Professor Seth C. Oranburg examines how veil-piercing doctrines are adapting to contemporary business models in technology, platform economies, and complex finance. These emerging contexts blur traditional corporate boundaries, forcing courts to consider new forms of “unity of interest” and control. The episode begins with Doe v. Uber Technologies (Cal. Ct. App. 2021), where a passenger alleged assault by an Uber driver and sought to pierce the veil between Uber’s parent company and its operating subsidiaries. The case raises unsettled questions about whether centralized algorithmic control—fare setting, performance monitoring, and driver rating systems—can constitute domination sufficient to disregard corporate separateness in gig economy tort claims. The discussion then turns to Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. v. Alfa, S.A.B. de C.V. (2d Cir. 2011), part of the litigation fallout from Enron’s 2001 collapse. The case illustrates how intricate webs of subsidiaries and special-purpose entities can obscure debt, inflate assets, and complicate creditor recovery. While the court ultimately upheld certain bankruptcy safe harbors, the broader Enron saga underscores veil piercing’s potential role in dismantling fraudulent financial structures—echoing themes from horizontal piercing in Episode 5. Key takeaways include: Gig economy adaptation – Courts may scrutinize digital integration and algorithmic oversight as modern forms of commingling or control. Financial fraud parallels – Opaque affiliate structures can invite piercing in bankruptcy and fraud cases, even if statutory protections sometimes shield transactions. Policy balance – The challenge lies in preventing risk externalization without chilling innovation. This episode positions veil piercing as a flexible, evolving doctrine—capable of addressing novel corporate abuses while maintaining the core protections that support business growth.

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related