BarbriSFCourseDetails
  1. keyboard_arrow_leftBack

Course Details

Course Information
  • smart_display Format

    Live Online with Live Q&A

  • signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level

    Intermediate

  • work Practice Area

    Corporate Law

Date & Time
  • event Date

    Thursday, August 7, 2025

  • schedule Time

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

  • timer Program Length

    90 minutes

Credit Information

  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.

Early Bird Pricing!
MSRP
$297.00
$247.00
Save $50.00

Discount expires 7/7/25

This course is $0 with these passes:

CLE
ALL

This CLE webinar will provide corporate counsel with guidance on piercing the corporate veil under the single business enterprise theory. The panel will address the increased potential liability for related businesses and the expanded circumstances under which the court may disregard the corporate form. The panel will discuss the implications of cases since Mortimer v. McCool in 2021.

Faculty

Edward T. Kang
Managing Member
Kang Haggerty, LLC

Mr. Kang is the Managing Member of Kang Haggerty, and a member of the firm’s Philadelphia office. He devotes his practice to business litigation and Relator’s side qui tam litigation through Kang Haggerty’s whistleblower division. Rated AV Preeminent on Martindale-Hubbell, Edward is recognized as providing exceptional legal counsel and support to his clients. Edward regularly tries cases, including jury trials. He recently received a $6 million verdict in a civil RICO jury trial. As part of his business litigation practice, Edward carries expertise in a variety of areas, including contract disputes, business torts (such as fraud, tortious interference, and unfair competition), civil RICO, and breach of fiduciary duty. Edward focuses on shareholder and partnership break-ups, and he has represented both majority and minority interest holders in such disputes.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio
Oscar A. Gomez
Partner; Chair of the Litigation Practice Group
EPGD Attorneys at Law, PA

Mr. Gomez’s practice focuses on business litigation, including but not limited to business and partnership disputes. Among other matters he has successfully defended business owners against intentional tort claims; obtained six-figure judgment at trial against competitor businesses for violation of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices and associated violations of Florida’s Trademark statute, and successfully defended business in Fair Labor Standards Act overtime litigation. He is a frequent presenter on business litigation topics.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio

Description

Litigants in business disputes often look beyond the corporation to related entities as potential sources of liability and recovery. Related entities include subsidiaries, affiliates, shareholders, partners, owners, or directors.

A simultaneously ubiquitous and arcane doctrine, piercing the corporate veil is subject to extensive commentary and critique. After the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Mortimer v. McCool, states and federal courts have continued to grapple with veil-piercing standards, policy justification, and new lines of cases.

Dewberry Group v. Dewberry Engineers reaffirms federal standards, while In re Signia Ltd. added clarity to veil-piercing claim ownership during bankruptcy proceedings. Updated statutes and case law in West Virginia, California, Delaware, New York, and Texas provide additional insight for risk management strategy.

Counsel should be familiar with the updated federal and state case and statutory law and be prepared to advise clients on maintaining operations and adopting practices that provide a liability shield and risk reduction strategy.

Listen as our expert panel discusses the single business enterprise theory and the best corporate governance practices to avoid claims to "pierce the corporate veil." The panel will address updates post-Mortimer and how Pennsylvania, California, and other states are applying and adjusting the alter ego doctrine and single business enterprise theory.

Outline

I. Definitions

A. Single business enterprise liability

B. Piercing corporate veil

C. Alter ego liability

D. Horizontal and vertical piercing

II. Mortimer v. McCool

III. Recent cases and statutory changes.

A. Dewberry, In re Signia Ltd., and Ledford

IV. State interpretation of enterprise liability

A. Pennsylvania

B. California

C. Other states

V. Operational best practices and risk reduction strategies

Benefits

The panel will address these and other key topics:

  • What is the single business enterprise theory of corporate liability?
  • What is the history and outcome of the Mortimer v. McCool case?
  • How does enterprise theory liability vary from alter ego liability?
  • How has recent case law and statutory reform affected the landscape post-Mortimer?
  • In what ways do states like California and Pennsylvania differ in their analysis of enterprise liability?
  • How can counsel advise on best practices for risk reduction?