court correctly determined that plaintiffs allegations did not constitute “improper conduct” as described in Amfac Foods. Lockhart is correct. Although “improper conduct” can include a failure to adequately capitalize a corporation, id. at 109, the Supreme Court has explained that the real underpinning of Oregon veil-piercing cases is some form of “moral culpability.” See id. at 108 (quoting Schlecht v. Equitable Builders, 272 Or 92, 97-98, 535 P2d 86 (1975)). The court has since explained that the term “moral culpability” is but one way of describing the type of improper conduct needed to pierce the corporate veil and refers to “dishonest or deceitful conduct intended to harm a third party.” State ex rel Neidig v. Superior National Ins. Co., 343 Or 434, 459-63, 173 P3d 123 (2007) (<HOLDING>). The court has cited as examples the
holding dismissal with prejudice is appropriate remedy for failure to timely file undertaking holding that partys failure to file a timely internal administrative appeal as required by regulations of the department of agriculture constituted failure to exhaust administrative remedies and precluded judicial action holding failure to timely file statement of points does not forfeit issues on appeal holding that failure to file timely and accurate forms and make required deposits in order to evade governmental regulation was improper conduct holding that debt or who failed to file income tax returns and failed to pay tax satisfied  523alcs conduct requirement despite no affirmative conduct to evade taxes