United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit No. 14- 2112 G A BRI EL F. M A R TI NEZ, Pl ai nt i f f , A ppel l ant , v. V I CTOR F. PETRENKO, D ef endant , A ppel l ee. APPEA L F R O M TH E U N I TED STATES D I STRI C T C O U R T FO R THE DI STRI C T O F N EW H AM PSH I R E [ Hon. J ose ph A. Di Cl er i co, J r . , U. S. Di s t r i ct J udge] Bef or e Howard, Chi ef J udge, Sel ya and Kayat t a, C i rcu i t J udges. Ben j am i n T. Ki ng, w i t h w hom Dougl as, Leonar d & G ar ve y, P. C . was on br i ef , f or appel l ant . Mar t ha Van Oot , wi t h whom J ackson Lewi s, P. C. was on br i ef , for appel l ee. J ul y 6, 2015
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
on hi s FLSA cl ai m. For ot her r easons, t he cour t al so gr ant ed
summary j udgment on Mart i nez' s st ate- l aw cl ai ms. We af f i r m.
I. Background
A. Statutory Background
An empl oyee enj oys t he pr otect i ons of t he FLSA' s
over t i me pay requi r ement s onl y when ei t her t he empl oyee
i ndi vi dual l y or t he empl oyer ' s ent er pr i se as a whol e i s " engaged
i n commerce or i n t he pr oduct i on of goods f or commerce. " 29 U. S. C.
§ 207( a) ( 1) . The bur den i s on t he empl oyee t o pr ove a suf f i ci ent
nexus t o i nt er st ate commer ce as an essent i al el ement of t he cl ai m.
See Chao v. Hot el Oasi s, I nc. , 493 F. 3d 26, 32- 33 & n. 6 ( 1st Ci r .
2007) ( hol di ng t hat cover age i s " an el ement of t he cl ai m, " and
t hat t he def endant s' st i pul at i on r el i eved t he pl ai nt i f f of her
bur den t o pr ove i t ) .
FLSA cover age t r i gger ed by the busi ness act i vi t i es of
t he empl oyer ( of t en cal l ed "ent er pr i se cover age" ) r equi r es a
showi ng t hat t he empl oyer :
( i ) has empl oyees engaged i n commerce or i nt he pr oduct i on of goods f or commer ce, or t hathas empl oyees handl i ng, sel l i ng, or ot her wi seworki ng on goods or mat er i al s t hat have beenmoved i n or produced f or commer ce by any
per son; and ( i i ) i s an ent er pr i se whose annualgr oss vol ume [ "AGV"] of sal es made or busi nessdone i s not l ess t han $500, 000 . . . .
29 U. S. C. § 203( s) ( 1) ( A) ; see al so 29 C. F. R. § 779. 259 ( def i ni ng
" [ w] hat i s i ncl uded i n annual gr oss vol ume") .
Vi ct or Pet r enko i s an emer i t us pr of essor of engi neer i ng
at Dar t mout h Col l ege who f ounded I ce Code LLC, 1 a st ar t - up t hat
commer ci al i zed a de- i ci ng technol ogy Pet r enko had devel oped.
Pet r enko ser ved var i ousl y as a boar d member , boar d chai r , and chi ef
t echnol ogy of f i cer . Mar t i nez, one of Pet r enko' s f or mer gr aduat e
st udent s, began worki ng i n r esearch and devel opment f or I ce Code
i n 2005, and r ose t o t he t i t l e of seni or manager i n 2007. I n
Febr uar y 2010, Mar t i nez became chi ef oper at i ng of f i cer pur suant t o
a wr i t t en "execut i ve agr eement " t hat pr omi sed a $190, 000 sal ary,
t o be pai d i n mont hl y i nst al l ment s.
Because I ce Code was f aci ng si gni f i cant cash- f l ow
pr obl ems, Mart i nez was never pai d i n accor dance wi t h t hi s
agr eement . I nst ead, he i nt er mi t t ent l y r ecei ved par t i al payment of
t he sums owed. On November 3, 2010, t he f our - member board ( whi ch
i ncl uded Mar t i nez, Pet r enko, and I ce Code CEO Roman Zhi gal ov)
unani mousl y2 passed a "speci al r esol ut i on" l i st i ng t he l egal ,
f i nanci al , and oper at i onal chal l enges f aci ng t he company, and
put t i ng Zhi gal ov on war ni ng that , because he had f ai l ed to gener at e
any revenue f or t he l ast si x mont hs whi l e i ncur r i ng over $2 mi l l i on
i n debt , he f aced t er mi nat i on as CEO.
1 The par t i es i n t hei r f i l i ngs spel l I ce Code as bot h "I ceCode"and " I ce Code. " For consi st ency, we use t he l at t er . The companywas pr evi ousl y cal l ed I ce Engi neer i ng LLC.
compet i ng pl ans f or escapi ng I ce Code' s l i abi l i t i es whi l e st i l l
market i ng t he de- i ci ng t echnol ogy ( whi ch was owned by Dar t mout h
and l i censed t o I ce Code) . Mar t i nez' s pr ef er r ed appr oach ent ai l ed
t he cont i nuat i on of I ce Code as a vi abl e ent i t y. For pur poses of
summary j udgment , we t ake as t r ue Mart i nez' s cl ai m t hat he was
unawar e t hat an al t er nat i ve pl an ul t i mat el y pr ef er r ed by Pet r enko,
"Pl an B, " cal l ed f or t he f or mat i on of an ent i r el y new ent i t y t o
l i cense t he t echnol ogy f r om Dar t mout h, r ender i ng wor t hl ess any
equi t y i n I ce Code.
I n l at e Apr i l 2011, Pet r enko t ol d Mar t i nez and Zhi gal ov
t hat he woul d not suppor t or par t i ci pat e i n Mar t i nez' s pr ef er r ed
pl an f or escapi ng I ce Code' s debt s. About t wo weeks l ater , on May
13, 2011, Mar t i nez sent a l et t er t o Pet r enko and Zhi gal ov
i ndi cat i ng t hat he consi der ed t he f ai l ur e t o pay hi m pur suant t o
t he execut i ve agr eement a const r uct i ve t er mi nat i on. 3 He cal cul at ed
t hat at t he t i me, t he company owed hi m$172, 860. 99 i n unpai d wages.
He al so sought t he i mmedi at e vest i ng of hi s 10, 000 equi t y uni t s.
He recei ved nei t her , and thr ough a compl i cat ed ser i es of event s
t hat need not be r eci t ed f or pur poses of t hi s appeal , I ce Code
l ost t he l i cense t o t he de- i ci ng t echnol ogy and, as a pr act i cal
3 Pet r enko wr ot e t o r espond t hat t here had been noconst r uct i ve t er mi nat i on, but whet her or not t her e had been i s notr el evant t o t hi s appeal .
mat t er , ceased t o exi st . The t echnol ogy was l i censed t o a new
ent i t y wi t h whi ch Pet r enko was i nvol ved but Mart i nez was not .
I n August 2012, Mar t i nez brought sui t agai nst I ce Code
and Pet r enko i n di st r i ct cour t , al l egi ng vi ol at i ons of t he over t i me
pr ovi si ons of t he FLSA, vi ol at i ons of New Hampshi r e l abor l aws,
br each of cont r act , wr ongf ul di schar ge, and i nt ent i onal
mi sr epr esent at i on. I ce Code was di smi ssed wi t hout pr ej udi ce when
Mar t i nez f ai l ed t o f i l e a t i mel y r et ur n of ser vi ce. Pet r enko i s
now t he sol e def endant .
I n suppor t of t he FLSA cl ai m, paragr aph 57 of t he
compl ai nt al l eges t hat FLSA cover age was t r i gger ed by I ce Code' s
act i vi t i es, i . e. , "ent er pr i se cover age. " The ent i r et y of t hi s
al l egat i on i s as f ol l ows:
I ce Code was a cover ed empl oyer wi t hi n themeani ng of t he Fai r Labor St andards Act f or
t he per i od r unni ng f r omMarch 1, 2010, t hr oughMarch 1, 2011. I ce Code, LLC, engaged i ni nt er st ate commer ce. Fur t her more, I ce Code' sannual gr oss vol ume of sal es made or busi nessdone exceeded $500, 000. 00 f or t hi s t i me per i od. . . t ot al i ng appr oxi mat el y $719, 391. 46.
The compl ai nt al so al l eges t hat Pet r enko i ndi vi dual l y
qual i f i ed as Mar t i nez' s empl oyer under t he FLSA. See 29 U. S. C.
§ 203( d) . Pet r enko does not di sput e t hi s al l egat i on as i t bear s
on t he FLSA cl ai m i n t hi s appeal .
Pet r enko moved t o di smi ss t he FLSA cl ai m under Feder al
Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) , ar gui ng t hat Mar t i nez had f ai l ed
cl ai ms. 4 Wi t h r egar d t o t he t hr ee of t hose cl ai ms r ai sed on t hi s
appeal , Mar t i nez sought t o pr evai l agai nst Pet r enko per sonal l y f or
l i abi l i t i es al l egedl y i ncur r ed by I ce Code ( whi ch was no l onger a
def endant ) . Mart i nez t her ef ore had t o demonst r ate t hat New
Hampshi r e' s ver si on of t he doct r i ne of pi er ci ng t he cor por at e vei l
al l owed hi m, a company execut i ve and di r ect or , t o st at e a cl ai m
agai nst anot her di r ect or . The di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat Mar t i nez
had not demonst r at ed a t r i abl e i ssue of f act as t o t he
appl i cabi l i t y of t he vei l - pi er ci ng doctr i ne t o Mar t i nez' s cl ai ms.
II. Standard of Review
We revi ew a di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant of summary j udgment
de novo. Li t z v. Sai nt Consul t i ng Gr p. , I nc. , 772 F. 3d 1, 3 ( 1st
Ci r . 2014) . The movi ng par t y i s ent i t l ed t o summary j udgment i f
i t "shows t hat t her e i s no genui ne di sput e as t o any mat er i al f act
and [ i t ] i s ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. " Fed. R.
Ci v. P. 56( a) .
4 Pet r enko had i ni t i al l y ar gued t hat because Mar t i nez' s cl ai munder t he f eder al FLSA f ai l ed, t he cour t l acked subj ect - mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on over t he st at e- l aw cl ai ms under 28 U. S. C. § 1331. The di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat t here exi st ed compl et e di ver si t ybet ween the part i es ( at l east once I ce Code was di smi ssed as adef endant ) , so the cour t had j ur i sdi ct i on under 28 U. S. C. § 1332.Mar t i nez, 2014 WL 109073, at *5- 6.
I d. at 26. Not hi ng i n t hat case, t hough, suggest s t hat a di st r i ct
cour t need l ook f or f act s i n suppor t of a t heor y that was not even
pl eaded. Such a r ul e woul d ef f ect i vel y r equi r e al l l i t i gant s t o
engage i n di scover y based not on what was pl eaded but al so on what
mi ght have been pl eaded. We r ej ect such a r equi r ement .
B. State-Law Claims
Mar t i nez al so appeal s t he di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant of
summary j udgment t o Pet r enko on hi s st at e- l aw cl ai ms f or unpai d
wages under New Hampshi r e Revi sed St at ut es Annot at ed §§ 275: 43 and
44, br each of cont r act , and wr ongf ul di schar ge. 5 New Hampshi r e
l aw gover ns t hese cl ai ms i n t hi s act i on gr ounded on di ver si t y
j ur i sdi ct i on. See Hansen v. Sent r y I ns. Co. , 756 F. 3d 53, 57 ( 1st
Ci r . 2014) .
Mart i nez br ought t hese cl ai ms agai nst Pet r enko
per sonal l y under t he doct r i ne of pi er ci ng t he cor por at e vei l , whi ch
al l ows a per son wi t h a cl ai m agai nst a cor por at i on t o recover f r om
a pr i nci pal of t hat cor por at i on when t he pr i nci pal abuses t he
corporate f orm. 6 See, e. g. , Ter r en v. But l er , 134 N. H. 635, 638-
5 The di st r i ct cour t al so gr ant ed Pet r enko summary j udgmenton Mar t i nez' s i nt ent i onal mi sr epr esent at i on cl ai m, hol di ng t hatMart i nez had not r ai sed an i ssue of f act as t o whet her he hadr el i ed on any mi sr epr esent at i on made by Pet r enko. Mart i nez di dnot appeal t he gr ant of summary j udgment on hi s i nt ent i onalmi sr epr esent at i on cl ai m.
6 Pet r enko concedes t hat vei l - pi er ci ng can appl y t o l i mi t edl i abi l i t y compani es ( LLCs) under New Hampshi r e l aw. See Mbahabav. Mor gan, 163 N. H. 561, 568 ( 2012) ( appl yi ng t he vei l - pi er ci ng
40 ( 1991) ( af f i r mi ng t he l ower cour t ' s deci si on t o al l ow vei l -
pi er ci ng upon a f i ndi ng t hat cor por at e pr i nci pal s "di ver t [ ed]
cor por at e asset s t o thei r benef i t when subst ant i al not i ce of cl ai ms
[ agai nst t he cor por at i on] wer e out st andi ng") . I n gr ant i ng
Pet r enko' s mot i on f or summar y j udgment , t he di st r i ct cour t
r ej ect ed Mar t i nez' s vei l - pi er ci ng theor y on t wo gr ounds, hol di ng
f i r st t hat vei l - pi er ci ng i s not avai l abl e t o al l ow one company
i nsi der t o recover agai nst anot her ; and second, t hat even i f vei l -
pi er ci ng wer e pot ent i al l y avai l abl e, Mar t i nez had not shown an
i ssue of f act as t o whet her Pet r enko had used t he LLC f or m t o
per pet r at e a f r aud on hi m.
Def endi ng t he j udgment , Pet r enko presses t he argument
t hat vei l - pi er ci ng i s cat egor i cal l y unavai l abl e t o cor por at e
i nsi der s under New Hampshi r e l aw. Whi l e many st at es have adopt ed
or come cl ose t o adopt i ng such a r ul e, see 2 F. Hodge O' Neal &
Rober t B. Thompson, O' Neal and Thompson' s Cl ose Corpor at i ons and
LLCs: Law and Pr act i ce § 8: 18 ( r ev. 3d ed. 2014) ( " [ C] our t s r ar el y
per mi t a cor por at i on t o be di sr egar ded f or t he benef i t of i t s own
shar ehol der s. " ) , nei t her part y poi nt s us t o any New Hampshi r e case
l aw on poi nt .
doct r i ne t o a cl ai m agai nst t he pr i nci pal of an LLC) . Becausemost of t he r el evant vei l - pi er ci ng case l aw i nvol ves cor por at i ons,i n t hi s opi ni on we use t he t er m "cor por at e" br oadl y to i ncl udeLLCs.
We see no need t o deci de i n t hi s case whet her New
Hampshi r e l aw per se bar s an i nsi der l i ke Mar t i nez f r om
successf ul l y pi er ci ng t he cor por at e vei l t o hol d anot her i nsi der
l i abl e f or t he cor por at i on' s debt s. Rat her , t he r ecor d her e al l ows
us t o af f i r m on t he di str i ct cour t ' s al t er nat i ve gr ound t hat
Mar t i nez has not made out a case f or vei l - pi er ci ng even i f he i s
not cat egor i cal l y bar r ed f r om doi ng so.
We begi n by observi ng t hat Mart i nez poi nt s t o no case
f r om New Hampshi r e or el sewher e al l owi ng t he pi er ci ng of t he
cor por at e vei l f or a t ype of wr ongdoi ng anal ogous t o t hat al l eged
her e. 7 Under New Hampshi r e l aw, cor por at e owner s ar e not
" [ o] r di nar i l y" l i abl e f or cor por at e debt s. Mbahaba v. Mor gan, 163
N. H. 561, 568 ( 2012) . The common l aw vei l - pi er ci ng except i on t o
t hat r ul e onl y ar i ses when "a shar ehol der suppr esses t he f act of
i ncor por at i on, mi sl eads hi s credi t or s as t o t he cor por at e asset s,
or ot her wi se uses t he cor por at e ent i t y to pr omot e i nj ust i ce or
f r aud. " Dr udi ng v. Al l en, 122 N. H. 823, 827 ( 1982) ; see al so
Ter r en, 134 N. H. at 639- 40.
7 He rel i es on Cheney v. Moor e, 193 Ga. App. 312, 312 (1989) ,i n whi ch vei l - pi er ci ng was used t o al l ow a 50% shar ehol der t or ecover her st ar t - up capi t al when her f or mer busi ness par t ner shuther out of t he busi ness and she l ef t t he company a mont h af t er i t si ncor porat i on; and Sout her n Cal i f or ni a Feder al Savi ngs & LoanAssoci at i on v. Uni t ed St at es, 422 F. 3d 1319, 1331- 32 ( Fed. Ci r .2005) , wher e t he cour t r ej ect ed a bi d by i ndi vi dual shar ehol der st o sue the gover nment f or br each of a cont r act wi t h t hecor por at i on.
Mart i nez obvi ousl y knew t hat I ce Code was a corporat i on,
and t hat i t was I ce Code t hat empl oyed hi m. He t her ef ore t r ai ns
hi s ar gument on hi s cl ai m t hat Pet r enko i nduced hi m t o cont i nue
wor ki ng f or I ce Code by mi sr epr esent i ng t he val ue of i t s asset s.
The al l eged mi sr epresent at i on i s Pet r enko' s st at ement ( accor di ng
t o Mar t i nez) t hat t he 10, 000 uni t s t hat I ce Code gr ant ed t o
Mar t i nez were wor t h " [ s] omethi ng around $2 mi l l i on" even t hough he
knew t hat I ce Code was goi ng t o f ai l . The sequence of event s,
t hough, was t hat dur i ng a board meet i ng, Mar t i nez demanded 10, 000
equi t y uni t s as a condi t i on of cont i nui ng t o wor k f or I ce Code,
and Pet r enko bal ked, st at i ng t hat Mar t i nez' s " r equest seemed ver y
hi gh because t he val ue of t hose equi t y uni t s was ver y hi gh, " i . e. ,
" [ s] omet hi ng ar ound $2 mi l l i on. " 8 The boar d, wi t h Pet r enko i n
agr eement , nevert hel ess acceded t o Mar t i nez' s demand. 9 As t hus
descr i bed by Mar t i nez, hi s of f er t o cont i nue wor ki ng f or 10, 000
8 I n hi s deposi t i on t est i mony, Mar t i nez char act er i zed t heval ue as based on t he per - uni t pr i ce of a recent pr i vat e pl acementmemorandum t he boar d had aut hor i zed, and sai d t hat t he boar dmembers shared a general agr eement about t he uni t s' val ue.
9 Al t hough Mar t i nez ar gues t hat Pet r enko "aut hor i zed" t heconveyance, t he f act s do not seemt o suppor t t hi s char act er i zat i on. The r ecor d shows t he conveyance was di scussed by t he board i nNovember 2010 and J anuar y 2011, and f ormal i zed t hrough a J anuar y2011 agr eement s i gned by Zhi gal ov. Whet her Pet r enko aut hor i zedt he conveyance i s not r el evant t o t hi s appeal , however , becauseeven i f he di d, t hi s aut hor i zat i on does not const i t ut e an abuse oft he cor por at e f or m f or whi ch vei l - pi er ci ng i s avai l abl e.
knew t hat I ce Code di d not own i t s core t echnol ogy, t hat i t owed
"[ s] ever al hundr ed t housand" dol l ar s t o t he act ual owner
( Dar t mout h) , and t hat i t woul d l ose i t s l i cense i f i t di d not
t i mel y pay Dar t mout h what i t owed. 10 However , Mar t i nez says he di d
not know t hat ( agai n, accor di ng t o Mart i nez) Pet r enko had gi ven up
on I ce Code, and was worki ng on Pl an B t o f orm a new ent i t y t o
expl oi t Dar t mout h' s t echnol ogy i n t he event I ce Code' s l i cense t o
t he t echnol ogy expi r ed.
An i ni t i al hur dl e i n t he way of t hi s ar gument i s, agai n,
t he chr onol ogy. Mar t i nez poi nt s t o t wo Febr uary 2011 e- mai l s i n
whi ch Pet r enko descr i bed pr obl ems wi t h Pl an B and i ndi cat ed he was
st i l l t r yi ng t o pur sue "Pl an A, " ( whi ch Pet r enko says was a pl an
t o at t r act new i nvest ment t o I ce Code) ; and an Apr i l 2011 memo
t hat st at es t hat "[ t ] he ef f or t t o r eor gani ze [ I ce Code] began i n
ear nest " i n J anuar y 2011, but suggest s t hat Pet r enko and ot her s
di d not " deci de[ ] t o shi f t t o a pl an- b" unt i l mi d- Apr i l . Not hi ng
i n t hese document s woul d seemt o suppor t Mar t i nez' s asser t i on t hat
Pet r enko had deci ded t o pur sue Pl an B i n November 2010 when
Mart i nez s i gned the equi t y agr eement .
10 Dar t mout h i mposed a May 1, 2011, deadl i ne f or payment oft he debt . I t i s uncl ear exact l y when i t i mposed t hi s deadl i ne,but Mar t i nez admi t s t hat by March 2011, he and Pet r enko had al r eadynegot i at ed "sever al ext ensi ons. "
Even i f a j ur y coul d somehow i nt erpr et t hese document s
t o suppor t Mar t i nez' s cl ai m t hat Pet r enko had deci ded t o pur sue
Pl an B i n November 2010, 11 we woul d see no r eason t o equat e one
cor por at e i nsi der ' s f ai l ur e t o di scl ose t o anot her i nsi der hi s own
pl ans t o gi ve up on a cor por at i on wi t h t he mi suse of t he cor por at e
vei l , at l east wher e t he pl ans i nvol ve no use of t he cor por at e
f or m t o conceal t he pl ans and no r emoval of cor por at e asset s
wi t hout r easonabl e consi der at i on. Per haps such an i nsi der , i n
appr opr i ate ci r cumst ances, may owe a dut y of di scl osur e di r ect l y
t o anot her i nsi der . Whet her t hat i s so we need not deci de.
Mar t i nez has not appeal ed t he di smi ssal of hi s i nt ent i onal
mi sr epr esent at i on cl ai m and ot her wi se pr esses no cl ai m agai nst
Pet r enko di r ect l y, r est i ng i nst ead on hi s at t empt t o hol d Pet r enko
vi car i ousl y l i abl e f or t he obl i gat i ons of I ce Code.
Ul t i mat el y, Mar t i nez' s argument t hat t he vei l shoul d be
pi er ced t o cor r ect an i nj ust i ce f ai l s t o addr ess t he di st i ncti on
bet ween use of t he cor por at e f or m t o pr ot ect t he owner f r om
l i abi l i t y f or an i nj ust i ce per pet r at ed by t he cor por at i on, and an
owner ' s use of t he cor por at e f or m t o pr omot e or per pet r at e t he
i nj ust i ce. New Hampshi r e l aw al l ows vei l - pi er ci ng i n t he case of
t he l at t er . See Ter r en, 134 N. H. at 639. To al l ow vei l - pi er ci ng
11 I n gr ant i ng summary j udgment t o Pet r enko on Mar t i nez' si nt ent i onal mi sr epr esent at i on cl ai m, t he di st r i ct cour t hel d t heycoul d not .
i n t he case of t he f or mer , however , woul d essent i al l y el i mi nat e
t he or di nar y r ul e t hat t he owner i s not l egal l y r esponsi bl e f or
t he l i abi l i t i es of t he cor por at i on. New Hampshi r e case l aw r ej ect s
t he not i on of such a f l i msy vei l . See Dr udi ng, 122 N. H. at 827-
28 ( r ever si ng a l ower cour t ' s pi er ci ng of t he vei l , even t hough a
cl osel y hel d cor por at i on had f ai l ed t o obser ve cer t ai n
f or mal i t i es, "[ i ] n vi ew of t he dear t h of evi dence t hat [ t he
cor por at i on' s pr esi dent ] used the cor por at i on t o pr omot e i nj ust i ce
or f r aud") ; Vi l l age Pr ess, I nc. v. St ephen Edwar d Co. , 120 N. H.
469, 471- 72 ( 1980) ( not i ng t hat vei l - pi er ci ng i s not al l owed si mpl y
because a cor por at i on i s a "one- man oper at i on" i f t her e i s no
evi dence of a f r audul ent conveyance, of suppr essi ng t he f act of
i ncor por at i on, or of mi sl eadi ng t he pl ai nt i f f about cor por at e
asset s) ; Pet er R. Pr evi t e, I nc. v. McAl l i ster Fl or i st , I nc. , 113
N. H. 579, 582- 83 ( 1973) ( hol di ng t hat cr edi t or of i nsol vent f ami l y
busi ness coul d not r ecover f r om def endant s per sonal l y because
t her e was no evi dence def endant s had "suppr essed t he f act of t hei r
i ncor por at i on or mi sl ed t he pl ai nt i f f as t o t he cor por at e
assets"). 12
IV. Conclusion
For t he f or egoi ng r easons, we af f i r m.
12 Mart i nez does not al l ege t hat I ce Code was an al t er ego ofPet r enko, nor t hat Pet r enko f r audul ent l y t r ansf er r ed I ce Codeasset s t o hi msel f , hi s r el at i ves, or an ent i t y he cont r ol l ed.