Shahid Rangoonwala and Syed Saeed Ahmed purchased a Postal Instant Press (PIP) franchise in 1998. In May 1998, they formed Kaswa Corporation, a California corporation, and capitalized it with $40,000. In 2001, Rangoonwala asked PIP whether Kaswa could replace him as the franchisee, but PIP refused. Ahmed sold his equity interest to Rangoonwala in 2001 for $10,000. In 2004, PIP and Rangoonwala became engaged in a dispute, which resulted in an award of $79,810 in PIP’s favor and against Rangoonwala. In 2007, the trial court granted PIP’s motion to add Kaswa as a judgment debtor after concluding that Rangoonwala and Kaswa were alter egos of each other. The court found that Kaswa was undercapitalized and that the corporate assets were commingled with shareholder assets. Should the trial court’s verdict be upheld on appeal? What public policies are implicated? [Postal Instant Press, Inc. v. Kaswa Corp., 77 Cal. Rptr. 3d 96 (Cal. App. 2008).]