• HOME
  • SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
  • PROFILE
  • ALLEN MATKINS
  • CONTACT
Print Email Shortlink

Alter Ego And The Internal Affairs Doctrine

By Keith Paul Bishop on March 21, 2013 in Nevada Corporations

The internal affairs doctrine is a conflict of laws principle that recognizes that only one state should have the authority to regulate a corporation’s internal affairs.   Under the internal affairs doctrine, that special state is the state of incorporation.  But what exactly constitutes a corporation’s ”internal affairs”?  Many lawyers, particularly those in Delaware, take a broad view of what constitutes an internal affair.  However, the U.S. Supreme Court has actually enunciated a rather narrow view: “matters peculiar to the relationships among or between the corporation and its current officers, directors, and shareholders”.  Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 645 (1982). 

One might assume that the liability of shareholders for corporate obligations is an internal affair.  However, the Nevada Supreme Court has permitted piercing the corporate veil of a Washington corporation.  McCleary Cattle Co. v. Sewell, 317 P.2d 957 (Nev. 1957).  In Plotkin v. Nat’l Lead Co., 482 P.2d 323 (1971), the Supreme Court assumed that the alter ego doctrine could be applied to a Wisconsin corporation (although it declined to conclude that the owners were in the alter ego). 

For more on alter ego claims under Nevada law, see Bishop & Zucker on Nevada Corporations and Limited Liability Companies.

317 P.2d 957457 U.S. 624482 P.2d 323Alter EgoEdgar v. Mite Corp.internal affairs doctrineMcCleary Cattle Co. v. Sewellpiercing the corporate veilPlotkin v. Nat'l Lead Co.
  • Related Stories
  • Most Popular
  • Court Holds Non-Parties May Enforce Arbitration Agreement Even Though The General Rule Is That They Can’t
  • Two Very Good Reasons To Visit The Department’s Website
  • Sealing A Contract May Mean Nothing Or 20 Years!
  • Ever Wonder What Money Is? California Has Some Answers And I Have Some Questions
  • Bitcoin And The Corporations Code
  • If You’re Relying On The Signature Of Two Officers, You May Want To Think Again
  • Conflict Minerals Bill In Suspense File (For Now)
  • Concurrent Jurisdiction Found For Covered Class Actions
  • Nevada Supreme Court Adopts Delaware Approach To Fair Value Burden Of Proof
  • SEC Proposes John Wilkes Booth Rules
  • If I Were A Carpenter, I’d Build A Better Proxy
  • CalPERS’ Annus Horribilis: How Much Worse Will It Get?
← Previous Next →

AUTHOR

Keith Paul Bishop
Partner
(949) 553-1313
kbishop@allenmatkins.com
CONTACT ME

RECOGNITION

NEWSLETTER

TOPICS

  • Accountants
  • Administrative Procedure
  • Attorney-Client Privilege/Work Product
  • Broker-Dealers
  • California Securities Laws
  • California Sui Generis
  • CalPERS/CalSTRS
  • Choice of Law/Conflict of Law
  • Corporate Governance
  • Department of Corporations
  • Derivative Suits
  • Enforcement & Investigations
  • Fairness Hearings
  • Finance Lenders
  • Financial Institutions
  • Investment Advisers
  • JOBS Act
  • Legislation
  • Limited Liability Companies
  • Mergers & Acquisitions
  • Nevada Corporations
  • Non-Compete Agreements
  • Partnerships
  • Professional Responsibility
  • Pseudo-Foreign Corporations
  • Public Records Act/FOIA
  • Secretary of State
  • Securities Litigation
  • Uncategorized
  • Video

YOUTUBE

TWITTER

FACEBOOK

CALENDAR

March 2013
M T W T F S S
« Feb   Apr »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Copyright © 2013 California Corporate & Securities Law.

Powered by WordPress and News.

  • follow:follow:
  • Become my Facebook friend Become my Facebook friend
  • Connect with me Connect with me
  • RSS RSS
  • Tweet with me Tweet with me