dismissed their claims and their requests for injunctive relief

Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document 118 Filed 06/26/12 Page 46 of 56Defendants now renew their motion for summary judgment onthe alter ego theory of liability on the ground that there is noequitable basis for piercing the corporate veil. In support oftheir motion, Defendants supplied the Court with 2005 financialinformation demonstrating the market capitalization and assetsof EIIL. (2005 Heck Decl., Exs. E, F). Although awkwardlyphrased, this “equitable basis” motion touches on both thedomination and fraud or wrong prongs discussed above.First, Defendants argue that UCIL/EIIL is and always hasbeen an adequately capitalized corporation, negating anyinference that UCIL was merely a dummy or shell corporation usedto carry out UCC business. See TNS Holdings, Inc. v. MKI Sec.Corp., 703 N.E.2d 749, 751 (N.Y. 1998) (“An inference of abusedoes not arise . . . where a corporation was formed for legalpurposes or is engaged in legitimate business.”). Plaintiffsrespond that EIIL has lost approximately one-third of its valuesince 2005 and would be unable to pay class damages or implementequitable relief. However, the Court reiterates that “EIIL’seconomic viability is not important for the purpose of lookinginto the future to see if EIIL can pay a specific dollar amountof damages. EIIL’s financial status is material to the extentit sheds light on EIIL’s legitimacy as a corporation. If, forexample, EIIL were now defunct or had a negligible net worth, aninference of abuse would arise.” Sahu II, 2006 WL 3377577, at46