Wilmington North Carolina Business Law and Litigation Attorney Blog

Piercing the Corporate Veil in NC After the Judgment

Over at my North Carolina Judgment Enforcement blog, there is a post about a recent NC Court of Appeals decision regarding an attempt to pierce the corporate veil to levy on shareholder property after judgment against only the corporation.  The short answer is that it cannot be done.  The full post is here.

The Business Judgment Rule and North Carolina LLCs

In North Carolina, the business judgment rule applies to LLC managers. In Mooring Capital Fund, LLC v Comstock North Carolina, LLC (07 CVS 20852, Wake Co., Business Ct.), 2006 WL 46447078, 2009 NCBC 26, Judge Jolly was ruling on motions to stay, dismiss, and appoint a receiver.

In the course of issuing his ruling, the Judge opined, for what appears to be the first time in North Carolina, that, just as directors of a corporation are, the managers of an LLC are protected by the business judgment rule. “The managers of an LLC may also be entitled to the protections of the 'business judgment rule...'" Taking note of similar language found in the NC Business Corporation Act, § 55-8-30, the judge noted the corresponding portions of the North Carolina Limited Liability Company Act:

"See, e.g., G.S. 57C-3-22(d) (“A manager is not liable for any action taken as a manager, or any failure to take any action, if the manager performs the duty of his office in compliance with this section.”) and G.S. 57C-3-22(b) (“A manager shall discharge his duties as manager in good faith, with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would exercise under similar circumstances, and in the manner the manager reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the limited liability company. . . .”). Such language suggests application of the business judgment rule, a matter of common law in North Carolina, to limited liability companies." (emphasis added).

He then went on to state:

"The rule applies in addition to the North Carolina Business Corporation Act (the “NCBCA”), G.S. 55-1-01 to -17-05, and creates an evidentiary presumption that directors acted reasonably and fairly in discharging their corporate duties. State ex rel. Long v. ILA Corp., 132 N.C. App. 587, 601 (1999). The Long court described the business judgment rule as follows:

[It] creates, first, an initial evidentiary presumption that in making a decision the directors acted with due care (i.e., on an informed basis) and in good faith in the honest belief that their action was in the best interest of the corporation, and second, absent rebuttal of the initial presumption, a powerful substantive presumption that a decision by a loyal and informed board will not be overturned by a court unless it cannot be attributed to any rational business purpose.

Id. at 602 (quoting Russell M. Robinson, II, Robinson on North Carolina Corporation Law § 14.6 at 281 (5th ed. 1995)). "

So while it may have seemed a fairly straightforward matter to put the two together and conclude that the Business Judgment Rule should also apply to LLC managers, we now have at least one written opinion stating as much -- though bear in mind that under the local rules of certain districts, you may not be able to cite to this opinion. Hopefully however, any case in which you would need to cite to this would be taking place in the Business Court.

Tacking Tort Claims on to Contract Claims in North Carolina

Most Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practice Act (UDTPA) claims in North Carolina arise out of a contract for goods or services.  Accordingly, it is quite common to see UDTPA claims coupled with breach of contract claims. 

In most cases, however, the addition of a UDTPA claim is improper, since a written contract governs the transaction.  Contract law should, therefore, be the sole arena for resolution of such claims.  This notion has been emphasized repeatedly by the 4th Circuit, the Business Court, and the Court of Appeals (e.g. - -- Broussard v. Meineke Discount Muffler Shops, 155 F.3d 331(4^th Cir. 1998); Strum v. Exxon Co. 15 F.3d 327, 329 (4th Cir.1994); Media Network Inc. v. Mullen Advertising, Inc., 2007 WL 2570175 (NC Business Ct., Mecklenburg Co.).

  The rationale is that once the parties have reduced their agreement to writing, those terms - and the applicable provisions of contract law - should control.  Parties, when contracting, do so in order to define their obligations and, in turn, limit their liabilities.  Doing so reduces the exposure to tort claims -- and treble damages -- provided by UDTPA and tort law.  At least, it should.

Once a UDTPA claim is allowed to proceed, the threat of treble damages significantly alters the negotiation strategies of both parties.  An innocent defendant is more likely to settle, for a higher sum, if facing the threat of treble damages.  A marginal plaintiff, in turn, is more likely to push the case beyond a reasonable point, hoping to pressure the defendant into a higher settlement due to the threat of a large damage award that North Carolina law may not allow, but which the defendant may not be in a position to appeal.  Despite the often harsh language with which the appeals courts treat the practice of "tacking" UDTPA claims on to ordinary contract claims, in many cases the UDTPA claim survives summary judgment, forcing the defendant into a pre-trial settlement posture disproportionate to the true nature of the plaintiff's claim.

NC Business Court Fee Raised to $1,000.00

As part of a statewide increase in court fees, as of September 1, 2009, the fee for removal of a case to the North Carolina Business Court is now $1,000.00.  This is a sharp increase over the previous $200.00 that had been in effect prior to September 1. 

Port City Java Sues Founder

Wilmington-based coffee-house chain Port City Java has filed suit against its founder and former COO Don Reynolds.  The suit, filed in New Hanover County Superior Court, alleges that Reynolds, his wife, and an LLC held by Reynolds, diverted funds from the company for personal use, including the purchase of real estate in Highland, NC. 

According to the Star-News, the suit was filed on December 23, and in keeping with the Rules of Civil Procedure, does not specify the dollar amount sought, but instead recites the claim for damages as "in excess of $10,000."

NC Gas Stations Settle Price Gouging Cases

The Star-News is reporting that several North Carolina gas station owners have agreed to settle price gouging cases.  The cases were brought by state Attorney General Roy Cooper after Governor Mike Easley invoked a state law prohibiting the charging of prices that are "unreasonably excessive."

The statute - N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-38 - prohibits such prices on goods that are "consumed or used as a direct result of an emergency or which are consumed or used to preserve, protect, or sustain life, health, safety, or economic well-being of persons or their property."

In order for the law to apply, however, the Governor must first make a finding that there has been an "abnormal market disruption."  This is defined in subsection (d) of the statute to include any declaration of a state of emergency or disaster is issued by the President, or the Department of Homeland Security advisory system issues a Code Red alert.  Triggering events can include war, a terrorist attack, a natural disaster, power outage, or other "extraordinary adverse circumstances."

In the case of the recent September price spikes, the trigger was hurricane Gustav - and the fear that gripped the oil markets - as it moved into the Gulf.

NC Business Court Hailed as a Model For the Nation

In North Carolina, the ability to assign cases involving complex questions of business law can be designated to be heard by the Business Court, rather than the general courts.  The Business Court uses specialized judges, with extensive knowledge of business law, like the Uniform Commercial Code, the LLC Act, and the North Carolina Business Corporations Act.

Over at the North Carolina Business Litigation Report, Mack Sperling points us to an article in Directorship Magazine's annual Guide to State Ligitation.  In that article, North Carolina's Business Court is hailed as a model for the rest of the nation.

It's no surprise.  Our out-of-state clients are often thrilled when I tell them their complex business cases can be heard by a specialized court, with specialized judges.  That is usually not an option available to them in their home states, so in many cases, litigants will opt to forego "home field advantage" and instead allow their cases to proceed here. 

Foreign Corporations and the Certificate of Authority in North Carolina

If you are a foreign / out-of-state corporation and need to file suit in North Carolina, you will first need to file a Certificate of Authority with the Secretary of State, and as of the date of this post, that will cost you $250.00.   

This is a prerequisite; if you do not have a Certificate of Authority on file in North Carolina prior to filing suit, your case will be thrown out of court.  You can click the following link to get a Certificate of Authority form.  You will have to scroll down to Form B-09.  Instructions are included on page three of that form. 

Piercing the "Corporate" Veil of LLCs in North Carolina - Part 4

In the previous post, I promised a discussion of motions for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, in cases where LLC members are named as individual defendants in contract, fraud and Chapter 75 cases.

In North Carolina, the rule is straightforward:  an individual LLC member cannot be sued, except "by reason of his own acts or conduct."  See N.C.G.S. s 57C-3-30(a).  This section does not, however, establish an alter ego or veil piercing creteria.  It is intended to allow plaintiffs to recover for torts committed by LLC members, not, as some might have it, to establish member liability in actions against the LLC.

Clarifying this purpose, subsection (b) provides:  "A member of a limited liability company is not a proper party to proceedings by or against a limited liability company, except where the object of the proceeding is to enforce a member's right against or liability to the limited liability company."

This subsection should clarify any doubt a litigant might have about what subsection (a) allows. 

In Page v. Roscoe LLC, 128 N.C. App. 678, 497 S.E.2d 422 (1998) the plaintiff learned this lesson the hard way.  Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the defendant LLC from constructing a gas storage facility they deemed a nuisance.  LLC member Dale Bone was also named as a defendant.  No actions by Bone were alleged that were not also alleged to have been undertaken by the LLC.   Accordingly, the court held that naming Bone was a violation of Rule 11, on the theory that the complaint, in naming him, was not well grounded in law.

In so holding, the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court, that "no acts by Bone, individually, were properly alleged. Therefore, under the above statute [N.C.G.S. s57C-3-30(b)], it was improper to name an individual member of a limited liability company as a party defendant without any evidence to support it.  As such, the naming of Bone as an individual defendant was not well-grounded in law and therefore a violation of Rule 11." 

The decision provides little guidance to a plaintiff hoping to pierce the corporate veil of an LLC.  There is no explanation about what would need to be alleged to state a complaint If anything, it provides broad grounds to support Rule 11 motions whenever an individual LLC member is named in the same complaint as the LLC.

Piercing the LLC Veil in North Carolina - Part 3

As I touched on in previous posts, in North Carolina, the factors to consider in determining whether to pierce the corporate veil include: (1) inadequate capitalization; (2) non-compliance with corporate formalities; (3) complete domination and control of the corporation so that it has no independent identity; and (4) excessive fragmentation of a single enterprise into separate corporations. See Ridgway, 329 S.E.2d at 330-31 (citing generally, Robinson, North Carolina Corporation Law §§ 2-12, 9-7 to -10 (3d ed. 1983)).

Yesterday in Part 2 of this series, I looked at the second factor - non-compliance with formalities.  Today I will look at the first factor above, inadequate capitalization.

One common misconception surrounding this factor is the timing of its applicability.  Litigants frequently assume that when a bill is unpaid, that this fact, standing alone, establishes inadequate capitalization, regardless of how old the business entity may be.

But in fact, inadequate capitalization only applies to the initial capitalization of the corporation; a new corporation must have sufficient capital with which to pay for operating costs that it can reasonably expect to incur.  Over time, however, creditors have the opportunity to examine the creditworthiness of the corporation, and in extending credit, have the option of requiring a guarantor.  For these reasons, courts are not especially prone to give great weight to this factor in most contract cases, particularly when those contracts were formed well after the corporation has been in business for some length of time. 

Moreover, by itself, this factor is extremely unlikely to support a veil-piercing claim.  An additional showing of an intent to use the corporate entity to defraud creditors would almost certainly be required.

In the LLC context, it is quite tempting to seek to apply the same rationale. Although there do not appear to be any published North Carolina cases specifically addressing this issue under the LLC Act, there is no reason why the policy of protecting creditors from fraud would be any less important - or treated differently - in situations involving LLC creditors. 

For attorneys defending LLCs in contract, fraud and/or Chapter 75 cases in North Carolina, it is important to be aware that plaintiffs will attempt to allege these factors in order to reach the assets of the individual members of the LLC, and that courts could well be persuaded to overlook the LLC's protection in cases where undercapitalization is alleged.  This is why a motion to dismiss should be filed, and the court made aware that there is no precedent for applying these factors to pierce an LLC.  Even if the motion is unsuccessful, the rationale behind it can be re-employed when your opponent is seeking to draft a jury instruction at trial.  The judge might not have granted your motion, but may be unwilling to instruct a jury on a doctrine whose applicabilty to an LLC has not been clearly established. 

Absent specific facts alleging fraud by a member, a motion to dismiss as to the LLC members should be filed, along with a motion for sanctions under Rule 11. 

In the next installment in this series, I will go into further detail about Rule 11 and how it applies to contract, fraud and Chapter 75 suits involving individual LLC members.