Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Pepper Source
1993 WL 169204, 993 F.2d 1309 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To pierce the corporate veil under Illinois law, a plaintiff must show not only a unity of interest between the owner and the corporation, but also that honoring the corporate form would promote an injustice beyond the mere inability to collect a judgment, such as the owner's unjust enrichment or the use of the corporate form to defraud creditors.
Facts:
- Sea-Land Services, Inc. ('Sea-Land'), an ocean carrier, transported sweet peppers for Pepper Source ('PS') during 1986 and 1987.
- PS was one of several corporations owned and controlled by Gerald J. Marchese.
- PS failed to pay Sea-Land for the shipping services.
- Marchese consistently used funds from PS and his other corporations to pay for his personal expenses and the expenses of his other business entities.
- Marchese took frequent 'shareholder loans' from his corporations for personal use, which were never repaid.
- These practices left Marchese's corporations, including PS, with insufficient funds to pay their debts to creditors, including Sea-Land and the IRS.
- In mid-1987, Marchese dissolved PS, which had no assets left to satisfy its creditors.
Procedural Posture:
- Sea-Land obtained a default judgment against PS in federal court for $86,767.70.
- Unable to collect because PS was dissolved and without assets, Sea-Land filed a new action against Gerald Marchese and his other corporations to pierce the corporate veil.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Sea-Land.
- Marchese and his corporations, as appellants, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that while the 'unity of interest' prong was met, Sea-Land had not yet proven the 'promote injustice' prong.
- On remand, the district court held a bench trial focused on the second prong.
- The district court entered judgment for Sea-Land, finding it had proven the requisite injustice.
- Marchese and his corporations, as appellants, appealed again 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:
Does an individual's use of corporate funds for personal expenses, manipulation of finances between his various corporate entities to render them insolvent, and defrauding of multiple creditors constitute a 'wrong' sufficient to satisfy the second prong of the test for piercing the corporate veil, which requires that honoring the corporate form would promote injustice?
Opinions:
Majority - Timbers, Senior Circuit Judge
Yes. An individual's use of corporate funds for personal expenses, manipulation of finances to render corporations insolvent, and defrauding of creditors constitutes a wrong sufficient to satisfy the prong of the veil-piercing test requiring that honoring the corporate form would promote injustice. The court found that Sea-Land presented sufficient evidence of wrongs beyond its mere inability to collect its judgment. Marchese was unjustly enriched by using corporate funds for personal expenses at the expense of creditors like Sea-Land. He used his various corporate entities as 'playthings' to avoid his responsibilities, intentionally manipulating and diverting funds to ensure his corporations were insolvent and could not pay their debts. This pattern of stripping assets from corporations to the prejudice of creditors is a classic injustice that warrants piercing the corporate veil.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'promote injustice' prong of the Illinois veil-piercing test established in Van Dorn. It solidifies the precedent that an unsatisfied judgment alone is insufficient, requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate additional wrongful conduct by the defendant. The court provides concrete examples of what constitutes such injustice, including unjust enrichment and intentional schemes to undercapitalize a corporation to avoid creditors. This case serves as a crucial guide for creditors, showing that successful veil-piercing requires proof of the owner's abuse of the corporate form for personal gain to the detriment of others.
