Subsequently, several federal courts referred to the ruling in Seminole Boatyard to hold that a bankruptcy trustee for a corporate debtor does not have standing to bring an alter ego claim on behalf of the corporation because, under Florida law, only a creditor has the right to bring such claim. See, e.g., Mullin v. Dzikowski, 257 B.R. 356, 363 (S.D. Fla. 2000) ("Florida law is clear that a bankruptcy trustee lacks standing to assert such a claim because the money sought to be collected is not owed to the estate, but rather it is owed to the estate's creditors"). However, then the Eleventh Circuit decided Icarus I in 2004.
Under Florida law, the corporate veil can be pierced where there is a showing both of domination or control such as would make a company the alter ego of its parent and of other improper conduct. Seminole Boatyard, Inc. v. Christoph, 715 So. 2d 987, 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), and Mullin v. Dzikowski, 257 B.R. 356 (S.D. Fla. 2000) (both citing Dania Jai-Alai Palace, Inc. v. Sykes, 450 So. 2d 1114, 1121 (Fla. 1984)). In the context of creditor actions, the rule is often stated as mere-instrumentality-plus-fraud: ". . . it must be shown not only that the wholly-owned subsidiary is a mere instrumentality of the parent corporation but also that the subsidiary was organized or used by the parent to mislead creditors or to perpetrate a fraud upon them."