Robert Foster Chapman

Robert Foster Chapman

Summary

Portrait of Robert Foster Chapman Robert Foster Chapman Kinney Shoe Corp. v. Polan — Opinion of the Court (1991 | noyearcat)

Polan set up Industrial to limit his liability and the liability of Polan Industries, Inc. in their dealings with Kinney. A stockholder's liability is limited to the amount he has invested in the corporation, but Polan invested nothing in Industrial. This corporation was no more than a shell--a transparent shell. When nothing is invested in the corporation, the corporation provides no protection to its owner; nothing in, nothing out, no protection. If Polan wishes the protection of a corporation to limit his liability, he must follow the simple formalities of maintaining the corporation.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Robert Foster Chapman Robert Foster Chapman Kinney Shoe Corp. v. Polan — Opinion of the Court (1991 | noyearcat)

Since the amount to which Kinney is entitled is undisputed, the only issue is whether Kinney can pierce the [p211] corporate veil and hold Polan personally liable.
The district court held that Kinney had assumed the risk of Industrial's undercapitalization and was not entitled to pierce the corporate veil. Kinney appeals, and we reverse.
II. We have long recognized that a corporation is an entity, separate and distinct from its officers and stockholders, and the individual stockholders are not responsible for the debts of the corporation.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature