CHALOS Co P C — Houston Piercing

CHALOS & Co, P. C. - Houston Piercing the corporate veil George A. Gaïtas Attorney at Law

CHALOS & Co, P. C. - Houston George A. Gaitas Why? To secure your eventual judgment or arbitration award

CHALOS & Co, P. C. - Houston George A. Gaitas When and under what law ? As part of the prejudgment remedy of maritime attachment and garnishment, under Rule B of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, before adjudication of the merits of the principal claim. .

CHALOS & Co, P. C. - Houston George A. Gaitas Where? In a United States District Court which has jurisdiction over admiralty matters

CHALOS & Co, P. C. - Houston George A. Gaitas English biscuit English admiralty court jurisdiction

CHALOS & Co, P. C. - Houston George A. Gaitas Texas biscuit U. S. admiralty court jurisdiction

CHALOS & Co, P. C. - Houston George A. Gaitas U. S. District Courts have jurisdiction over all admiralty and maritime claims which comprehends all maritime contracts, torts, and injuries. De. Lovio v. Boit 7 Fed. Cas. 418, no. 3, 776 C. C. D. Mass. (1815)

CHALOS & Co, P. C. - Houston George A. Gaitas Conditions for Rule B relief 1) a valid prima facie admiralty claim against the defendant; 2) the defendant cannot be found within the district; 3) the defendant's property may be found within the district; and 4) there is no statutory or maritime law bar to the attachment. Aqua Stoli Shipping Ltd. v. Gardner Smith Pty Ltd. , 460 F. 3 d 434 (2 nd Cir. , 2006)

CHALOS & Co, P. C. - Houston George A. Gaitas How ? File suit in admiralty court specifically praying for the related entity corporate separateness to be disregarded. Atlanta Shipping Corp. , Inc. v. Chemical Bank 818 F. 2 d 240, 248 (2 d Cir. 1987); Vitol, S. A. v. Primerose Shipping Co. , 708 F. 3 d 527, 542 (4 th Cir. , 2013) .

CHALOS & Co, P. C. - Houston George A. Gaitas In Rule B proceedings a district court can and will pierce the corporate veil "The basis of admiralty's power is to protect its jurisdiction from being thwarted by a fraudulent transfer, and that applies equally whether it is concerned with executing its judgment or authorizing an attachment to secure an independent maritime claim. ” Swift & Co. Packers v. Compania Colombiana Del Caribe, S. A. , 339 U. S. 684, 694 -695 (1950)

CHALOS & Co, P. C. - Houston George A. Gaitas Veil Piercing Grounds Use of the corporate form to commit fraud. Lee v. Thompson, 15 F. Cas. 233, 235 (Circuit Court, D. Louisiana 1878); Williamson v. Recovery L. P. , 542 F. 3 d 43, 53(2 nd Cir 2008) ); Alter ego relationship (Complete domination of the subsidiary by the parent so that the subsidiary was the agent of the parent; or the two comprised a single business). Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Dupont, 128 F. 840; Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. W. R. Grace & Co. , 267 F. 676, 681 (4 th Cir. 1920) THE WILLEM VAN DRIEL 252 F. 35, 1918 U. S. App. LEXIS 2032, ** (4 th Cir. 1918).

CHALOS & Co, P. C. - Houston George A. Gaitas Factual basis for veil piercing Sabine Towing case fact pattern: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Common or overlapping stock ownership between the parent and the subsidiary; Common or overlapping directors and officers; Use of Same Corporate Office; Inadequate Capitalization of the Subsidiary; Financing of the subsidiary corporation by the Parent; Whether the Parent existed solely as a Holding company for its subsidiaries; The Parent's use of the subsidiary's property and assets as its Own;

CHALOS & Co, P. C. - Houston George A. Gaitas Sabine Towing case fact pattern (cont. ): 8. The Nature of Intercorporate Loan. Transactions; 9. Incorporation of the Subsidiary being caused by the Parent; 10. Whether the Parent and the Subsidiary file Consolidated Income Tax Returns; 11. Decision-Making for the Subsidiary made by the Parent and its Principals; 12. Whether the Directors of the Subsidiary act Independently in the Interest of the Subsidiary or in the Interest of the Parent; 13. The Making of Contracts between the Parent and the Subsidiary that are more favorable to the Parent;

CHALOS & Co, P. C. - Houston George A. Gaitas Sabine Towing case fact pattern (cont. ): 14. Observance of Formal Legal Requirements; 15. The Existence of Fraud, wrong-doing or Injustice to Third Parties. Sabine Towing & Transp. Co. v. Merit Ventures, Inc. , 575 F. Supp. 1442 (E. D. Tex. , 1983).

CHALOS & Co, P. C. - Houston George A. Gaitas Proof in Veil Piercing To obtain the order, and hold on to attachment, : prima facie evidence. Not required to prove the case. Wajilam Exports (Singapore) v. Atl Shipping 475 F. Supp. 2 d 275, 279 (S. D. N. Y. 2006). To prevail on the merits of the veil piercing suit: preponderance of the evidence. Rose Containerline, Inc. v. Omega Shipping Co. (D. N. J. 2011).

CHALOS & Co, P. C. - Houston George A. Gaitas Choice of Law US law applies in all Rule B proceedings in order to maintain uniformity and consistency in the admiralty. Wall Street Traders, Inc. v. Sociedad Espanola, 245 F. Supp. 344, 350 (S. D. N. Y. , 1964); SLS Shipbuilding Co. Ltd v. Ionia Mgmt. S. A. 2011 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 72506, at * 6 -7 (S. D. Tex. , 2011). U. S. law would apply even if we used multi-factor choice of law test: Blue Whale Corp. v. Grand China Shipping Dev. Co. , 722 F. 3 d 488, 499 -500 (2 nd Cir. , 2013.

CHALOS & Co, P. C. - Houston George A. Gaitas Veil Piercing to compel Arbitration Suit to compel alter egos to arbitrate under the Federal Arbitration Act 9 U. S. C. § 4. Not a Rule B proceeding. Preponderance standard of proof. Result incompatible with Rule B veil piercing claim against the same party.

CHALOS & Co, P. C. - Houston George A. Gaitas The End