Breaching the corporate veil is definitely possible. An article from 1991 mentions ~2000 cases where it was attempted, 40% of which were successful[1]. However,

Breaching the corporate veil is definitely possible. An article from 1991 mentions ~2000 cases where it was attempted, 40% of which were successful[1]. However, this is much more common with smaller and more closely held corporate entities. None of the piercings attempted against public companies were successful. If I were in Benchmark's shoes I would not be particularly worried about that. I think personal liability for their director is a somewhat more likely concern in the same vein. Smith v Van Gorkam[2] is a relevant case for that. Intentional misconduct is definitely something that can trigger this. I'm not sure that getting their obliviousness on the record is a particularly helpful defense against this though. Overall, I doubt this theory is a major motivation on Benchmark's part. Benchmark obviously has billions at stake here and has also obviously concluded Kalanick is toxic to those billions. Seems reason enough to me for scorched earth legal tactics. [1] http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3501&context=clr http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Van_Gorkom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Van_Gorkom