(finding evidence that creditor’s claim was against a non-debtor entity that maintained a separate corporate existence to be sufficient to pp.2d 491, 501 (E.D.Pa.2008) (“The question is whether the alleged wrong was a result of an active, knowing participation by the defendants.”) (emphasis added); Peerless Heater Co. v. Mestek, Inc., Civ. No. 98-6532, 2000 WL 637082, *11 (E.D.Pa. May 11, 2000) (“The touchstone for personal liability under Pennsylvania case law, therefore, is knowing participation in the tortious conduct.”) (emphasis added). In essence, the corporate officer is treated as a joint tortfeasor with the corporate entity. See, e.g., Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, LP. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., Civ. No. 01-5627, 2002 WL 31834833, at *2 (E.D.Pa. Dec.18, 2002) (<HOLDING>); Kaites v. Com. of Pa., Dept. of Environmental
recognizing that limited liability does not protect corporate officers who may be liable as joint tortfeasors for acts committed in the regular course of the corporations business recognizing the ability of corporations to protect property rights in federal court holding corporate officers and board members liable where they were actively engaged in the management supervision and oversight of the corporations affairs holding that a corporations principal place of business for determining diversity jurisdiction under 28 usc  1332c1 is the nerve center meaning the corporations headquarters or the place where a corporations officers direct control and coordinate the corporations activities holding that under north carolina law a corporate parent cannot be held liable for the acts of its subsidiary unless the corporate structure is a sham