spent way too long just now trying to find the origin of the phrase "piercing the veil." It's so ubiquitous in the legal parlance that I just always assumed it was from Paradise Lost or something.
Apparently, there's no clear early usage—the nearest available is a reference in Plutarch to "lifting the veil." This phrasing honestly makes a lot more sense from a writing standpoint, because that it is what people do with veils—it's honestly pretty unhinged behavior to pierce one.
Instead, it seems to have arisen in the exact same corporate law context that I use it in. Apparently, most normals don't use it at all. I just asked the guy at the checkout at CVS and he had no idea. Or at least, that's how I interpreted the exaggerated eyeroll and sigh.
This brings me to Judge Burke's opinion in Duvall Espresso IP Enforcement, LLC v. Meticulous Home, Inc., C.A. No. 24-22-CJB (D. Del. Mar. 2, 2026). The plaintiff there filed infringement claims against a corporate entity ("Meticulous Home") and its sole owner/founder/CEO Mr. Pendas.
Mr. Pendas moved to dismiss, arguing that the complaint failed to plead facts sufficient to pierce the corporate veil and find Mr. Pendas liable. Plaintiffs argued that they didn't need to pierce the veil, they only needed to plead that a corporate officer like Mr. Pendas participated in the infringement.
Judge Burke sided with the plaintiffs:
After a careful review of the caselaw in this area, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that a corporate officer/owner may be personally liable for his own acts of direct infringement, even if he committed those acts as part of his work for the corporation.
Id. at 9.
As to the specific allegations in the case, the Court found ...
