remedy in the 2014 case, they have obtained full relief and we need not address the issues raised in this appeal. In Docket No. 325471, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings. We dismiss the appeal in Docket No. 327840 as moot. We do not retain jurisdiction. Neither party may tax costs, an issue of first impression being involved. MCR 7.219(A). Stephens and Riordan, JJ., concurred with Murray, P.J. 1 Gallagher v Kaper Props, Inc, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered July 14, 2015 (Docket No. 327840). 2 The Supreme Court has recognized the many social and economic benefits resulting from respecting the corporate form. Klager v Robert Meyer Co, 415 Mich 402, 411 & n 5; 329 NW2d 721 (1982). 3 Nor did Aioi Seiki Inc, 11 F Supp 2d at 953-954 (<HOLDING>). 4 Belleville is the only published case that
recognizing the cause of action recognizing cause of action holding that dismissal is proper for a derivative cause of action but not for a direct cause of action holding that corporation can file an answer when the plaintiffs cause of action is such as to endanger rather than advance corporate interests but not where the cause of action is fraud against the corporate directors holding that because a piercing of the corporate veil action is not a new cause of action but merely a means of determining whether multiple entities exist as separate entities or were mere alter egos of each other it is supplementary in nature to the original action and should be brought pursuant to pr civ p 69a