Veil Piercing and ERISA Litigation

Dave Hoffman

Dave Hoffman is the Murray Shusterman Professor of Transactional and Business Law at Temple Law School. He specializes in law and psychology, contracts, and quantitative analysis of civil procedure. He currently teaches contracts, civil procedure, corporations, and law and economics.

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Jessica Erickson says:

    I don’t know, but as someone who is similarly enmeshed in docket research, I wonder if you could simply ask one of the law firms involved. It is obviously possible that they won’t talk to you, but if you ask several, I bet that you could get at least a brief explanation from one or two. It wouldn’t give you perfect insight, but it would be better than any hunch.

  2. James Shaw says:

    Typically, union funds (which are in fact jointly managed employer-union funds) have a fiduciary duty to collect all the monies owed to the fund. Hence the litigation. Filing in federal court is typically a time-saver, given that these cases would just be removed if brought in state court. I think the “hammer” theory is wrong, primarily because these suits are not in fact brought by the union, but by the labor-management trust (with equal numbers of labor and management appointed trustees), with the goal being to get the money owed the fund. These cases don’t settle before filing typically because the defendant does not pay absent a court order, particularly if they are going out of biz.