Narrative Opinion Summary
The court has reviewed an order certifying a conflict and concluded that such a conflict exists. The parties are required to submit briefs regarding a specific issue outlined in the court of appeals’ Journal Entry dated November 13, 2007. The key legal question pertains to whether the second prong of the Belvedere test allows for piercing the corporate veil when control of a corporation is exercised to commit unjust or inequitable acts, even if they do not constitute fraud or illegal actions. Judge Pfeifer dissents from this determination. The conflicts referenced are Collum v. Perlman and Widlar v. Young, which relate to this legal inquiry.
Legal Issues Addressed
Certification of Conflictsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that a conflict exists and requires the submission of briefs to address the legal issue at hand.
Reasoning: The court has reviewed an order certifying a conflict and concluded that such a conflict exists.
Judicial Dissentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Judge Pfeifer expressed disagreement with the court's determination regarding the conflict and the application of the Belvedere test.
Reasoning: Judge Pfeifer dissents from this determination.
Piercing the Corporate Veil under the Belvedere Testsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case examines whether the second prong of the Belvedere test permits piercing the corporate veil for unjust or inequitable acts, even if they are not fraudulent or illegal.
Reasoning: The key legal question pertains to whether the second prong of the Belvedere test allows for piercing the corporate veil when control of a corporation is exercised to commit unjust or inequitable acts, even if they do not constitute fraud or illegal actions.