The traits that fueled Skadden’s rise from a New York startup to a global powerhouse — innovative, collaborative, client-centric — continue to define our firm culture. We remain focused on developing extraordinary attorneys who work together as a team to deliver the highest quality advice and best outcomes for clients.
Two recent First Department decisions illuminate the veil-piercing doctrine's application in New York, specifically examining what constitutes sufficient "fraud or wrong" to justify disregarding corporate form for liability purposes. These rulings apply and refine the established two-prong test for veil-piercing, offering critical insights for commercial litigation practitioners navigating corporate liability questions.
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom are most popular:
within Intellectual Property, Consumer Protection and International Law topic(s)
in Asia
Two recent First Department decisions now shed light on a different facet of the veil-piercing doctrine — specifically, what constitutes a sufficient showing of “fraud or wrong” to justify disregarding the corporate form for purposes of liability. Partners Lara Flath and Julie Cohen and associates Katherine Kazmin and Brian Tang discuss how these two decisions apply and refine the well-established two-prong test for veil-piercing. They also consider the implications of these decisions for commercial litigation in New York.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
