Macey and Mitts (2014) have constructed a rational framework for conceptualizing the circumstances in which it is Page 6 of 19  appropriate and consistent with sound public policy to pierce the corporate veil.
Their hypothesis is that the corporate veil will be pierced if, and only if, doing so is required for any one of the following three reasons: (1)  to achieve consistency and  compliance with the goals of a clear and specific extant regulatory or statutory scheme such as environmental law or unemployment law; (2) when there is evidence of fraud or misrepresentation by companies or individuals trying to obtain credit (and particularly where such misrepresentations lead a creditor erroneously to think that an individual shareholder of a company is guaranteeing what ostensibly is corporate indebtedness); (3) when respecting the corporate form facilitates or enables favouritism among claimants to the cash flows of a firm and thus is inconsistent with the well-established bankruptcy law value of achieving the resolution of a bankrupt’s estate that conforms both to contract law principles and to the priorities among claimants established by state law.