RICHARD ROGEL, Individually v. Max Dubrinsky, in his capacity as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Max…

The Honorable James L. Graham, United States District Judge for the Southern District*
of Ohio, sitting by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 09a0473n.06
No. 08-1942
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD ROGEL, Individually and as Trustee of
the Richard H. Rogel Revocable Living Trust, U/A/D
March 21, 1990 as amended in part on March 19,
1992, as amended and restated on November 10, 1994,
and as further amended on April 13, 1997,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MAX DUBRINSKY, in his capacity as the Personal
Representative of the Estate of Max Dubrinsky
(deceased) and as Trustee of the Max Dubrinsky
Living Trust, U/A/D August 10, 2003 as amended,
Defendant,
and
FREDERIC I. KEYWELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
O P I N I O N
BEFORE: COLE and ROGERS, Circuit Judges; GRAHAM, District Judge.*
COLE, Circuit Judge. Defendant-Appellant Frederic Keywell appeals a grant of summary
judgment in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee Richard Rogel. Rogel sued Keywell and Mark Dubrinsky
(who is now deceased and whose estate has not appealed) under Michigan common law for

-- 1 of 11 --

No. 08-1942
Rogel v. Dubrinsky
- 2 -
contribution of their pro rata shares of a debt that each of them had guaranteed but that Rogel repaid
on his own. The debt at issue was incurred by Executive Hotel Group, LLC (“Executive”), a
Michigan corporation the three men formed through their own intermediate business entities.
Executive was governed by an Operating Agreement (also referred to herein as the “Agreement”)
signed in the names of the three business entities. The Agreement contained a limitation on the
entities’ ability to sue one another for contributions of additional capital, and Keywell argues that
this limitation prohibits Rogel from bringing the instant suit. For the following reasons, we
AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment for Rogel.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual background
In early 1997, Dubrinsky and Keywell, citizens of Michigan, and Rogel, a citizen of
Colorado, undertook a business venture developing economy hotels. To carry out the plan, each man
first formed his own business entity: Rogel formed a single-member LLC (the “Rogel Entity”), and
Dubrinsky and Keywell each formed a limited partnership (the “Dubrinsky Entity” and the “Keywell
Entity”) (collectively, the “entities” or “member entities”). The three entities then entered into an
Operating Agreement forming Executive and governing its operation. The three entities were the
members of Executive, and the Operating Agreement was signed in their names, not in the names
of Keywell, Dubrinsky, and Rogel as individuals.
The funding for the project was to be a line of credit obtained from a bank, and the
Agreement was conditioned upon Executive’s ability to secure such funding. Executive succeeded
in securing a $15 million line of credit with Comerica Bank, and Keywell, Dubrinsky, and Rogel all

-- 2 of 11 --

No. 08-1942
Rogel v. Dubrinsky
The parties refer to a $15 million line of credit, although the guaranty documents refer to1
a $20 million line of credit.
- 3 -
signed personal guaranties on the line of credit, as required by Comerica. Only Rogel pledged1
personal assets to secure the loan. Executive drew on the line of credit (in an amount not stated in
the record), and in 2004 Comerica began requiring annual payments of $2 million as a condition for
extending the loan. According to Rogel’s Complaint, when Executive failed or refused to pay the
amounts due within the time required, Comerica demanded repayment under the guaranties, and
Rogel paid the $2 million due each year. He requested reimbursement from Keywell and Dubrinsky
for their pro rata shares, but they refused. Rogel then filed this suit under Michigan common law,
which provides for an implied right of contribution among joint guarantors. As of the time of
briefing before this Court, Rogel had made $8 million in payments to Comerica.
B. The Operating Agreement
Keywell’s defense to Rogel’s suit rests on a particular provision of the Operating Agreement
in which the member entities agreed not to pursue legal action against one another for refusing to
contribute additional capital to Executive under certain circumstances. The provision is found in
Section 2 of the Operating Agreement, entitled “Capital Contributions, Company Percentages and
Related Matters.” Section 2.3 governs “Financing, Additional Capital Contributions and Related
Provisions.” Section 2.3(a) sets forth the requirement that a line of credit be obtained for the
Agreement to be deemed effective (it also contemplates the possibility that Keywell, Dubrinsky, and
Rogel would personally guarantee the line of credit). Section 2.3(b) is entitled “Additional Capital
Calls” and is divided into two sections, one dealing with capital calls “For New Economy Hotels,”

-- 3 of 11 --

No. 08-1942
Rogel v. Dubrinsky
- 4 -
and one dealing with capital calls “For Development and Operating Deficiencies.” The latter
portion, section 2.3(b)(ii), allows a member, such as the Rogel Entity, to send a “Capital Call Notice”
when it believes that additional capital is needed for purposes such as to complete construction of
a hotel when costs are higher than expected, “to meet [Executive’s] obligations in a timely manner,”
or “for any other reasonable purpose whatsoever.” (ROA 49.) Section 2.3(c)(ii) deals with
“Defaults” by the members on capital calls. It states that the Company will only be allowed to sue
members for failing to provide capital in response to a capital call if the purpose of the call was to
raise money to cover unexpected cost overruns in certain specified situations. Otherwise, the
Agreement provides that legal redress is not available against a defaulting member; rather, a member
who issues a capital call that another member chooses not to honor has the option of loaning the
defaulting member’s share to the Company and receiving repayment of that amount, with interest,
over a five-year period. The Operating Agreement further states:
Except to the extent expressly contemplated in this Section 2.3(c)(ii), no Defaulting
Member shall be penalized in any way for failing to deliver all or any portion of its
Share of the additional capital in question, and neither the Company nor any Member
shall have the right to cause a Defaulting Member to deliver its Share of the
additional capital in question or have any remedy against any Defaulting Member for
any failure to deliver all or any portion of its Share of the additional capital in
question . . . .
(ROA 50-51 (emphasis added).) Keywell argues that the language italicized above bars Rogel from
suing the other members to recover their pro rata shares of the money Rogel paid to Comerica under
his personal guaranty of the line of credit.
C. The district court’s decision

-- 4 of 11 --

No. 08-1942
Rogel v. Dubrinsky
- 5 -
Rogel, in his individual capacity, filed suit against Keywell and Dubrinsky in their individual
capacities seeking contribution of their respective shares of his payments to Comerica. In lieu of an
answer, Keywell and Dubrinsky filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the Operating
Agreement expressly prohibited any member of Executive from seeking contribution from the other
members for additional capital contributed to the company. Rogel opposed the motion and also
moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Agreement applied only to the three business entities
that were the parties to the Agreement. In reply, Keywell and Dubrinsky urged the district court to
disregard the fact that neither they nor Rogel, as individuals, were parties to the Operating
Agreement.
The summary judgment motions were referred to a magistrate judge, who found that the
Operating Agreement applied only to the business entities. Seeing no reason to pierce the corporate
veil and apply the Agreement to the individual guarantors, the magistrate judge recommended that
Rogel’s motion for summary judgment be granted. The district court largely adopted the Report and
Recommendation and granted summary judgment to Rogel, finding that Keywell and Dubrinsky
could not meet the second and third prongs of Michigan’s veil-piercing test. The district court was
convinced that there is no reason to disregard the legal distinctions purposely created
between the Entities and the parties to this suit. Each of the parties to this suit signed
the Comerica debt guaranty in [his] individual capacity . . . . There is no reference to
the Entities in the guaranty. The Executive Hotel Operating Agreement clearly
distinguishes between these individuals and the created Entities. Moreover, the
detailed nature of the Executive Hotel Operating Agreement demonstrates that the
documents were carefully drafted. These carefully drafted documents reflect a
deliberate plan to have distinct legal bodies serve as guarantors of the Comerica debt
and as members of the Executive Hotel Group.

-- 5 of 11 --

No. 08-1942
Rogel v. Dubrinsky
- 6 -
(ROA 347.) The district court ordered Keywell and Dubrinsky to reimburse Rogel for their shares
of his payments to Comerica. Dubrinsky died after the judgment was entered, and an amended
judgment named the representative of his estate. Only Keywell has appealed.
II. ANALYSIS
Keywell concedes that an action for an implied right of contribution would normally be
available to Rogel under Michigan law, but he asserts that the Operating Agreement overrides this
common law right. See Wilmarth v. Hartman, 213 N.W. 73, 74 (Mich. 1927) (recognizing that
guarantors can—amongst themselves—contract out of the common law default rule of contribution).
Keywell argues that we should pierce the corporate veil and hold that the restrictions on the Rogel
Entity’s ability to bring suit under the Agreement also bind Rogel himself and that the protections
from suit the Agreement provides to the Keywell Entity also protect Keywell as an individual.
A. Standard of review
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. See Mazur v. Young, 507 F.3d 1013, 1016
(6th Cir. 2007). “Summary judgment is proper if the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party, shows that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith
Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). “The movant has the burden of
showing that there is no genuine issue of fact, but . . . a party opposing a properly supported motion
for summary judgment may not rest upon mere allegation or denials of his pleading, but must set
forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986).

-- 6 of 11 --

No. 08-1942
Rogel v. Dubrinsky
- 7 -
B. Piercing the corporate veil
We recently described Michigan’s corporate-veil-piercing jurisprudence as follows:
Under Michigan law, there is a presumption that the corporate form will be respected.
Seasword v. Hilti, [] 537 N.W.2d 221, 224 (Mich. 1995) (citing Herman v. Mobile
Homes Corp., [] 26 N.W.2d 757, 761 (Mich. 1947)). “This presumption, often called
the ‘corporate veil,’ may be pierced only where an otherwise separate corporate
existence has been used to ‘subvert justice or cause a result that [is] contrary to some
overriding public policy.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Wells v. Firestone, []
364 N.W.2d 670, 674 (Mich. 1984)). Michigan courts will not pierce the corporate
veil unless (1) the corporate entity was a mere instrumentality of another entity or
individual; (2) the corporate entity was used to commit a fraud or wrong; and (3) the
plaintiff suffered an unjust loss. Foodland Distribs. v. Al-Naimi, [] 559 N.W.2d 379,
381 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996) (citing SCD Chem. Distribs., Inc. v. Medley, [] 512
N.W.2d 86, 90 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994)); see also Gledhill v. Fisher & Co., [] 262
N.W. 371, 372 (Mich. 1935). The propriety of piercing the corporate veil is highly
dependent on the equities of the situation, and the inquiry tends to be intensively
fact-driven. Kline v. Kline, [] 305 N.W.2d 297, 299 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981) (per
curiam); see Herman, 26 N.W.2d at 761 (“In determining whether the corporate
entity should be disregarded and the parent company held liable on the contracts of
its subsidiary because the latter served as a mere instrumentality or adjunct of the
former, each case is sui generies [sic] and must be decided in accordance with its
own underlying facts.”).
Servo Kinetics, Inc. v. Tokyo Precision Instruments Co. Ltd, 475 F.3d 783, 798-99 (6th Cir. 2007).
Although “[t]he traditional basis for piercing the corporate veil has been to protect a corporation’s
creditors where there is a unity of interest of the stockholders and the corporation and where the
stockholders have used the corporate structure in an attempt to avoid legal obligations,” Foodland
Distribs., 559 N.W.2d at 381, “Michigan courts have [also] recognized that it may be appropriate
to invoke the doctrine for the benefit of a shareholder where the equities are compelling.” Wells v.
Firestone, 364 N.W.2d at 674. In no instance, however, has a Michigan court invoked the doctrine
for both of these reasons in the same case; that is, no Michigan court has pierced the veil to hold one

-- 7 of 11 --

No. 08-1942
Rogel v. Dubrinsky
- 8 -
shareholder-party liable for the obligations of its corporate entity while piercing the veil of a separate
entity for the benefit of the opposing shareholder-party.
1. Mere instrumentalities
The district court found it unnecessary to resolve this factor, noting that Keywell could not
meet the second and third prongs of the analysis. Because we agree with the district court, we also
need not resolve this prong. We note that doing so would require us to determine both whether the
Rogel Entity was a mere instrumentality of Rogel, and whether the Keywell Entity was a mere
instrumentality of Keywell.
2. Fraud or wrong; unjust loss
Under the second and third prongs of the veil-piercing analysis, Keywell must show that
Rogel used the corporate form to perpetrate a fraud or wrong and that Keywell suffered an unjust
loss as a result. Keywell cannot satisfy these prongs.
Keywell and Dubrinsky were sophisticated businessmen represented by counsel when they
entered into the Operating Agreement. They created distinct corporate entities with the intent that
those entities would be the parties to Executive’s Operating Agreement. When Keywell, Dubrinsky,
and Rogel guaranteed the line of credit with Comerica, they were well aware that they were acting
in their individual capacities. In fact, they were aware of the possible necessity of personally
guaranteeing the line of credit at the time they signed the Operating Agreement (on behalf of their
respective entities), as section 2.3(a) of the Agreement expressly contemplates that the guaranties
would be made by the three men as individuals. By their terms, both the obligations and the

-- 8 of 11 --

No. 08-1942
Rogel v. Dubrinsky
- 9 -
protections contained in the Operating Agreement apply to the member entities themselves, not the
individual owners of those entities.
In seeking contribution from Keywell and Dubrinsky, Rogel did not commit a wrong of the
type that Michigan courts have found will justify corporate veil-piercing, if, indeed, he committed
a wrong at all. While a breach of contract can satisfy this prong of the test, see Servo Kinetics, 475
F.3d at 799-800, Rogel was not a party to the contract, so he cannot have breached it. Nor can
Keywell claim that a contract to which he was a party was breached. Keywell relies heavily on
Montgomery v. Central National Bank & Trust Co. of Battle Creek, 255 N.W. 274, 274 (Mich.
1934). In that case, the plaintiff was the owner of nearly all of the shares of a company that operated
a Tavern (the “Tavern Company”), and the Michigan Supreme Court allowed her, in her individual
capacity, to sue to enforce a contractual clause that would not have been enforceable absent veil-
piercing. The plaintiff had sold the lot across from the Tavern to the defendant using a sale-contract
that contained a promise not to open a competing establishment on the lot. The defendant promptly
breached the promise, arguing that a restriction on the use of land “may not be made in favor of one
not a party to the instrument.” Id. at 275. The Montgomery Court, while acknowledging this general
rule, was willing to “ignore the separate entity of [the] corporation, and to look to the sole owner of
its capital stock as the real party in interest” in order to prevent an obvious injustice and frustration
of the clear intent of the parties. Id. at 275-76 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We are not persuaded that Montgomery supports disregarding the corporate distinctions in
this case. The Montgomery Court pierced only a single veil and might have reached a different
outcome if an additional veil-piercing had been required to not only make the contract enforceable

-- 9 of 11 --

No. 08-1942
Rogel v. Dubrinsky
- 10 -
by the plaintiff but also to make it enforceable against the defendant. Furthermore, the equities of
the Montgomery case clearly weighed in favor of piercing the veil, while here, it is uncertain that
Keywell would be entitled to the result he is seeking even if the veil were pierced: the Agreement’s
limitation on capital-call-collection-suits does not clearly or explicitly extend to suits for contribution
under the individuals’ line-of-credit guaranties.
Other cases in which Michigan courts have pierced the corporate veil have uniformly
required the disregarding of only one corporate entity, and have also presented more compelling
equitable interests than those asserted here. See, e.g., Wells, 364 N.W.2d at 674 (disregarding
corporate distinction between employer and subsidiary where allowing suit would have contravened
public policy behind workers’ compensation statute); Cinderella Theatre Co., Inc. v. United Detroit
Theatres Corp., 116 N.W.2d 825, 826 (Mich. 1962) (piercing corporate veil to prevent lessor from
avoiding contractual obligations by assigning lease to undercapitalized subsidiary); Om-El Export
Co. Inc. v. NewCor, Inc., 398 N.W.2d 440, 444 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986) (not requiring individual to
mitigate damages by deducting his own wages from the corporation’s recovery for breach of contract
where contract clearly contemplated his personal services and he was the whole owner of the
corporation).
Thus, even if Keywell and Dubrinsky intended to shield themselves from the obligation to
pay Rogel for their shares of the loss of his pledged assets in the event that Executive defaulted on
its line-of-credit debt—an intention that is not clearly set forth in the Agreement—they were not
parties to the Operating Agreement, and Michigan law does not support disregarding these carefully

-- 10 of 11 --

No. 08-1942
Rogel v. Dubrinsky
- 11 -
constructed corporate entities, as would be necessary to extend to Keywell any protections the
Keywell Entity enjoyed under the Agreement.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment in favor of Rogel.

-- 11 of 11 --