In Hulk Hogan vs Gawker Media, how did plaintiff pierce the corporate veil?
<p>In the recent case of Hulk Hogan vs Gawker Media, company founder Nick Denton was ordered to pay $10,000,000 personally.</p>

<p>How specifically did plaintiff pierce the corporate veil?</p>

<p><a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2111332/hogans-amended-complaint.pdf" rel="nofollow">Gawker, Denton, and many others</a> including different Gawker "companies" are defendants as you see in the complaint. After the verdict, 3 defendants (Gawker LLC, Denton, Daulerio) moved for "<a href="http://www.litigationandtrial.com/files/2016/05/Gawker-Motion-for-JNOV.pdf" rel="nofollow">judgment notwithstanding verdict</a>" on all claims against all defendants, also <a href="http://www.litigationandtrial.com/files/2016/05/Gawker-Motion-for-New-Trial.pdf" rel="nofollow">they moved for a new trial</a>. On p. 27 of the latter it indicates that punes were awarded against Gawker, Denton, and Daulerio (the <a href="http://hpc.pinellasclerk.org/hpcdisplay/Documents/26029684-1.tif" rel="nofollow">verdict document</a> indicate this as well). The megapile of documents is <a href="http://hpc.pinellasclerk.org/hpcdisplay/default.cshtml?page=1" rel="nofollow">here</a>. So they didn't pierce the veil, they skewered everybody in the room. </p>

litigation