Opinion ID: 7270
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Other Inequities

Text: 33 In addition to reviewing these two purported inequities, we have scoured the record for any other wrongdoings or inequities, either separate or in combination, but have found none. Although Alberto et al. are understandably disappointed that some of their judgments against JL may go unpaid, that is clearly not the kind of unfairness or injustice that will satisfy Delaware law and provoke disregard of the corporate form. 28 Rather, this is truly nothing more than an effort by Alberto et al. to find a deep pocket from which to recover on their judgments against a defunct judgment debtor. 34 In sum, the district court erred neither in applying Delaware's substantive law nor in finding, under that law, that Alberto et al. failed to produce sufficient summary judgment evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could find an overall element of injustice or unfairness. As such a finding is an indispensable prerequisite to piercing the corporate veil under Delaware law, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of DGI is 35 AFFIRMED.