23. In a case based on concurrent jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, the Federal Court applies which law: (6) As to substantive law, the State Law in which the case arose. (6) As to substantive law, the Federal Law found in the State in which the case arose. (c) As to procedural law, whatever the Trial Court believes is necessary to accomplish the desires of the contracting parties. (d) Only the law that is found under those principles based on alienation of rights. (e) Both band 24. Undercapitalization may result in the corporate entity being subject to an action for piercing the corporate veil. To avoid the piercing of the corporate veil, which of the below actions will befound to have provided adequate capitalization to avoid the application of the doctrine: (6) The filing of the requisite Articles of Incorporation and by holding all annual meetings of the shareholders and the board of directors. (b) Undercapitalization does not provide an element necessary for the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil (C) California law and Statutes, most specifically, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2302.6 does not allow for piercing of the corporate veil in the circumstances described herein. (d) By the purchase of adequate insurance coverage, namely a CGL (comprehensive general liability policy) with adequute coverage limits. (e) By retaining legal counsel to draft the initial filing documents, including the initial meeting of the board of directors, such that undercapitalization is a non-issue. 25. The Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction in which of the following matters: Real Property matters between individuals of different states. (b) Bankruptcy matters. (C) Those matters effecting decisions founded under the Uniform Commercial Code Trust and Estate matters. (c) None of the above, as the Federal Government does not have exclusive jurisdiction over any legal matters 23. In a case based on concurrent jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, the Federal Court applies which law: (6) As to substantive law, the State Law in which the case arose. (6) As to substantive law, the Federal Law found in the State in which the case arose. (c) As to procedural law, whatever the Trial Court believes is necessary to accomplish the desires of the contracting parties. (d) Only the law that is found under those principles based on alienation of rights. (e) Both band 24. Undercapitalization may result in the corporate entity being subject to an action for piercing the corporate veil. To avoid the piercing of the corporate veil, which of the below actions will befound to have provided adequate capitalization to avoid the application of the doctrine: (6) The filing of the requisite Articles of Incorporation and by holding all annual meetings of the shareholders and the board of directors. (b) Undercapitalization does not provide an element necessary for the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil (C) California law and Statutes, most specifically, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2302.6 does not allow for piercing of the corporate veil in the circumstances described herein. (d) By the purchase of adequate insurance coverage, namely a CGL (comprehensive general liability policy) with adequute coverage limits. (e) By retaining legal counsel to draft the initial filing documents, including the initial meeting of the board of directors, such that undercapitalization is a non-issue. 25. The Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction in which of the following matters: Real Property matters between individuals of different states. (b) Bankruptcy matters. (C) Those matters effecting decisions founded under the Uniform Commercial Code Trust and Estate matters. (c) None of the above, as the Federal Government does not have exclusive jurisdiction over any legal matters