The Content of Veil Piercing Complaints

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...

5 Responses

  1. Lawrence Cunningham says:


    Great work. I was looking for exactly this when updating my Corporations casebook, which now relies on the old Bob Thompson study from Cornell L Rev.



  2. Dave Hoffman says:

    You could do worse! Bob’s paper is in the canon for a reason. Our inspiration, obviously, was from his work: we take his basic approach back a step in litigation and try to apply some more complex statistics. But the relevant factors of analysis are very similar.

  3. Greg Weston says:

    Besides the classic attack on limited liability corporate forms, plaintiffs sometimes have statutory shortcuts.

    For example, in my practice I utilize the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act’s creation of liability for “indirect” real estate developers who hide behind special purpose entities created to develop particular properties.

    Miami attorney Jared Beck has a discussion of this:

  4. Piercings says:

    I believe veil piercings is not a success and most of the people have disliked it.

  5. Dave Hoffman says:

    I would delete “piercings’s” spam comment, which originally linked to some commercial site. But I’m so happy to get comments on this work, and so impressed by how close the bot got to something a lawyer would say, that I decided to simply disable the link. Spam bots, I love you guys!