For those unfamiliar with what today’s young kids are listening to, Aubrey “Drake” Graham is one of the most commercially-successful recording artists of all time, with multiple multiple-platinum records to his credit. For frame of reference, Drake’s recent album “Scorpion,” on its first day of release, was streamed over 300 million times on Apple Music and Spotify alone. In other words, Drake generates enough revenue to rap about his taxes: “Nowadays it’s six-figures when they tax me/ Oh well, guess you lose some and win some, long as the outcome is income.

Aspire Music Group (“Aspire”) was the fortunate record label with the foresight to enter into an Exclusive Recording Artist Agreement with Drake in 2008, when he was still relatively unknown. In 2009, Aspire provided Drake’s services to a joint venture between Cash Money Records (“Cash Money”) and Dwayne Carter’s (aka rapper “Lil Wayne”) company Young Money Entertainment (“Young Money”), in exchange for a third of net profits from Drake’s albums and a third of the copyrights, and for monthly accounting statements.

The sordid history between Cash Money and Lil Wayne is a story for another blog, but suffice it to say that by 2015, Cash Money’s principals were short on both cash and money. Lil Wayne sued Cash Money and its principals for $51 million in January 2015. Universal Music Group (“Universal”) stepped in. Since its inception in 1998, Universal Music Group (“Universal”) had served as Cash Money’s music distributor. However, as alleged by Aspire, in 2015 Universal advanced large sums of money to Cash Money and agreed to take on certain of Cash Money’s liabilities in exchange for unfettered control over a significant portion of Cash Money’s business operations.

Aspire filed a lawsuit in New York County Supreme Court in April 2017 against Cash Money and its principals, Young Money, and Universal. According to Aspire, Cash Money and Young Money had failed to pay Enough Money to Aspire for Drake-related profits, and Universal was liable as Cash Money’s alter ego.

Universal moved to dismiss, arguing that (i) Universal did not own Cash Money, so could not be its alter ego; (ii) Universal was not alleged to be the alter ego of Young Money and therefore not responsible for Young Money’s actions; (iii) Aspire’s rights are governed by a contract to which Universal was not a party; and (iv) Aspire’s allegations of domination and control are conclusory.

In an Order entered on July 3, 2018, Justice Barry R. Ostrager denied Universal’s motion to dismiss. Although recognizing that New York courts do not apply alter-ego liability on non-owners, the court found that Aspire had sufficiently alleged facts suggesting that Universal had obtained “equitable ownership” over Cash Money. Aspire had alleged that, pursuant to contracts, Universal shared offices with Cash Money, operated its website, intermingled its business affairs, and kept Cash Money undercapitalized and entirely dependent on advances and direct payments from Universal. Citing the First Department’s 2000 decision in Trans. International Corp. v. Clear View Technologies, Ltd., the court found that such allegations were sufficient to confer equitable ownership, and thus alter-ego liability, on a non-owner.

It is not clear that the Clear View Technologies decision involved a non-owner, non-director defendant. In its reply brief, Universal cited allegations in the complaint that “each invidividual defendant is and at all relevant times, was an officer, director and shareholder of Clear View.” After acknowledging a long line of New York decisions declining to impose alter ego liability against non-owners, Justice Ostrager concluded that such liability was nonetheless permitted under New York law. However, the court cited only federal cases from the Second Circuit in support.

As for Universal’s other arguments, the court held that Cash Money was liable for Young Money’s acts in furtherance of their joint venture partnership, and therefore Universal need not be alleged to be Young Money’s alter-ego. And Universal’s absence from Aspire’s contract with the joint venture was irrelevant, because Universal did not become Cash Money’s alter ego until 2015. Aspire did not know of Universal’s role at the time it entered the contract with Cash Money.

It remains to be seen whether sufficient evidence exists of Universal’s alleged control over Cash Money. Either way, be forewarned: too much contractual control over a borrower can potentially give rise to liability for that borrower’s obligations.

*** UPDATE ***

By Decision and Order entered February 7, 2019, the Court’s order was reversed by the First Department:

Nevertheless, the court erred in sustaining the claims against Universal on the basis of the alter ego theory. Even assuming Universal was an “equitable owner” of Cash Money (see Freeman v Complex Computing Co., Inc., 119 F3d 1044, 1051 [2d Cir 1997]), the complaint fails to allege that Universal’s domination of Cash Money was used to commit a wrong against plaintiff (see Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 82 NY2d 135, 141 [1993]). The complaint essentially alleges that Universal took advantage of Cash Money’s cash flow problems by helping to satisfy millions of dollars of Cash Money’s debts in exchange for control of Cash Money, and then, through such control, paid itself higher distribution fees, thereby reducing the net profits that plaintiff was entitled to receive under the Aspire/YME Agreement. These allegations describe legitimate business conduct; there is no indication that Universal engaged in this conduct for the purpose of harming plaintiff (see JTS Trading Ltd. v Trinity White City Ventures Ltd., 139 AD3d 630 [1st Dept 2016]; TNS Holdings v MKI Sec. Corp., 92 NY2d 335, 339-340 [1998]).

For commercial practitioners who happen to be fans of the TV series “The Office,” Dwight Schrute’s “Learn Your Rules, You Better Learn Your Rules” jingle perfectly describes the constant theme of practicing before the New York Commercial Division. Since its inception in 1993, the Commercial Division has garnered the reputation of placing a heavy emphasis on rules for purposes of efficiency. As readers of this blog may know, those who fail to comply with the Commercial Division Rules, and/or the individual practice rules of a particular Commercial Division judge, will suffer the consequences. A recent decision issued by Justice Robert R. Reed illustrates this principle.

In Latin Mkts. Brazil, LLC v McArdle, a renowned conference promoter in the investment management industry (“Plaintiff”), commenced an action in 2020 against two former employees (“Defendants”), alleging that Defendants stole and used its trade secrets to form a competing entity in the same industry. The parties appeared before the Court for a Compliance Conference, and the Court issued a Compliance Conference Order that granted Plaintiff “leave to file a notice of motion to compel forensic inspection of the computers involved in the subject litigation.”

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendants to respond to its discovery demands and produce, among other things, (i) certain computers belonging to Plaintiff, which the parties agreed to by stipulation, (ii) electronic discovery from local hard drives of computers used by Defendants in their business operations, and (iii) responses to Plaintiff’s Second Notice for Discovery and Inspection, and First Set of Interrogatories. Plaintiff argued that it obtained permission to make this discovery motion at the prior Compliance Conference.

In opposition, Defendants argued that Plaintiff’s motion to compel should be denied based on Plaintiff’s noncompliance with Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Robert Reed’s Part 43 Rule 6(h), which states that “discovery motions are discouraged,” and Commercial Division Rule 14, which requires that “discovery disputes are preferred to be resolved through court conference as opposed to motion practice.” In fact, prior to filing their opposition papers, Defendants’ counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel, requesting that Plaintiff withdraw its motion on the basis that it was only authorized to file a motion to compel for the “forensic inspection of the computers” at issue. Plaintiff’s counsel refused to withdraw its motion, and argued on reply that it properly included discovery issues that were raised in previous correspondence with the Court, but not addressed in the Compliance Conference Order.

Justice Reed denied Plaintiff’s motion in its entirety on the basis that “the filing of the instant motion was done without leave of court and in direct contravention of Commercial Division Rules 14 and 24, and Part Rule 43 6(h).” Justice Reed cited to a recent decision, Maple Drake Austell Owner, LLC v D.F. Pray, Inc., in which he denied a motion to strike on the basis that defendant “failed to comply with this court’s explicit rules … [by] never submitt[ing] a letter to the court outlining any of the discovery disputes.”


In light of the famous idiom – “penny wise and pound foolish” – practitioners who fail to adhere to the Commercial Division Rules and/or the individual rules of a particular Commercial Division judge are not only wasting their time, but also the court’s time, and their client’s money. In the words of my colleague Matt Donovan,“[c]heck the rules, folks. Always check the rules.”

A familiar fact pattern: ParentCo is the owner and controlling shareholder of SubCo.  ParentCo completely controls SubCo.  The two companies have the same officers, issue consolidated financial returns, and the profits and losses of SubCo are passed through to ParentCo.  ParentCo deliberately keeps SubCo in a cash-starved and undercapitalized state, so SubCo is entirely dependent on advances and direct payments from ParentCo to meet its obligations.  ParentCo’s leash on SubCo is so tight that SubCo is destined for liquidity problems and, eventually, failure.  Meanwhile, ParentCo itself transfers most of the cash it receives from SubCo to another affiliate, RelatedCo.

When SubCo fails, creditors of SubCo obtain judgments against SubCo, then seek to unwind transfers made from ParentCo to RelatedCo that frustrated their ability to collect on their judgments.  The creditors reason that because ParentCo dominated and controlled SubCo, because the two were essentially the same entity, and because ParentCo deliberately kept SubCo undercapitalized, equity requires that Court pierce the corporate veil and unwind the fraudulent transfers made by ParentCo.  Otherwise, the creditors argue, ParentCo and RelatedCo will have gotten away with their shell game.

Justice Jennifer G. Schecter of the New York County Commercial Division recently considered this issue in South College Street, LLC v. Ares Capital Corp., No. 655045/2019 (N.Y. County June 15, 2020).  The case continues a recent trend toward greater scrutiny of veil-piercing allegations at the motion to dismiss stage and provides welcome guidance for all litigators facing veil-piercing claims.


“A basic tenet of American corporate law is that the corporation and its shareholders are distinct entities.”  Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468 (2003).  However, “[i]n the interests of justice, in an ‘appropriate case,’ a party wronged by actions taken by an owner shielded by the veil of a corporate shell may exercise its equitable right to pierce that screen and ‘skewer’ the corporate owner.”  David v. Mast, 1999 WL 135244 (Del. Ch. Mar. 2, 1999).

A plaintiff seeking to pierce defendant’s corporate veil must show: (1) the defendant exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked and (2) defendant used that domination to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff’s injury.  Morris v. Dept. of Taxation and Finance, 623 N.E.2d 1157, 1160–61 (1993).

Although the standard is articulated with disarming ease, its application to a pre-answer motion to dismiss is, for several reasons, difficult and has at times been inconsistent.  First, Courts are understandably reluctant to wade into likely disputed issues of control, abuse of corporate formalities, and inadequate capitalization on a motion to dismiss.  See E. Hampton Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Sandpebble Builders, Inc., 884 N.Y.S.2d 94 (2d Dept 2009) (Dillon, J. concurring in part and dissenting in part); Cornwall Mgt. Ltd v. Kambolin, 2015 WL 2090371, at *7 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 29, 2015) (“[A]s veil piercing claims are inherently fact driven, they are not typically susceptible to attack on a pre-answer motion to dismiss. . . . In fact, New York courts are even typically reluctant to dispose of veil piercing claims on summary judgment.”).  Second, veil-piercing allegations are subject only to the pleading requirements of CPLR § 3013, which is satisfied so long as the pleading provides notice to an adversary of the transactions or occurrences giving rise to a claim.  Third, in many veil-piercing cases, the equities weigh strongly in favor of resolution on the merits, irrespective of whether the complaint adequately alleges both the control and fraud elements of a veil-piercing theory.  Elements aside, Courts dislike shell games.

As a consequence, it is not at all rare to see relatively boilerplate allegations of domination and control survive a motion to dismiss.  This is true even where the allegations of the second element—that the domination or control was used to perpetrate a wrong against plaintiff—are thin.  See, e.g., 9 E. 38th St. Assocs., L.P. v. George Feher Assocs., Inc., 640 N.Y.S.2d 520, 521 (1st Dept 1996); Trans Int’l Corp. v. Clear View Techs., 278 A.D.2d 1, 1-2 (1st Dept 2000) (plaintiff adequately alleged alter ego liability by alleging “that the individual defendants are [the corporation]’s equitable owners, that [the corporation] was their alter ego, that they exercised complete dominion and control over [the corporation] and that equity requires that they be held liable for [the corporation]’s obligations to plaintiff”) Toledo v. Sabharwal, No. 653234/2017, 2019 WL 495801, at *1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 04, 2019).

First Department Encourages Closer Examination of Alter Ego Claims on Motion to Dismiss

Last year, as covered on this blog, the First Department reversed a trial court order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss an ill-pled veil piercing claim and, by so doing, encouraged courts to take a closer look at veil-piercing allegations at the motion to dismiss stage.

The facts of that case are recounted in our previous post.  Aspire Music Group signed the popular musician Drake to an exclusive recording artist agreement.  After Drake’s rise to stardom, Aspire furnished Drake’s services to a joint venture that included Cash Money Records, in exchange for one-third of the net profits from Drake’s albums.  When Cash Money Records failed to properly account to Aspire, Aspire sued not only Cash Money Records, but also its controller, Universal Music Group.

Aspire alleged that Universal took over control of Cash Money Records and paid itself higher distribution fees, which in turn left less for Aspire.  Aspire further alleged that Cash Money Records is a corporate instrument of Universal; Universal shares offices with Cash Money Records; Universal operates Cash Money Records’ website; and Cash Money Records remains undercapitalized and entirely dependent on advances and payments from Universal.

The First Department directed dismissal of Aspire’s claims against Universal, holding, “even assuming Universal was an “equitable owner” of Cash Money . . . the complaint fails to allege that Universal’s domination of Cash Money was used to commit a wrong against plaintiff.”  Aspire Music Grp., LLC v. Cash Money Records, Inc., 94 N.Y.S.3d 24 (1st Dept 2019) (emphasis added).  The Court held that Universal’s increasing its own fees, leaving less for Aspire, was “legitimate business conduct.”  Even assuming control, therefore, Aspire failed to plead abuse of that control to perpetrate a wrong against it.

South College Street, LLC v. Ares Capital Corp.

In accordance with the First Department’s ruling in Aspire, Justice Schecter closely scrutinized the veil-piercing allegations in South College Street

South College Street concerns a creditor’s attempt to unwind allegedly fraudulent transfers made by an alleged alter ego of the debtor.  Charlotte School of Law, LLC (“CSL”) was a for-profit law school in North Carolina.  CSL was a wholly-owned subsidiary of InfiLaw Corporation (“InfiLaw”), which itself was a wholly owned subsidiary of InifiLaw Holding, LLC (“HoldCo”).  InfiLaw was a guarantor on CSL’s lease.  When the CSL defaulted on the lease, the landlord—plaintiff here—obtained a $24.55mm judgment against CSL and InfiLaw.  But CSL and InfiLaw were insolvent.  As a result of a recapitalization and investment from Ares Corporation (“Ares”)—defendant here—InfiLaw and HoldCo had transferred more than $32 million to Ares over 14 months.

Generally, the New York Debtor and Creditor Law allows a creditor to commence an action against the transferee of a fraudulent conveyance made by the debtor.  Accordingly, Plaintiff sued Ares seeking to unwind the allegedly fraudulent transfers that InfiLaw (the debtor) made to Ares.

Plaintiff also sought to unwind transfers that HoldCo made to Ares.  But these claims were more difficult; HoldCo was not subject to Plaintiff’s $24mm judgment, and HoldCo had no obligations to Plaintiff.  In other words, Plaintiff was not a creditor of HoldCo with standing to unwind a transfer between HoldCo and Ares.

To overcome this hurdle, Plaintiff argued that Holdco and InfiLaw were alter egos.  They had consistently overlapping officers; they prepared consolidated financial returns; they had the same office; HoldCo engaged in no other business activities, and profits of InfiLaw were consistently passed through to HoldCo.  HoldCo’s control over InfiLaw was so complete, Plaintiff alleged, that it caused CSL’s failure and InfiLaw’s insolvency.  HoldCo’s practice of keeping InfiLaw in an undercapitalized state (with huge payments going through HoldCo to Ares) resulted in liquidity problems at CSL.  This caused CSL to lower its admission standards, which resulted in lower bar passage rates and employment placement.  Nonetheless, to continue meeting HoldCo’s obligations to Ares, CSL lowered its admissions standards even further, sending CSL into a death spiral.  Ultimately, the North Carolina Board of Governors terminated CSL’s license.  By kicking off this spiral, Plaintiff alleged, HoldCo caused InfiLaw to default on its obligations to Plaintiffs.

Ares moved to dismiss the claims, arguing, with respect to the transfers from Holdco, that Holdco was not a debtor and, consequently, Plaintiff could not state a DCL claim with respect to transfers from HoldCo to Ares.

Justice Schecter granted Ares’ motion to dismiss.  The Court held that although a veil-piercing theory would be sufficient to implicate the transfers between HoldCo and Ares, Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege facts warranting veil piercing here.  Specifically, the Court found that the complaint—while not lacking in allegations of complete control—failed to allege that the purpose of the corporate distinction between InfiLaw and HoldCo was to defraud or injure Plaintiff.  The Court explained:

While plaintiff alleges that Holdco dominates and controls the Debtor, that is not enough.  Rather, plaintiff must plead, for instance, that the capital structure of Holdco and the Debtor was designed to ensure the Debtor’s creditors would be left seeking to collect from an empty shell. Nothing of the sort is alleged.

As to Plaintiff’s allegation that the transfers left CSL destined to fail, the Court found that those facts went to Plaintiff’s fraudulent transfer claim and, consequently, they could not also be used to pierce the corporate veil; something more was required.

Practical Considerations

Whether equity requires a Court to disregard corporate separateness and pierce the corporate veil remains a fact-intensive inquiry.  Nonetheless, litigants can expect that allegations in support of a veil-piercing theory will be closely scrutinized at the motion to dismiss stage.  And, as set forth in South College Street, complete control is not enough.