NetJets Aviation,Inc. v. LHC Communications, LLC
537 F.3d 168 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Delaware law, a court may pierce the veil of a limited liability company (LLC) to hold its owner personally liable if a plaintiff shows both that the LLC and its owner operated as a single economic entity and that there was an overall element of injustice or unfairness in the owner's use of the entity. A claim for breach of contract is not duplicative of an account stated claim if the contract allows for the recovery of attorneys' fees, which are not available under the account stated claim.
Facts:
- Laurence S. Zimmerman formed LHC Communications, LLC ('LHC') as a Delaware limited liability company, serving as its sole member-owner.
- On August 1, 1999, LHC entered into a Lease Agreement and a Management Agreement with NetJets for fractional aircraft interests and related services.
- Both agreements contained clauses stipulating that if LHC failed to pay amounts due, it would be liable for collection costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees.
- Zimmerman was the sole decision-maker for LHC, frequently transferring funds between LHC, his personal accounts, and his other companies without formal agreements or procedures.
- Zimmerman caused LHC to pay for his personal expenses, including over $4.5 million for margin calls on his personal brokerage accounts, mortgage payments, expenses for his Park Avenue apartment, and the purchase of a Bentley automobile titled in his own name.
- A significant portion of the flight hours contracted by LHC were used for personal travel and vacations by Zimmerman and his family.
- In July 2000, LHC terminated its agreements with NetJets, acknowledging in a letter an outstanding balance of $340,840.39 after the application of its deposit.
- LHC failed to pay the outstanding balance and, in 2001, ceased all operations, possessing no assets with which to pay its debt to NetJets.
Procedural Posture:
- NetJets filed a diversity action against LHC and Zimmerman in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting claims for breach of contract and account stated.
- Following discovery, NetJets moved for summary judgment against both defendants on those claims.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment for NetJets against LHC on the account stated claim for $340,840.39.
- The district court, sua sponte, dismissed NetJets's breach of contract claim against LHC as duplicative of the account stated claim.
- The district court denied NetJets's motion for summary judgment against Zimmerman and, sua sponte, granted summary judgment in favor of Zimmerman, dismissing all claims against him on the grounds that NetJets had failed to show sufficient evidence of injustice or unfairness to pierce the corporate veil.
- NetJets appealed the district court's dismissal of its breach of contract claim against LHC and all claims against Zimmerman to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second 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 sufficient evidence exist to potentially hold an LLC's sole owner personally liable for the company's debts under an alter ego theory, by showing he completely dominated the company and used its funds for personal benefit, leaving it unable to pay its creditors?
Opinions:
Majority - Kearse, J.
Yes. Sufficient evidence exists for a reasonable jury to find that Zimmerman should be held personally liable for LHC's debts under the alter ego theory. Under Delaware law, piercing the corporate veil requires a two-pronged showing: (1) that the owner and the entity operated as a single economic unit, and (2) that an overall element of injustice or unfairness existed. The court found ample evidence for the first prong, noting that Zimmerman completely dominated LHC, commingled funds, failed to observe any formalities, and treated LHC's bank account 'as one of his pockets.' For the second prong, the court held the district court erred by stating that the same facts could not be used for both prongs. The requisite 'injustice' is not merely the breach of contract itself, but rather the owner's inequitable conduct—such as siphoning corporate assets for personal use (like buying a Bentley while owing creditors) and rendering the company insolvent—that constitutes the unfairness the doctrine is meant to prevent. The court also held that the breach of contract claim against LHC was not duplicative of the account stated claim because the contracts provided for attorneys' fees, a remedy unavailable under the account stated theory.
Analysis:
This decision provides a crucial clarification of Delaware's influential alter ego doctrine, emphasizing that the same evidence of an owner's domination and commingling of assets (Prong 1) can also serve as proof of the 'injustice or unfairness' required for veil piercing (Prong 2). The court's reasoning establishes that the injustice is not the simple failure to pay a debt, but the inequitable conduct that leaves the company unable to pay. This case serves as a significant precedent for creditors seeking to hold owners of closely-held entities personally liable, particularly where owners have drained corporate assets for personal benefit, leaving the company as an empty shell. It reinforces the principle that the limited liability shield is not absolute and can be disregarded to prevent abuse.
Unlock the full brief for NetJets Aviation,Inc. v. LHC Communications, LLC