When an alleged robbery resulted in threatening behaviour, the defendant argued that absence of evidence to support the initial act reduced the charge to one of theft under Indiana State law.
Having stolen five rolls of camera film from a Muncie supermarket, the defendant was seen taking the items by a single witness, who after the defendant had left the store, indirectly notified the store manager, who then confronted the defendant outside on the pavement.
In response to his challenge, the defendant brandished a knife and threatened the manager, after which the manager stood down and retreated back inside the shop, only for the State police to arrest the defendant when he somewhat naively returned to the scene of the crime.
Convicted of robbery before a Delaware Circuit Court jury, the Court of Appeals of Indiana Second District reversed the judgment on grounds that § 35-42-5-1 of the Indiana Code defines robbery as present when:
“A person who knowingly or intentionally takes property from another person or from the presence of another person:
(1) By using or threatening the use of force on any person; or
(2) By putting any person in fear….”
And that in Eckelberry v. State, the Indiana Supreme Court had previously held that:
“The force necessary to constitute robbery must be employed before the property is stolen. If the stealing be first, and the force afterwards, the offense is not robbery, but stealing from the person.”
After which the case was heard again before the Indiana Supreme Court, who reviewed their position with regard to the defendant leaving the property after the threatening behaviour, further noting that in Paul v. State the court had ruled a store clerk as solely responsible for the contents stolen, and so a conviction of robbery could lawfully stand.
It also noted that in Eckelberry, the court had concluded that when the defendant injured their victim immediately after taking their property, the two events were merely equal parts of the same act, therefore the court reversed the appeal court decision and upheld the robbery charge in full.
As a doctrine under question, the effects of lifting the corporate veil can be far-reaching if supported through case law, and yet it appears that the judiciary are reluctant to apply it unless under extreme circumstances, and even then with some trepidation.
The primary function of ‘lifting’ or ‘piercing’ the veil of corporations is one of transparency. As is no stranger to the world of enterprise, many an entrepreneur has undoubtedly found themselves at odds with where the boundaries are with conversion of assets, or even fiduciary duties in line with corporate ownership. When matters reach a level that requires legal intervention, the venturing of the courts into financial accounts and expenditure records, is something that rests uneasily on the shoulders of judges.
It is not uncommon after all for businessmen and investors to construct fake companies to provide cover for illegal dealings, no more than shareholders to dominate the actions of their corporations under the guise of boardroom decision making. Paradoxically, it is precisely this subterfuge that beckons court intrusion, and yet for reasons that can be appreciated in their overall meaning, it does not bode well for the victims of those immoral undertakings when the rule of law refuses to fully extend.
Starting at the roots of this clearly under utilised principle, it is important to understandthat supply always creates demand, and so examination of how this doctrine has flourished reveals that the limited liability of incorporation almost invites abuse, regardless of the stakes in hand.
Salomon v Salomon, which dates back to 1897, is considered the birthplace of limited liability, as during the liquidation of a failed business, the shareholder and company were held as separate entities, and therefore unencumbered by obligation to one another. This perhaps dangerous distinction, served well the rule of law, but consequently opened the way to defendants establishing unaccountability for the deviances behind insolvency, or the withholding of property release during matrimonial disputes, as was seen in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others, where despite having grounds to ‘pierce’, the judges went instead with beneficial interest accrued through powers conferred under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Since Prest is now considered the leading authority on the protection or exposure of corporate misdeeds, it might pay to look at overseas opinion.
Despite taking a similar vein in most U.S. courts, the small State of Delaware has become reputed as the home for around sixty-five percent of the Fortune 500 companies, and the reasons are clear. Aside from most other county-wide laws shared between States, there appears to be consolidated support for the protection of the corporate veil, under the strongly held belief that without it, the wheels of commerce simply cannot turn. A notable 2014 case Cornell Glasgow LLC. v. Nichols, is now considered the poster boy for the prevention of access to corporate transactions in middle America, however when the facts of the case are examined, there appears no justifiable reason to pierce the corporate veil, despite such clandestine and unprofessional behaviours on the part of the defendants. In fact, when taken in its proper context, the whole matter was tantamount to a classic breach of contract and nothing more.
This over complication of the argument does beg the question of whether claimants are all too quick to attack the character of those accused, in order to alleviate doubts as to a right of claim, where proper evaluation of the facts would likely reveal a swift path to justice that allows reduced costs and minimised court time.
In Canada, the controversial Chevron Corp. v. Yaiguaje has now become the watermark for corporate exposure, coming close to setting a precedent for foreign enquiry into asset liability and covert misdeeds, after the indigenous peoples of Ecuador were subject to extreme pollution through the actions of an overseas corporate subsidiary. While pursuing them through the Canadian courts, and almost becoming a pivotal argument for the extension of ‘piercing’ qualification, it was ultimately overturned in the Superior Court by Justice Hainey, who explained:
“Chevron Canadaʼs shares and assets are not exigible and available for execution and seizure by the plaintiffs in satisfaction of the Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron Corporation.”
This overruling stance (amongst other cases) also fell back on the domestic line taken in Adams v Cape Industries Plc, where it had been decided that:
“Our law, for better or worse, recognises the creation of subsidiary companies, which though in one sense the creatures of their parent companies, will nevertheless under the general law fall to be treated as separate legal entities with all the rights and liabilities which would normally attach to separate legal entities.”
While this principle already poses great resistance to those seeking damages, the primary reason the courts declined to lift the corporate veil in Chevron, was simply that since the inception of the claim, no suggestions of fraudulent behaviour were levelled toward the defendants, so no matter how aggrieved the claimants felt, it was held inequitable to overstep the boundaries set by the incorporation and limited liabilities enjoyed by many firms, in order to achieve remedy for damages arising from contractual breach on the part of the actual offending party Texaco; who soon after acquiescing to the judgment bought against them in Ecuador, were taken over by Chevron California (the parent company). In fact quite why the claimants were pursuing Chevron Canada is frankly unfathomable given the background to the matter, therefore it comes as no great surprise that the ruling to ‘pierce’ was quickly dismissed.
So to summarise, it would suggest that on the strength of the cases discussed, it is not really an issue of judicial reluctance as much as a failure for the right matter to present itself. It would also pay to exercise caution when supporting foreign claims that display absolutely no logical bearing on (i) how this confused claim should ever have been initiated, and (ii) why any jurisdiction would move to lend credence to such a fruitless endeavour; while from an equitable perspective, the principle of traceability immediately springs to mind when seeking restitution from companies no longer in existence, and whose assets have long since been laundered.