BHL Bogen

BHL Bogen
BridgehouseLaw LLP - Your Business Law Firm

Friday, June 07, 2019

Social Media Alert – New Regulation Requires Disclosure of Social Media Information on Most Visa Applications

Effective immediately, the State Department has amended the DS-160 and DS-260 application forms and now requires that most visa applicants provide information associated with their online social media accounts, including the types of online providers or platforms, applications and websites used to collaborate, share information and interact with others.  
This new regulation follows a State Department publication from 2018, in which a notice was published of the proposed information-collection requirement.
As a result of this new requirement, DS-160 and DS-260 visa application will now include sections that require the applicant to provide any “identifiers” used by the applicant across multiple social media platforms during the last five years leading up to the application date. In addition to that, applicants will have the option to provide information about social media account outside of what they have already listed.
This new information requested includes but is not necessarily limited to social media and information sharing cites such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter.  For now, the State Department is only requesting the account names of the relevant accounts to be disclosed, which allows the government to access any information that has been shared publically through those accounts by the applicant.
It is important that all current and future DS-160 and DS-260 applicants be aware of these new changes and have all of the necessary information available upon request. Even if a submitted application is already pending, there is a possibility that the information could be requested either through a consular interview or through an RFE requesting the information be submitted, so applicants need to be prepared to discuss and disclose such information as required by the State Department.

2018 Publication:

Caption for Social Media Posts:
Social Media Alert – New Regulation Requires Disclosure of Social Media Information on Most Visa Applications

Thursday, May 09, 2019

Wednesday, April 24, 2019



In a recent North Carolina Business Court decision, the court reviewed whether a breach of contract itself was sufficient to pierce the corporate veil.

Plaintiff Kerry Bodenhamer Farms (KB Farms) and Defendant Nature’s Pearl entered into a written supply agreement for Plaintiff to supply grapes to Nature’s Pearl, a juice manufacturer[1]. The turning point in the relationship was when Nature’s Pearl received a load of grapes which revealed after processing that the alcohol content of the grapes was too high.  Nature’s Pearl notified KB Farms that it was not willing to pay for the grapes because they were not of suitable quality.  The relationship between the parties worsened and Nature’s Pearl notified KB Farms that it was terminating the supply agreement.  KB Farms did not acknowledge the termination and instead continued to supply grapes to Nature’s Pearl. Nature’s Pearl owner Jerry Smith sent a check for the previous load of grapes using the bank account of Le Bleu, another company owned by Smith. KB Farms rejected the check and soon after filed a lawsuit against Nature’s Pearl, Le Bleu, and Smith for breach of contract. KB Farms alleged that Le Bleu and Smith should also be liable because they got involved in the breach of contract when Smith used Le Bleu’s check to pay for the grapes.

In North Carolina, the test for piercing the corporate veil is called the “instrumentality rule.” To pierce the corporate veil the plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the defendant (either an entity or person) dominated and controlled a corporation; (2) the defendant used that domination and control to perpetrate a fraud or wrong; (3) the defendant’s domination and control was the proximate cause of the wrong. The court held that there was insufficient evidence to pierce the corporate veil under the instrumentality test. In the past, the court only pierced the corporate veil when there were other compelling factors aside from the breach of contract. Typically, there must be some evidence of fraudulent or inequitable conduct; for example, evidence that the entity was created only as a puppet entity to limit its liability or for the purpose of entering into the relevant contract. Another common example would be if all of the entity’s assets have been transferred to render it judgment-proof. Here, KB Farms was unable to demonstrate that either Le Bleu or Smith were otherwise engaged in wrongful conduct that would give rise to liability under the Instrumentality Rule. Thus, the court dismissed Le Bleu and Smith from the case.

What are the takeaways from this case?  

Generally, business owners who operate several companies should take special care to observe corporate formalities. Commingling one entity’s assets with another entity’s assets is a significant factor in favor of veil piercing. Here, Le Bleu and Smith narrowly avoided this fate based upon a detailed review of the surrounding facts.  A mere breach of contract was not enough to justify piercing the corporate veil, and Smith’s use of another company’s check did not rise to the level of “commingling” in light of all the evidence presented.

[1] Kerry Bodenhamer Farms, LLC v. Nature’s Pearl Corp., 2018 NCBC 83 (Aug. 15, 2018)