Holding that defendant attorney owed no duty to third parties who relied on faulty advice the attorney gave his clients "in the absence of any showing that the legal advice was foreseeably transmitted to or relied upon by plaintiffs or that plaintiffs were intended beneficiaries of a transaction to which the advice pertained"
Holding the two general requirements to pierce the corporate veil are " that there be such unity of interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individual no longer exist and that, if the acts are treated as those of the corporation alone, an inequitable result will follow."
Holding "allegation that a person owns all of the corporate stock and makes all of the management decisions is insufficient to cause the court to disregard the corporate entity"
Holding that where the "gravamen of respondents' cause of action is that the appellants committed actual and constructive fraud by conspiring to breach their fiduciary duties . . . Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision 4 states the applicable statute of limitations"
Holding "mere fact of sole ownership and control does not eviscerate the separate corporate identity that is the foundation of corporate law," noting, "[e]ven if the sole shareholder is entitled to all of the corporation's profits, and dominated and controlled the corporation, that fact is insufficient by itself to make the shareholder personally liable"
210 Cal.App.2d 825 (Cal. Ct. App. 1962) Cited 315 times
Holding "it is not sufficient to merely show that a creditor will remain unsatisfied if the corporate veil is not pierced, and thus set up such an unhappy circumstance as proof of an 'inequitable result'"
This division is known and may be cited as the "California Financing Law." Ca. Fin. Code § 22000 Amended by Stats 2017 ch 475 (AB 1284),s 4, eff. 10/4/2017. Division heading amended by Stats 2017 ch 475 (AB 1284),s 3, eff. 10/4/2017.