Quoted from fosaisu:
Whysnow, your heart is in the right place and you're very passionate about pinball, but I'd encourage you to abandon your internet law practice.
Yea, the problem is many internet lawyers speak with such conviction (they speak in absolutes where most things in law generally and basically all things in litigation specifically are rather grey).
I've been quiet regarding my opinion of the prospects of piercing the veil of Zidware, but some people have inferred it will be easy and all you need is the right lawyer. In my experience, peircing the veil of an entity is exceedingly challenging. I would never say there is a slam dunk fact pattern to pierce the veil of an entity.
Furthermore, piercing the veil of an entity is often a question of fact (not law) meanings the burden on appeal (if you don't like what the fact finder found) is usually higher so if you get a raw deal at the trial court level (which happens often, there are some awful trial court judges running around) your recourse on appeal is small.
I'm no litigator, I have managed a reasonable amount of litigation. In my practice I have seen people allege that a veil should be pierced many times (more than I can count). I've never seen a ruling in the cases where I've been involved where the veil was successfully pierced. Many of the cases settled, so the issue never came to question.
I have - once - seen a corporation ruled as being the alter ego of the sole shareholder and the sole shareholder was found liable. That is similar to piercing the veil (being found to be the alter ego) but I'm not sure what states where the alter ego doctrine is applicable.
In any event, complex multi party litigation is exceedingly uncertain. It has a lot of moving parts and rarely is there a silver bullet that expedites the process. I guess what I am saying is: batten down the hatches litigants, it may be a long journey that will at times be frustrating. Good luck to you all, I hope you guys who were defrauded from what I see get made whole in some way.