DeWitt Truck Brokers, Inc. v. W. Ray Flemming Fruit Co.

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1976 · Corporations

540 F.2d 681 (1976)

Updated August 1, 2026

Corporationsveil piercing factorscorporate veilalter egoinstrumentalityundercapitalizationcorporate formalitiesone-man corporation

Facts

The corporate defendant was a closely held corporation dominated by Flemming, who owned about 90% of the stock and made all operational decisions, while other supposed directors or stockholders played no real role. The corporation failed to observe basic corporate formalities: there were no real directors' meetings, the district court found there were no genuine stockholders' meetings, and no other officer or stockholder received salary, dividends, or fees. Flemming alone withdrew $15,000 to $25,000 annually from a corporation that showed little or no profit and apparently lacked working capital or meaningful capital reserves. The corporation acted as commission agent for growers and withheld transportation charges owed to the plaintiff while Flemming continued taking funds, and Flemming also assured the plaintiff that he would personally take care of the charges if the corporation failed to pay.

Issue

Whether, under South Carolina law, the corporate veil could be pierced to hold Flemming personally liable for the corporation's debt to the plaintiff. More specifically, the question was whether the district court clearly erred in finding sufficient facts of domination, undercapitalization, disregard of formalities, and unfairness to disregard the corporate entity even without proof of plain fraud.

Rule

A corporation is generally separate from its stockholders, and courts should pierce the corporate veil reluctantly and cautiously, with the burden on the party seeking disregard of the corporate form. But fraud is not a necessary prerequisite: where substantial ownership by one individual is combined with factors such as gross undercapitalization, failure to observe corporate formalities, nonfunctioning directors, lack of real participation by other stockholders, siphoning of funds, insolvency, absence of records, or use of the corporation as a facade, and where those factors produce an element of injustice or fundamental unfairness, a court may disregard the corporate entity under the alter ego or instrumentality theory. The conclusion may not rest on a single factor alone; it must rest on a combination of factors fitting into a picture of basic unfairness.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, Mira Santos owns 98% of Riverbend Custom Fixtures, Inc. The company keeps minutes, holds annual director and shareholder meetings, maintains adequate working capital for its contracts, and pays trade creditors in the ordinary course, but one large account later goes unpaid after an unexpected market downturn.

If the unpaid supplier seeks to hold Mira personally liable solely because she owned nearly all of the stock and made most business decisions, what is the strongest argument against piercing the corporate veil?

Explanation. The majority opinion states that ownership of all or almost all shares by one person is not enough by itself. Veil piercing requires a combination of factors—such as undercapitalization, disregard of formalities, siphoning, nonfunctioning directors, or facade use—plus an element of injustice or fundamental unfairness. Here, the facts largely respect the corporate form and show no such combination.