United States Eleventh Circuit

In dispute involving an LED tooling purchase agreement, summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff's claim for intentional interference with business relations, and holding that plaintiff may not hold one of defendants accountable for judgment against non-party creditor by piercing the corporate veil, are affirmed as: 1) under Alabama law, a plaintiff may not pierce the corporate veil against a creditor; and 2) plaintiff cannot establish an essential element of its intentional interference claim.

Appellate Information

• Decided 04/18/2007
• Published 04/18/2007

Judges

• BIRCH, Circuit Judge:, Before BIRCH and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and MILLS, District Judge.

Court

• United States Eleventh Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• James Smith Lloyd, Carl K. Dowdey, III, Thomas Julian Skinner, IV, Lloyd, Gray & Whitehead, P.C., Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Dennis Steverson, Tuscaloosa, AL, for Defendants-Appellees.