the controlling shareholders used for personal and unrelated business activity). In other cases, the controlling party strips the assets from a previously legitimate corporation in order to avoid satisfying preexisting obligations that the corporation incurred in the ordinary course of business. See, e.g., Matter of Arbitration between Holborn Oil Trading Ltd. & Interpetrol Bermuda Ltd., 774 F.Supp. 840, 847 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (Leisure, J.) (“It is clear that proof of a stripping of the assets of the subsidiary by the parent, motivated by a desire to render the subsidiary judgment proof, would constitute a ‘fraud or wrong’ justifying piercing of the corporate veil.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Rebh v. Rotterdam Ventures Inc., 252 A.D.2d 609, 611, 675 N.Y.S.2d 234 (3d Dep’t 1998) (<HOLDING>). As discussed below, AFTC’s .veil-piercing
holding that issues not argued specifically and distinctly in a partys opening brief are waived internal quotation marks and citations omitted holding that opponent claiming prejudice from rule 15b amendment must show that a partys failure to plead an issue it later presented must have disadvantaged its opponent in presenting its case internal quotation marks omitted recognizing that a controlling partys scheme to denude a corporation of its assets in order to render it unable to honor its obligations would justify piercing the corporate veil internal quotation marks omitted holding that compliance with rule 3 is both a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite to appeal internal quotation marks omitted recognizing that to survive dismissal a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter accepted as true to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face internal quotation marks omitted