We can’t say it better than Mack Sperling did about eight months ago: "If you are thinking of designating a case to the Business Court because the Complaint raises allegations that the corporate veil should be pierced, stop. Those types of allegations, without more, aren’t enough to invoke the mandatory jurisdiction of the Court. "
In case you’re wondering, the Business Court has not changed its mind since November. Earlier today, in Bullard v. Liberty Healthcare Services of Mary Gran Nursing, LLC, Judge Tennille on his own motion denied the Defendants’ designation of the matter as a mandatory complex business case. As the Court stated unequivocally, "Piercing the corporate veil alone is insufficient to establish mandatory jurisdiction." It is not the first time, or even the second time, the Court has made that statement.
The Notice of Designation contained a number of allegations regarding the potential complexity of the matter. By remanding the case, the Business Court has reiterated that, when it comes to mandatory jurisdiction, the question is whether the matter fits into one of the "business" categories of Section 7A-45.4 of the General Statutes, regardless of complexity. Rule 2.1 designation remains available for cases in which complexity (plus some business relationship) makes up for a case not fitting within the statute.