803-254-2200 803-254-2200

For business and legal updates:

Blog Posts Tagged "partnership"

S.C. Supreme Court Sets Criteria to Pierce Corporate Veil of Sibling Businesses

On July 10, the South Carolina Supreme Court handed down an important decision in Pertuis v. Front Roe Restaurants, establishing the criteria to determine when the corporate veil can be pierced horizontally – in other words, when a court can disregard the corporate form of sibling companies having common ownership, control, officers, or members.

The practice of corporations joining forces with others that share business goals, leadership and even finances to mitigate personal liability for those in charge is not a new one. The merging of business interests has long-been debated, going back to a 1986 Court of Appeals decision in Kincaid v. Landing Development Corp. The theory generally states that, “where multiple corporations have unified their business operations and resources to achieve a common business purpose and where adherence to the fiction of separate corporate identities would defeat justice, courts have refused to recognize the corporations’ separateness, instead regarding them as a single enterprise-in-fact.” Corporate entities could be combined into a single entity if their interests, entities and activities are so interconnected, “as to blur the legal distinction between the corporations and their activities.” Kincaid v. Landing Dev. Corp., 289 S.C. 89, 96, 344 S.E.2d 869, 874 (Ct. App. 1986).

The South Carolina Supreme Court’s latest decision in Pertuis v.  Front Roe ruled in a minority shareholder oppression dispute between the owners of three restaurants and their general business manager, who claimed part ownership in the entire enterprise. The restaurants were incorporated separately in North and South Carolina but had the same shareholders and general manager. The general manager sued the majority shareholders claiming part-ownership in the entire operation and asserted that he was entitled to a percentage of the entire business as a buyout. 

The trial court found that the S-corporations owning each of the three restaurants were a “partnership.” It disregarded the corporate entities and awarded the general manager a cut of the whole. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court rejected the lower courts’ refusal to respect the individual corporate forms of the three S-corporations.

In so doing, the South Carolina Supreme Court, for the first time, adopted the single business enterprise theory and established the criteria for disregarding the corporate existence of commonly owned sibling entities. 

continue reading

Don’t Allow Your Business to Become a Victim of the Dreaded Ds

Is your closely-held business protected from the five dreaded Ds – death, disability, divorce, disaster and disagreement?

Turmoil, and even business failure, can follow if you don’t have a legal succession plan in place when any of these events occur. While this may not offer you any comfort, you are certainly not alone if you haven’t yet set up a succession plan: fewer than half of closely-held and family-owned businesses have a plan in place that covers these contingencies.

continue reading