Carter-Jones Lumber Company v. Ltv Steel Company, Dixie Distributing Company
51 ERC (BNA) 1897, 237 F.3d 745, 31 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20406 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Ohio law, a court may pierce the corporate veil and hold a shareholder personally liable for a corporation's debts when the shareholder exercised complete control over the specific illegal transaction that created the liability, even if other corporate formalities were generally observed.
Facts:
- Harry C. Denune was the sole shareholder of the Dixie Distributing Company ('Dixie'), which engaged in legitimate business, including selling motorcycle parts, and had 20-25 employees.
- Denune personally controlled all aspects of a series of illegal transactions involving the purchase and disposal of used electrical transformers containing toxic PCBs.
- Denune wrote the check on Dixie's corporate account to pay for the transformers.
- Denune was personally involved in a scheme with others to hide the transformers from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
- Denune personally misled an Ohio EPA inspector regarding the number of PCB-containing transformers he or Dixie owned.
- Denune personally arranged for the illegal transport of some transformers and sold them to a third party.
- No person affiliated with Dixie, other than Denune, was involved in the illegal transformer transactions.
- While controlling the illegal acts, Denune otherwise observed some corporate formalities, such as holding annual board meetings, and did not commingle personal and corporate funds.
Procedural Posture:
- Carter-Jones Lumber Co. sued Dixie Distributing Co. and its sole shareholder, Harry C. Denune, in federal district court for recovery of environmental cleanup costs under CERCLA.
- The district court (the trial court) found Dixie liable for 50% of the costs and found Denune directly liable for 30% of the costs, but ruled Denune was not jointly liable for Dixie's separate corporate liability.
- The parties appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the initial liability findings but reversed the ruling on Denune's joint liability, remanding the case back to the district court to consider piercing the corporate veil in light of the new Supreme Court precedent in 'United States v. Bestfoods'.
- On remand, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing and held that under Ohio law, the corporate veil should be pierced, making Denune jointly liable for the judgment against Dixie.
- Denune and Dixie then appealed the district court's veil-piercing decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a shareholder's complete control over the specific illegal transaction that created corporate liability satisfy the 'control' prong of Ohio's three-part veil-piercing test, even if the shareholder otherwise observed corporate formalities like holding meetings and not commingling funds?
Opinions:
Majority - Aldrich, District Judge.
Yes. A shareholder's complete control over the specific illegal transaction is sufficient to satisfy the control prong of Ohio's veil-piercing test. The court applied Ohio's three-pronged 'Belvedere' test, focusing on the first prong: whether control over the corporation was so complete that it had no separate will. Denune argued that because Dixie observed corporate formalities and was not undercapitalized, this prong could not be met. The court rejected this, reasoning that the veil-piercing doctrine is equitable and should not be 'straightjacketed' by a rigid multi-factor test that would allow a wrongdoer to hide behind a legal fiction. The court found that Denune's absolute control over the specific transactions that constituted the CERCLA violations was sufficient to render the corporation indistinct for the purposes of that act, thereby satisfying the first prong. The court also rejected Denune's argument that this outcome conflicted with 'United States v. Bestfoods,' clarifying that 'Bestfoods' permits derivative liability based on state veil-piercing common law, and the similarity between Ohio's test for derivative liability and CERCLA's test for direct liability is merely coincidental.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that veil-piercing is a flexible, equitable doctrine focused on preventing injustice rather than rigidly applying a checklist of factors. It establishes that in the context of corporate wrongdoing, particularly under statutes with broad remedial purposes like CERCLA, a court can focus its 'control' analysis on the specific transaction that caused the harm. This prevents shareholders from using the observance of unrelated corporate formalities as a shield to escape liability for illegal acts they personally direct through the corporation. The ruling signals that courts will prioritize substance (the shareholder's actual control over the wrongful act) over form (general corporate governance practices).
