Piercing the Corporate Veil and Reverse Piercing Fundamentals [2019 Edition]

$195.00

CLE Credits earned: 2 GENERAL (or 2 LAW & LEGAL for WA state)

Attorneys can expect to learn about the Doctrine of Piercing the Corporate Veil and Reverse Piercing of the Corporate Veil. Included in our discussion will be the origin of the doctrine, the proper time to pierce the corporate veil, when not to pierce, and the pre-trial and trial issues which may arise when attempting to pierce the corporate veil.

Key topics to be discussed:

•   Piercing the Corporate Veil
•   Reverse Piercing the Corporate Veil
•   Maintaining Corporate Protection
•   Trial Procedures for Piercing the Corporate Veil

Date / Time: May 20, 2019

•   2:00 pm – 4:00 pm Eastern
•   1:00 pm – 3:00 pm Central
•   12:00 pm – 2:00 pm Mountain
•   11:00 am – 1:00 pm Pacific

Choose a format:

•   Live Video Broadcast/Re-Broadcast: Watch Program “live” in real-time, must sign-in and watch program on date and time set above. May ask questions during presentation via chat box. Qualifies for “live” CLE credit.
•   On-Demand Video: Access CLE 24/7 via on-demand library and watch program anytime. Qualifies for self-study CLE credit. On-demand versions are made available 7 business days after the original recording date and are view-able for up to one year.

All Access Pass: Before you buy, access this class and all other myLawCLE programs, over 120 new live classes every year, for only $69 dollars per month. Purchase the All Access Pass first. Click here for more information.

Select your state to see if this class is approved for CLE credit.

Choose the format you want.

Clear

Original Broadcast Date: March 11, 2019

Oscar Gomez, Esq. focuses his practice on all aspects of business law with a heavy focus on business litigation. Born and raised in Miami, FL, Mr. Gomez attended Belen Jesuit Preparatory School (2001) before attending college and earning a Bachelor of Science in Political Science With Honors at Florida State University (2005). Mr. Gomez worked as a certified crisis hotline counselor for Big Bend of Tallahassee during his time in Tallahassee, made Dean’s List consistently, was Political Action Chair for the Hispanic-Latino Student Union, a founding member of the Coalition for Active Voter Education (CAVE), and recognized for his excellent academic record by the Oscar Arias Sanchez Hispanic Honor Society. Mr. Gomez’s undergraduate track record earned him the prestigious DePaul Achievement Scholarship to attend DePaul University College of Law in Chicago, Illinois. During his time in law school Mr. Gomez worked at a Plaintiff’s medical malpractice firm in Chicago, IL for two years and as a summer associate at a commercial litigation firm (Garbett, Allen, Roza, P.A.) in Miami, FL.

Mr. Gomez was admitted to practice law in the State of Florida in 2008 and began his career representing institutional lenders in bankruptcy proceedings with a law firm in Broward County, FL until 2010. From 2011 to 2016 Mr. Gomez worked for a firm in Miami, FL (Gonzalez & Wermuth P.L.) handling contract, landlord-tenant, commercial, corporate, real estate, tax, and intellectual property matters. Mr. Gomez is a member of the Coral Gables Chamber of Commerce, Coral Gables Bar Association, the Cuban American Bar Association, the Dade County Bar Association, and the Florida State University Alumni Association. Mr. Gomez is admitted to practice before the U.S. District Courts for the Southern, Middle, and Northern Districts of Florida and the Florida Southern, Middle, and Northern District U.S. Bankruptcy Courts.

Oscar is first and foremost a litigator with a focus on resolving business disputes, partnership disputes, real estate matters, and employment matters. Oscar’s passion is taking on good cases regardless of Plaintiff or Defense side and resolving a person or business’ issues to the best of his ability.

In 2017 and 2018 Mr. Gomez was named to Florida Trend magazine’s Florida Legal Elite.

Accreditation Policy
myLawCLE seeks accreditation for all programs in all states. (Accreditation for paralegals sought thru NALA and NFPA paralegal associations.) Each attending attorney/paralegal will receive a certificate of completion following the close of the CLE program as proof of attendance. In required states, myLawCLE records attorney/paralegals attendance, in all other states attorney/paralegal is provided with the approved CLE certificate to submit to their state bar or governing association.

    Automatic MCLE Approvals

All myLawCLE CLE programs are accredited automatically either directly or via reciprocity in the following states: AK, AR, CA, CT, FL, HI, ME, MO, MT, ND, NH, NM, NJ, NY, WV, and VT. (AZ does not approve CLE programs, but accepts our certificates for CLE credit.)

    Live Video Broadcasts

Live video broadcasts are new live CLE programs being streamed and recorded for the first time. All of these programs qualify for “Live” CLE credit in all states except NV, OH, MS, IN, UT, PA, GA, and LA —these states require in-person attendance to qualify for “Live” CLE credit.

    “Live” Re-Broadcasts

“Live” Re-broadcasts are replays of previous recorded CLE programs, set on a specific date and time and where the original presenting speakers calls in live at the end of the event to answer questions. This “live” element allows for “live” Re-broadcast CLEs to qualify for “Live” CLE credits in most states. [The following states DO NOT allow for “live” CLE credits on re-broadcast CLEs: NV, OH, MS, IN, UT, PA, GA, and LA]

Reciprocity
Many states allow for credit to be granted on a 1:1 reciprocal basis for courses approved in another mandatory CLE jurisdiction state. This is known as a reciprocity provision and includes the following states: AK, AR, HI, CT, FL, ME, MO, MT, ND, NH, NM, VT, NJ, NY, and WV. myLawCLE does not seek direct accreditation of live webinars or teleconferences in these states.

Section I: Why is Piercing important
a) Plaintiff’s Point of View
b) Defendant’s Point of View

Section II: Methods of Piercing

Section III: Reverse Piercing

Section IV: Trial Strategies
a) Plaintiff’s Methods of Piercing the Corporate Veil
b) Defendant’s Methods of Maintaining Corporate Protection