United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 9, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-30988
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EMERSON C. NEWMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 97-CR-68-2
--------------------
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Emerson C. Newman appeals from the
district court’s issuance of an injunction prohibiting the disposal
of assets by Newman & Associates, Inc. (N & A), for purposes of
securing the repayment of Newman’s personal restitution debt.
Newman argues that the district court’s application of the doctrine
of reverse veil-piercing of the corporate form was improper in the
absence of any Louisiana authority approving of the practice, and
because the facts of Newman’s case failed to support the district
court’s alter ego analysis. With respect to the latter argument,
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Newman contends, in essence, that N & A’s facial compliance with
various corporate formalities militates against the district
court’s findings.
First, even if there are neither statutory nor jurisprudential
examples of Louisiana applications precisely on point, Louisiana
has long recognized and applied the doctrine of piercing the veil
of single-shareholder, family, and other closely-held corporations
to determine alter ego status, as well as the practice of
disregarding the corporate form once alter ego status is
determined. As for corporate formalities, Louisiana is like
virtually every other jurisdiction in treating the observance or
non-observance of such formalities as but one among several indicia
of alter ego, yet not as controlling in and of itself.
We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the
parties and are satisfied that the district court’s issuance of the
injunction prohibiting the disposal of N & A’s corporate assets did
not constitute an abuse of discretion. See McClure v. Ashcroft,
335 F.3d 404, 408 (5th Cir. 2003); Century Hotels v. United States,
952 F.2d 107, 110 (5th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED.
2