Minnesota Jury Instruction - 1.9.5.2 Subsidiary As Alter Ego Of Parent Corporation

• Category: Federal - Jury Instructions
• State: Multi-State
• Control #: US-11CF-1-9-5-2
• Format: Word; Rich Text

Description

This form contains sample jury instructions, to be used across the United States. These questions are to be used only as a model, and should be altered to more perfectly fit your own cause of action needs. Minnesota Jury Instruction — 1.9.5.2 Subsidiary As Alter Ego Of Parent Corporation is a legal concept that deals with situations where a subsidiary company is deemed to be the alter ego of its parent corporation. This instruction is relevant in cases where a plaintiff seeks to hold the parent corporation liable for the actions or liabilities of its subsidiary. In legal terms, an alter ego refers to a situation where the subsidiary company is so controlled and influenced by its parent corporation that it no longer operates as a separate legal entity. When this occurs, the courts may "pierce the corporate veil" and disregard the separate legal identity of the subsidiary company. This can lead to the parent corporation being held responsible for the acts, debts, or obligations of its subsidiary. Under Minnesota Jury Instruction — 1.9.5.2, the jury is instructed to consider various factors to determine if the subsidiary company should be considered the alter ego of its parent corporation. These factors may include: 1. Control: Does the parent corporation exercise complete control over the subsidiary's financial, business, and operational decisions? Is there evidence of close management and decision-making ties between the two entities? 2. Intermingling of Assets: Are the assets of the subsidiary and parent corporation commingled? Do they share bank accounts, financial resources, or other resources? Is there evidence of the subsidiary being used as a mere facade for the parent corporation's operations? 3. Limited Separate Operations: Does the subsidiary have limited or no separate operations, but mainly exists to carry out the parent corporation's business? Is it dependent on the parent corporation for financial support and resources? 4. Corporate Formalities: Is there evidence of the subsidiary disregarding corporate formalities such as maintaining separate accounting records, holding separate board meetings, or conducting independent business transactions? 5. Fraudulent Intent: Is there evidence of fraudulent or wrongful intent by the parent corporation in using the subsidiary as a shield against liability? If the jury finds that the subsidiary is an alter ego of the parent corporation, it can legally treat the two entities as one for the purpose of assigning liability. However, it is important to note that each case is fact-specific, and the jury must carefully consider all evidence and arguments presented before making a determination. It is worth mentioning that Minnesota Jury Instruction — 1.9.5.2 Subsidiary As Alter Ego Of Parent Corporation is a general instruction. It may have variations or additions depending on the specific facts and circumstances of a case, as instructed by the presiding judge. Therefore, attorneys and legal professionals should always consult the most up-to-date and relevant instructions for their specific case.

Minnesota Jury Instruction — 1.9.5.2 Subsidiary As Alter Ego Of Parent Corporation is a legal concept that deals with situations where a subsidiary company is deemed to be the alter ego of its parent corporation. This instruction is relevant in cases where a plaintiff seeks to hold the parent corporation liable for the actions or liabilities of its subsidiary. In legal terms, an alter ego refers to a situation where the subsidiary company is so controlled and influenced by its parent corporation that it no longer operates as a separate legal entity. When this occurs, the courts may "pierce the corporate veil" and disregard the separate legal identity of the subsidiary company. This can lead to the parent corporation being held responsible for the acts, debts, or obligations of its subsidiary. Under Minnesota Jury Instruction — 1.9.5.2, the jury is instructed to consider various factors to determine if the subsidiary company should be considered the alter ego of its parent corporation. These factors may include: 1. Control: Does the parent corporation exercise complete control over the subsidiary's financial, business, and operational decisions? Is there evidence of close management and decision-making ties between the two entities? 2. Intermingling of Assets: Are the assets of the subsidiary and parent corporation commingled? Do they share bank accounts, financial resources, or other resources? Is there evidence of the subsidiary being used as a mere facade for the parent corporation's operations? 3. Limited Separate Operations: Does the subsidiary have limited or no separate operations, but mainly exists to carry out the parent corporation's business? Is it dependent on the parent corporation for financial support and resources? 4. Corporate Formalities: Is there evidence of the subsidiary disregarding corporate formalities such as maintaining separate accounting records, holding separate board meetings, or conducting independent business transactions? 5. Fraudulent Intent: Is there evidence of fraudulent or wrongful intent by the parent corporation in using the subsidiary as a shield against liability? If the jury finds that the subsidiary is an alter ego of the parent corporation, it can legally treat the two entities as one for the purpose of assigning liability. However, it is important to note that each case is fact-specific, and the jury must carefully consider all evidence and arguments presented before making a determination. It is worth mentioning that Minnesota Jury Instruction — 1.9.5.2 Subsidiary As Alter Ego Of Parent Corporation is a general instruction. It may have variations or additions depending on the specific facts and circumstances of a case, as instructed by the presiding judge. Therefore, attorneys and legal professionals should always consult the most up-to-date and relevant instructions for their specific case.