when there has been a finding that the debtor is the alter ego of his wholly-owned corporation or similarly a reverse piercing of the corporate veil such that the assets of the corporation are in effect the assets of the shareholder. See Pisculli v. T.S. Haulers, Inc. (In re Pisculli), 426 B.R. 52, 60-62 (E.D.N.Y.2010); In re Diloreto, No. 04-CV-1326, 2006 WL 2974156 (E.D.Pa. Oct. 13, 2006); Freelife Int’l, LLC v. Butler (In re Butler), 359 B.R. 356, 2007 WL 866660, *4-5 (10th Cir. BAP Mar. 19, 2007) (table opin.); United States Trustee v. Zhang (In re Zhang), 463 B.R. 66, 79-80 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2012); Compton v. Bonham (In re Bonham), 224 B.R. 114, 116 (Bankr.D.Alaska 1998); see also Jiminez v. Rodriguez (In re Rodriguez), No. 06-01119, 2008 WL 3200215, *7 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2008) (<HOLDING>); but see Miller v. Scott (In re Scott), 462
recognizing principle but concluding that there was no evidence that debtor was in fact a shareholder of the corporation or that the corporate formalities had been disregarded recognizing that pursuant to the traditional application of the alter ego doctrine corporate form may be disregarded when the corporation is the mere instrumentality or business conduit of another corporation or person recognizing principle holding that  727a2a does not apply to the transfer of the assets of a corporation in which the debtor is a shareholder holding that sole shareholder could recover on behalf of company but not in individual capacity for former shareholder and officers misappropriation of corporate assets