NetJets Aviation, Inc. v. LHC COMMUNICATIONS, LLC Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A company’s sole owner used it as a personal piggy bank, commingling funds and siphoning assets. When the company defaulted on a contract, the creditor sought to pierce the LLC veil. The court found sufficient evidence of domination and injustice to allow the claim against the owner to proceed to trial.
Legal Significance: The case clarifies the two-prong test for piercing the veil of a Delaware LLC under the alter ego theory, emphasizing that evidence used to show domination (prong one) can also be used to show the requisite injustice or unfairness (prong two).
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
LHC Communications, LLC (“LHC”), a Delaware limited liability company, was solely owned and controlled by Laurence Zimmerman. LHC entered into lease and management agreements with NetJets for a fractional interest in an aircraft. Zimmerman, who was the sole decision-maker for LHC, pervasively commingled his personal finances with LHC’s. He frequently transferred funds between LHC, his personal accounts, and his other companies without any formal agreements or procedures, treating LHC’s funds as his own. Zimmerman used LHC funds to pay for millions in personal expenses, including margin calls on his personal brokerage accounts, a Bentley automobile titled in his name, and maintenance on his personal residence. After LHC accrued a debt to NetJets of over $340,000, it acknowledged the debt but failed to pay and subsequently ceased operations. NetJets sued LHC for the debt and also sued Zimmerman personally, seeking to pierce the LLC veil and hold him liable as LHC’s alter ego. The district court granted summary judgment to Zimmerman, finding insufficient evidence of injustice.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Under Delaware law, is evidence that a sole member-owner completely dominated an LLC, commingled funds, siphoned assets for personal use, and rendered the company insolvent sufficient to create a triable issue of fact on both prongs of the alter ego test for piercing the limited liability veil?
Yes. The court vacated the summary judgment for Zimmerman, holding that NetJets Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Under Delaware law, is evidence that a sole member-owner completely dominated an LLC, commingled funds, siphoned assets for personal use, and rendered the company insolvent sufficient to create a triable issue of fact on both prongs of the alter ego test for piercing the limited liability veil?
Conclusion
This case provides a clear framework for applying the corporate law doctrine Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ul
Legal Rule
To pierce the veil of a Delaware LLC under an alter ego Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, se
Legal Analysis
The Second Circuit, applying Delaware law, conducted a thorough analysis of the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A breach of contract claim is not duplicative of an account