Laborer's Pension Fund v. Lay-Com, Inc.
47 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2115, 580 F.3d 602, 186 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3454 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may pierce the corporate veil and hold a controlling entity liable for a corporation's debts when there is such a unity of interest that the two entities are no longer separate, and honoring the corporate fiction would promote injustice. Intentionally creating a corporation with no equity capital and exercising complete financial control over it to avoid the debts of a predecessor company satisfies this standard.
Facts:
- King & Larsen Construction, Inc., a unionized company run by Mike King, became delinquent on its required payments to the Laborers’ Pension Funds.
- Lord & Essex, Inc. and Lay-Com, Inc., companies controlled by the Popp family, began loaning money to the financially struggling King & Larsen.
- The Popps and Mike King formed a new company, M.A. King Construction, Inc., to take over King & Larsen's business.
- M.A. King was incorporated with the Popps and King as directors but was never capitalized; a promised $25,000 stock purchase and capital contribution never occurred.
- Lay-Com loaned M.A. King money and, through various agreements, gained the authority to approve any expenditure by M.A. King over $2,500.
- In a series of transactions, King & Larsen's assets were transferred through Lord & Essex to Lay-Com, which then leased or assigned them to M.A. King.
- This asset transfer intentionally left King & Larsen's significant liabilities, including its obligations to the pension funds, in the now asset-free corporate shell of King & Larsen.
- M.A. King began operating using King & Larsen's former business, employees, and equipment, but it was unable to pay its own debts and never made required payments to Lay-Com under their agreements.
Procedural Posture:
- The Laborers’ Pension Funds obtained a default judgment against M.A. King Construction, King & Larsen Construction, and Mike King.
- Finding the original defendants were judgment-proof, the funds filed an amended complaint in U.S. District Court against new defendants: Lay-Com, Inc., Lord & Essex, Inc., the Lay Trust, and John Popp Jr.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court found Lay-Com, Lord & Essex, and the Lay Trust liable on a veil-piercing theory.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of John Popp Jr., dismissing him from the suit.
- Lay-Com, Lord & Essex, and the Lay Trust appealed the district court's judgment against them to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh 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:
Under Illinois law, is it appropriate to pierce the corporate veil of a new, intentionally undercapitalized corporation to hold its controlling entities liable when those entities orchestrated a scheme to transfer assets from a predecessor company, leaving that predecessor's creditors unpaid?
Opinions:
Majority - Cudahy, Circuit Judge
Yes, as to Lay-Com and Lord & Essex; No, as to the Lay Trust and John Popp Jr. It is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil when a controlling entity uses a corporation as a mere instrumentality and respecting the separate corporate form would promote injustice. For Lay-Com, there was a clear unity of interest, demonstrated by its absolute financial control over M.A. King through agreements that restricted M.A. King's ability to enter into any material transactions without Lay-Com's consent. The promotion of injustice prong was met because M.A. King was unquestionably undercapitalized, having no equity capital at all. This arrangement was designed to 'keep assets in a liability-free corporation while placing liabilities on an asset-free corporation.' For Lord & Essex, although it did not have direct control, it was an 'integral part of the scheme' to strip King & Larsen of its assets, acting as a conduit and not maintaining an arm's length relationship, which is sufficient for liability. However, the Lay Trust played no role in the asset-stripping transactions, and its undocumented loans alone are not enough to justify piercing the veil. Similarly, John Popp Jr. acted only in his capacity as a corporate officer and did not use the corporation for his personal benefit, so he is not individually liable.
Analysis:
This decision strongly emphasizes that severe undercapitalization is the single most important factor in a veil-piercing analysis. It clarifies that creating a company with zero equity capital is a significant red flag that can satisfy the 'promote injustice' prong of the test. The ruling also expands potential liability to entities that are 'integral' to a fraudulent scheme, even if they do not exercise day-to-day control over the undercapitalized entity. This case serves as a precedent for looking at the economic substance of transactions designed to defraud creditors, reinforcing that courts will disregard corporate formalities to prevent the abuse of limited liability.
Unlock the full brief for Laborer's Pension Fund v. Lay-Com, Inc.