News & Analysis as of

Parent Corporation Piercing the Corporate Veil Subsidiaries

Morris James LLP

Delaware Court of Chancery Refuses After Trial to Impose Liability on Parent of Wholly Owned Subsidiary

Morris James LLP on

NuVasive, Inc. v. Miles, C.A. No. 2017-0720-SG (Del. Ch. Jan. 31, 2025) - In an earlier decision, the Court denied defendant Alphatec Holdings, Inc.’s (“Holdings”) motion to dismiss, finding that issues of fact remained...more

Proskauer - Minding Your Business

Two Sides of a Different Coin: Separating Businesses and Subsidiaries for Liability Protection

A parent corporation is typically not held liable for the acts of a subsidiary. As such, disregarding the corporate form (i.e., by piercing the corporate veil) and holding the parent liable is an extraordinary remedy. That...more

Williams Mullen

Delaware Joins Virginia in Allowing Reverse Veil-Piercing Under Certain Circumstances

Williams Mullen on

Recently, the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Court”), expanded the potential liability of a parent company’s subsidiaries by allowing reverse veil-piercing in Manichaean Cap., LLC. v. Exela Techs., Inc., C.A. No....more

Hogan Lovells

Manichaean Capital v. Exela Tech: DE courts rule on “reverse veil piercing” claims - Q2 2021 Quarterly Corporate / M&A Decisions...

Hogan Lovells on

In Manichaean Capital, LLC v. Exela Tech., Inc. (C.A. No. 2020-0601-JRS (Del. Ch. May 25, 2021)), the Court of Chancery ruled as a matter of first impression in Delaware that plaintiffs could pursue “reverse veil piercing”...more

4 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide