{"id":31980,"date":"2016-03-31T19:26:56","date_gmt":"2016-04-01T00:26:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/uncategorized\/liability-for-acts-of-dissolved-corporation.html"},"modified":"2017-07-25T14:51:31","modified_gmt":"2017-07-25T19:51:31","slug":"liability-for-acts-of-dissolved-corporation","status":"publish","type":"corporate","link":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/corporate-governance\/liability-for-acts-of-dissolved-corporation.html","title":{"rendered":"Liability for Acts of Dissolved Corporation"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

This article was edited and reviewed by FindLaw Attorney Writers<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n | Last reviewed\n

\n \n <\/i>\n Legally Reviewed\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by FindLaw\u2019s team of legal writers and attorneys<\/a> and in accordance with our editorial standards<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n\n

\n \n <\/i>\n Fact-Checked\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our contributing authors<\/a>. We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please contact an attorney in your area<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n<\/section>\n\n\n\n

Where defendant corporation entered into contracts while it was dissolved as a matter of law, once corporation<\/a> is reinstated, the agreements are enforceable against the corporation, but not against the individual officers, directors and shareholders.<\/p>\n

Plaintiff Filed Suit for Claims While Corporation was Dissolved<\/b><\/p>\n

Plaintiff pursued claims of breach of contract against a corporate defendant, its president and vice president<\/a>. The corporate defendant whose name appeared on the contracts, was dissolved automatically for failure to file its annual report. The contracts were entered into between the plaintiff and the dissolved corporation, while the corporation was dissolved.<\/p>\n

Corporation Officers Claimed Immunity from Suit<\/b><\/p>\n

The individual defendants sought summary judgment claiming that they were immune from any liability as a result of the corporation having been reinstated. Plaintiff responded that the count alleged alternative grounds for liability against the individual defendants, including<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. liability under a "piercing the corporation veil" theory,<\/li>\n
  2. liability for operating the contracting corporate defendant as a partnership of the two individuals while it was dissolved, and<\/li>\n
  3. liability for purchasing plaintiff’s products as individuals trading and doing business under various corporate names alleged in the complaint.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Court Found Corporate Veil Not Pierced<\/b><\/p>\n

    The court found that under Michigan law the corporate veil will not be pierced absent fraud, sham or other improper use of the corporate form. In this case, plaintiff failed to allege fraud, sham or other improper use of corporate form and, consequently, pursuant to FRCP 8<\/a>, plaintiff cannot pursue such a theory.<\/p>\n

    Corporation has a De Facto Existence During Period of Dissolution<\/b><\/p>\n

    Also, once the charter of a statutorily dissolved corporation is reinstated, the corporation is considered to have at least de facto existence during the period of dissolution and upon revival the actions of the corporation are in full force and effect and the individual officers, directors and shareholders are not liable for the debts of the corporation incurred during the time period between automatic dissolution and reinstatement. Therefore, the partnership theory claims must be dismissed.<\/p>\n

    Questions Remain as to Intentions of Parties<\/b><\/p>\n

    However, factual questions remain regarding plaintiff’s claim that it believed that it was dealing with the individuals who were doing business under various corporate names and the motion for summary judgment as to this theory is dismissed without prejudice. Phoenix Energy Sales, Co., vs. Randy Goodman<\/i>, et al. Civil action No. 96 40391, ED Mich, 3\/31\/97, Gadola, J. (dkt #30).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Where defendant corporation entered into contracts while it was dissolved as a matter of law, once corporation is reinstated, the agreements are enforceable against the corporation, but not against the individual officers, directors and …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_stopmodifiedupdate":true,"_modified_date":"","_cloudinary_featured_overwrite":false},"corporate_categories":[6475,6474],"class_list":["post-31980","corporate","type-corporate","status-publish","hentry","corporate_categories-corporate-governance__business-organization","corporate_categories-corporate-governance"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/corporate\/31980","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/corporate"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/corporate"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31980"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"corporate_categories","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/corporate_categories?post=31980"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}