Should Insider Reverse Veil Piercing Be Applied To Protect Constitutional Rights?
Last Friday's post addressed Vice-Chancellor Slights' novel ruling that outsider reverse veil piercing is an equitable remedy that is available in Delaware. Manichaean Capital v. Excela Technologies, Inc., 2021 Del. Ch. LEXIS 100. What about insider reverse veil piercing? Insider reverse veil piercing occurs when a shareholder seeks to disregard the corporate entity. Professor Stephen Bainbridge recently makes the case that insider reverse veil piercing is "s the only doctrinal way of deciding when a corporation's shareholders may assert their free exercise rights when the state infringes on those rights by regulating their corporation".
Professor Bainbridge post identifies a number of defects in the amicus brief filed by 44 law professors in Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 133 S. Ct. 641 (2012). Readers may recall that I too found fault with the academy's brief but for a different reason: 44 Law Professors Make A Case Against Corporate Social Responsibility.