Hey Kevin,

I'd like your opinion on this...

Suppose a company closes down and the principals reopen under a new name, doing the same work, for the same clients, with the same employees, etc.  Do you suppose that would be sufficient for showing that the entity was formed for fraudulent purposes (solely to avoid creditors), to allow the veil to be pierced?  It is really an academic discussion, since the odds are the expense of the litigation in such a suit would well exceed the amount owed in most cases, or the ability of the principals to pay.  But, I thought it was an interesting question.

Best,
Robert A. Franco
SOURCE OF TITLE