determines whether the debtor has a valid ownership interest in the property. Once the foreign debtor establishes an interest in the property, the law of the jurisdiction where the foreign proceeding is pending determines whether such interest becomes property of the bankrupt estate. See Koreag, Controle et Revision S.A. v. Refco F/X Assocs., Inc. (In re Koreag), 961 F.2d 341, 348 (2d Cir.1992). 19 . Castleberry v. Branscum, 721 S.W.2d 270, 272 (Tex.1986). 20 . Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Ex-Im Services Corp., 920 S.W.2d 393, 395-96 (Tex.Ct.App.1996). 21 . Piercing the corporate veil in “reverse” has been recognized in many jurisdictions as an equitable doctrine used to prevent injustice by corporate principals. See e.g. Stoebner v. Lingenfelter, 115 F.3d 576, 580 n. 4 (8th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Scholes v. Lehmann, 56 F.3d 750, 758 (7th
recognizing reverse piercing when other shareholders and creditors are not adversely affected holding a shareholders cause of action accrued for statute of limitations purposes when shareholders and directors of a company asserted a right to stock which was hostile to the plaintiffs claim to the stock holding that derivative actions do not require the support of a majority of shareholders or even all of the minority shareholders holding that even where no attorneyclient relationship exists between a shareholder and the corporate attorney this does not necessarily mean that the law firm had no fiduciary duty to the shareholder and observing that instances in which the corporation attorneys stand in a fiduciary relationship to individual shareholders are obviously more likely to arise where the number of shareholders is small in such cases it is not really a matter of the courts piercing the corporate entity recognizing that when a corporation is insolvent the trust fund doctrine fundamentally alters the relationship between a corporation its shareholders and its creditors and that corporate or shareholder ratification does not apply to creditors who would be prejudiced thereby