Suffolk New York Jury Instruction - 1.9.5.2 Subsidiary As Alter Ego Of Parent Corporation

• Category: Federal - Jury Instructions
• State: Multi-State
• County: Suffolk
• 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. Suffolk New York Jury Instruction — 1.9.5.2 Subsidiary As Alter Ego Of Parent Corporation is a legal instruction given to jurors in Suffolk County, New York, regarding the concept of a subsidiary being considered an "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. An alter ego is a legal term used to describe a situation where a subsidiary corporation is so controlled by its parent corporation that it becomes indistinguishable from the parent in terms of its operations and decision-making. When a subsidiary is deemed to be the alter ego of its parent, the legal principle of corporate veil piercing may come into play. This allows the court to disregard the separate legal existence of the subsidiary and hold the parent corporation responsible for the subsidiary's actions or liabilities. There may be different variations of Suffolk New York Jury Instruction — 1.9.5.2 Subsidiary As Alter Ego Of Parent Corporation, depending on the specific circumstances of the case. Some variations might include: 1. Direct Control: This variation instructs the jury to consider whether the parent corporation directly controls the operations, finances, and decision-making of the subsidiary, to the extent that the subsidiary is essentially an instrumentality or extension of the parent. 2. Unity of Interest: This variation emphasizes the need to establish a unity of interest between the parent and subsidiary, where the parent corporation's control over the subsidiary is so complete that the distinction between the two entities has become blurred. 3. Fraud or Injustice: In some instances, the jury instruction may require the plaintiff to demonstrate that allowing the parent corporation to escape liability by hiding behind its subsidiary would result in fraud or injustice. This variation emphasizes the need to show that disregarding the corporate veil is necessary to prevent abuse of the corporate form. The purpose of Suffolk New York Jury Instruction — 1.9.5.2 Subsidiary As Alter Ego Of Parent Corporation is to guide the jurors in understanding the legal principles involved in holding a parent corporation accountable for the actions or debts of its subsidiary. By considering the various factors outlined in the instruction, the jury can determine whether the subsidiary should be treated as the alter ego of its parent, and thereby assign liability accordingly.

Suffolk New York Jury Instruction — 1.9.5.2 Subsidiary As Alter Ego Of Parent Corporation is a legal instruction given to jurors in Suffolk County, New York, regarding the concept of a subsidiary being considered an "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. An alter ego is a legal term used to describe a situation where a subsidiary corporation is so controlled by its parent corporation that it becomes indistinguishable from the parent in terms of its operations and decision-making. When a subsidiary is deemed to be the alter ego of its parent, the legal principle of corporate veil piercing may come into play. This allows the court to disregard the separate legal existence of the subsidiary and hold the parent corporation responsible for the subsidiary's actions or liabilities. There may be different variations of Suffolk New York Jury Instruction — 1.9.5.2 Subsidiary As Alter Ego Of Parent Corporation, depending on the specific circumstances of the case. Some variations might include: 1. Direct Control: This variation instructs the jury to consider whether the parent corporation directly controls the operations, finances, and decision-making of the subsidiary, to the extent that the subsidiary is essentially an instrumentality or extension of the parent. 2. Unity of Interest: This variation emphasizes the need to establish a unity of interest between the parent and subsidiary, where the parent corporation's control over the subsidiary is so complete that the distinction between the two entities has become blurred. 3. Fraud or Injustice: In some instances, the jury instruction may require the plaintiff to demonstrate that allowing the parent corporation to escape liability by hiding behind its subsidiary would result in fraud or injustice. This variation emphasizes the need to show that disregarding the corporate veil is necessary to prevent abuse of the corporate form. The purpose of Suffolk New York Jury Instruction — 1.9.5.2 Subsidiary As Alter Ego Of Parent Corporation is to guide the jurors in understanding the legal principles involved in holding a parent corporation accountable for the actions or debts of its subsidiary. By considering the various factors outlined in the instruction, the jury can determine whether the subsidiary should be treated as the alter ego of its parent, and thereby assign liability accordingly.