" Id. Such deliberate misconduct can be shown by closely examining the relationship between the shareholder and the corporation—there must be indicators that the corporation was a "mere device or sham to accomplish some ulterior purpose," "evade some statute," "employed by the stockholders for fraudulent or misleading purposes," "organized or used to mislead creditors," or "evade existing personal liability." Id. (citing Steinhardt v. Banks , 511 So.2d 336 (Fla. 4th DCA) (per curiam), rev. denied 518 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 1987) ); Ocala Breeders' Sales Co. v. Hialeah, Inc. , 235 So.2d 542, 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Notably, evidence demonstrating an absence of corporate formalities, lack of equity capital, proof of domination and control, and that a corporation was used as vehicle for personal interests is not "the correct standard" to pierce the corporate veil. SeeBarkett v. Hardy , 571 So.2d 13, 14 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). The key, therefore, is deliberate improper conduct.See id. This is required for all claims to pierce the corporate veil, whether they espouse alter-ego or sham corporation theories.SeeDania, at 1120–21 (collapsing alter-ego theory into piercing the corporate veil doctrine).