Court Opinion

ID: 9514028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:43:30.849104+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:09.880207
License: Public Domain

CROTHERS, Justice,
concurring specially.
[¶ 34] I agree with the results in this case and with most of the rationale supporting these results. I write separately to reiterate my disagreement with this Court’s application of the “undercapitalization” analysis used in corporate veil piercing cases. See Axtmann v. Chillemi, 2007 ND 179, ¶¶ 40-41, 740 N.W.2d 838 (Crothers, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Here, however, overwhelming evidence supports piercing Nu-Tec’s corporate veil under the remaining factors, and any consideration of its undercapitalization is superfluous.
[¶ 35] Daniel J. Crothers