几种情形时，美国法院倾向于将子公司视为母公司的“另一个自我”，从而追索母公司的无限责任：(1)两个公司的经营业务交织在一起，且设立子公司的法律程序未得到履行。(2)子公司与母公司同时经营着同一事业，而子公司未能由母公司注入充足的资本。(3)子公司正以一种不公平的方式被母公司控制着，譬如所有利益都流向母公司时。4.同一体说(theIdentityDoctrine)•同一体原则是指，当几个公司的利益和所有权如此统一，以至于各公司的独立性实际上已经终止或者从未真正存在过，而且如果承认各公司的独立身份，只会损害正义和公平，使得企业实体（关联企业集团）逃避了在为获取整体经济利益而从事经营的过程中所发生的债务。•同一体原则适用最多的场合是具有“兄弟姐妹”关系的关联公司集团。Facts•TheplaintiffwasseverelyinjuredfouryearsagoinNewYorkCitywhenhewasrundownbyataxicabownedbythedefendantSeonCabCorporationandnegligentlyoperatedatthetimebythedefendantMarchese.•Carltonisastockholderof10corporations,includingSeon,eachofwhichhastwocabs.•EverycabinSeonhasonlytakentheminimumautomobileliabilityinsurancerequiredbylaw(intheamountof$10,000).•Althoughseeminglyindependentofoneanother,thesecorporationsareallegedtobeoperatedasasingleentity,unitandenterprisewithregardtofinancing,supplies,repairs,employeesandgaraging,andallarenamedasdefendants.Mr.CarltonSeonWolkovskyProceduralHistory•PlaintifffiledalawsuitintheSupremenCourt.•Defendantmovedtodismissthecomplaint.(motion—plaintifffailstostateacauseofaction)•ThecourtatSpecialTermgrantedthemotion•TheAppellateDivisionreversed•DefendantappealedtothecourtofappealsofNewYorkIssue•Isthedoctrineof“piercethecorporateveil”appliedinthiscase?Holding•Thedoctrineof“piercethecorporateveil”isnotappliedinthiscase.Reasoning—rule•Thecompanylawpermitsshareholderstoescapepersonalliability.•Buttheprivilegeisnotwithoutitslimits.•Thedoctrineofpiercethecorporateveil“isanexceptiontotheprivilege,whenevernecessarytopreventfraudortoachieveequity.Reasoning—rule•generalrulesofagencyfromJudgeCardozo.•Anyoneusescontrolofthecorporationtofurtherhisownratherthanthecorporation'sbusiness,hewillbeliableforthecorporation'sacts(respondeatsuperior)Reasoning—precedent•Mangancase•theplaintiffwasinjuredasaresultofthenegligentoperationofacabownedandoperatedbyoneoffourcorporationsaffiliatedwiththedefendantTerminal.Reasoning—precedent•boththedefendantandtheoperatingcompanieswereownedbythesameparties.•Terminalwasconspicuouslydisplayedonthesidesofallofthetaxisusedintheenterprise.•Terminalactuallyserviced,inspected,repairedanddispatchedallofthetaxis.•Insum,theoperatingcompanieswereinstrumentalitiesandwerepiercedthecorporateveiltoholdthedefendantliable.Reasoning—precedent•Acorporationisafragmentofalargercorporatecombinewhichactuallyconductsthebusiness—onlyalargercorporateentitywouldbeheldfinanciallyresponsible•Thecorporationisadummyforitsindividualstockholderswhoareinrealitycarryingonthebusinessintheirpersonalcapacitiesforpurelypersonalratherthancorporateends—thestockholderwouldbepersonallyliableReasoning—application•WedonotbelievethattherecanbegatheredfromitsavermentstheallegationsrequiredtospelloutavalidcauseofactionagainstthedefendantCarltonReasoning—applicationBurdenofproof•Theindividualdefendantischargedwithhavingorganized,managed,dominatedandcontrolledafragmentedcorporateentitybuttherearenoallegationsthathewasconductingbusinessinhisindividualcapacity.•Thefactthatthefleetownershiphasbeendeliberatelysplitupamongmanycorporationsdoesnoteasetheplaintiff'sburdeninthatrespect.Reasoning—application•Thecorporateformmaynotbedisregardedmerelybecausetheassetsofthecorporation,togetherwiththemandatoryinsuranc