Hawaii

DeWitt Truck Brokers, Inc. v. W. Ray Flemming Fruit Co. in Hawaii Law

How DeWitt Truck Brokers, Inc. v. W. Ray Flemming Fruit Co. applies in Hawaii: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Business Associations (Piercing the Corporate Veil).

State Approach

Hawaii courts, in line with the principles from DeWitt Truck Brokers, recognize the doctrine of 'piercing the corporate veil' in scenarios where the corporate structure is misused to perpetrate fraud or injustice. The courts emphasize that the corporate form should not be used as a shield against legitimate claims where equity demands otherwise.

State Rule
In Hawaii, the court may pierce the corporate veil if it finds that the shareholders' personal interests are so intertwined with the corporation that recognizing them as separate would lead to an unjust result.
Significant State Cases

In re K & K Land Trust

The court held that the veil was pierced due to commingling of funds between the corporation and its shareholders.

Wong v. Hawaiian Agribusiness, Inc.

The court ruled that fraudulent conduct warranted the piercing of the veil to prevent injustice to creditors.

Kurtis v. Hilo Hattie, Inc.

The court determined that the corporation was merely an alter ego of the defendant, leading to veil piercing.

Comparison to Federal Law

Hawaii's approach to piercing the corporate veil aligns with the federal standard, which also requires a showing of fraud or misuse of the corporate form. However, Hawaii courts may place more emphasis on equitable factors and the specific facts of a case, potentially resulting in more frequent applications of the doctrine compared to federal courts.

Bar Exam Note

Understanding Hawaii's application of piercing the corporate veil is crucial for the bar exam, particularly in the Business Associations section, where such doctrines are often tested.

Practice Pointers
  • Always assess the level of control exercised by shareholders over the corporation to determine if veil piercing is warranted.
  • Document any instances of fund commingling or other indicia of a lack of separateness as evidence for veil piercing.
  • Be prepared to argue both sides of veil piercing: whether the corporate entity should be respected or disregarded based on the conduct of its principals.

Master State-Specific Law with Briefly

Get AI-powered state case analyses, bar exam prep, and comprehensive study tools.