alter ego doctrine in Iowa

2015See HOK Sport, Inc. v. FC Des Moines, L.C., 495 F.3d 927, 935 (8th Cir. 2007) (applying Iowa law and stating that “[d]isregarding the entity’s corporate form under either the alter ego doctrine or the remedy of piercing the corporate veil is an extraordinary measure that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances, . . . and the party seeking to do so bears the burden of proof”); see also Wallace ex rel.

2015See HOK Sport, Inc., 495 F.3d at 935 (“Disregarding the entity’s corporate form under 17 either the alter ego doctrine or the remedy of piercing the corporate veil is an extraordinary measure that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances, . . . and the party seeking to do so bears the burden of proof.”); Morgan v. O’Neil, 652 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Ky. 1983) (“Holding a shareholder in a corporation individually liable for a corporate debt is an extraordinary procedure and should be done only when the strict requirements for imposing individual liability are met.”); White v. Winchester Land Dev

2022“Courts usually use the alter ego doctrine to hold the shareholders of a corporation responsible for corporate liabilities” or “to reach 6 corporate assets to satisfy the personal liabilities of the corporate owners.” Gilleard v. Nelson, No. 03-1496, 2005 WL 2756042 , at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2005); see also Cemen Tech, Inc. v. Three D Indus., L.L.C., 753 N.W.2d 1, 6 (Iowa 2008) (addressing argument that corporate veil should be pierced to hold individual defendants liable); Benson v. Richardson, 537 N.W.2d 748, 761 (Iowa 1995) (“Though typically employed to reach the assets of corporate

2022“Courts usually use the alter ego doctrine to hold the shareholders of a corporation responsible for corporate liabilities” or “to reach 6 corporate assets to satisfy the personal liabilities of the corporate owners.” Gilleard v. Nelson, No. 03-1496, 2005 WL 2756042 , at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2005); see also Cemen Tech, Inc. v. Three D Indus., L.L.C., 753 N.W.2d 1, 6 (Iowa 2008) (addressing argument that corporate veil should be pierced to hold individual defendants liable); Benson v. Richardson, 537 N.W.2d 748, 761 (Iowa 1995) (“Though typically employed to reach the assets of corporate

2015Corp., 584 S.W.2d 56, 62 (Ky. Ct. App. 1979) (“Generally speaking, the corporate veil should only be pierced reluctantly and cautiously. . . .”); see also Wallace ex rel.

2015See HOK Sport, Inc., 495 F.3d at 935 (“Disregarding the entity’s corporate form under 17 either the alter ego doctrine or the remedy of piercing the corporate veil is an extraordinary measure that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances, . . . and the party seeking to do so bears the burden of proof.”); Morgan v. O’Neil, 652 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Ky. 1983) (“Holding a shareholder in a corporation individually liable for a corporate debt is an extraordinary procedure and should be done only when the strict requirements for imposing individual liability are met.”); White v. Winchester Land Dev

2015Cencom Cable Income Partners II, Inc., L.P. v. Wood, 752 A.2d 1175, 1183 (Del.

1995Central Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. v. Wagener, 183 N.W.2d 678, 682 (Iowa 1971); Central Fibre, 246 Iowa at 389 , 66 N.W.2d at 33 ; Minich, 99 Idaho at 917 , 591 P.2d at 1084 .

1971Defendant’s rely on Olympic Capital Corporation v. Newman, 276 F.Supp. 646, 655 (D.C., 1967) where the court said: “ * * * The court has been able to find no situation in which the doctrine of alter ego has been applied to a fact situation such as it presented to the court in this case.