elderly father who was not active in Tejas’s business. Since 1993, Payne and his father have been the only directors. The record also raises other fact questions as to alter ego; for example, in Payne’s deposition testimony (which was offered in the motion to deny summary judgment) Payne testified that he neither knew his specific title nor who the other directors were. Tejas’s corporate meetings were held at Payne’s car dealership office. The record also shows that Payne used some of his personnel from the dealership to handle bookkeeping functions for Tejas. Moreover, the record reveals that of the $379,510.13 fisted as accounts receivable in Tejas’s balance sheet, $292,162.00 of that amount is allocated as accounts receivable payable to “EM Payne.” See Castleberry, 721 S.W.2d at 272 (<HOLDING>). Payne argues that these facts are not enough
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 holding that the us attorneys office is the alter ego of the united states exercising its sovereign power of prosecution holding that alter ego is shown from the total dealings of the corporation holding an alter ego action could be brought by the debtor corporation under texas law holding jurisdiction over an individual may not usually be predicated on jurisdiction over a corporation unless the corporation is the alter ego of the individual or when the individual perpetrates a fraud