Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): pierce the corporate veil so as to reach individual stockholders” (emphases added)); see also Port Chester Electric Const. Co. v. Atlas, 40 N.Y.2d 652, 656-57, 389 N.Y.S.2d 327, 357 N.E.2d 983 (N.Y.1976) (finding that the owner of a judgment-proof corporation had fraudulently conveyed its assets to other entities that the owner controlled, but declining to pierce the corporate veil on that basis). By the same token, evidence that a controlling party executed a constructively fraudulent transfer with a deceitful or unjust purpose can justify veil-piercing, even absent a successful claim under DCL § 276. See Atateks Foreign Trade Ltd. v. Private Label Sourcing, LLC, No. 07-CV-6665, 2009 WL 1803458, at *15-16, *18 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2009) (Baer, J.), aff'd, 402 Fed.Appx. 623 (2d Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). E. Burdens of Proof The parties agree — and 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a corporations payment of commissions to one of its owners was constructively fraudulent under dcl  273 and justified piercing the corporate veil because the commissions were inappropriately transferred for the owners personal use without compensation to the corporation apparently as part of a kickback scheme devised by the owner (B) holding that the district court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant when the site of a copyright owners alleged injury is the location of the copyright owner (C) holding that individual owners lacked standing to assert the loss of a business opportunity that belonged to their firm and not to them individually noting that had the corporation declared bankruptcy it is certain that the owners would not be so quick to request that we disregard the corporate form (D) recognizing that the right of redemption is one of the most important rights provided by the states to owners of real property (E) holding that deference to the guidelines depends on the thoroughness of the commissions analysis and the validity of its reasoning
Output (English): holding that the district court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant when the site of a copyright owners alleged injury is the location of the copyright owner