▁as ▁at ▁the ▁Federal ▁Court ▁of ▁App e al . ▁ ▁South c ott ▁had ▁argued ▁that , ▁as ▁a ▁single - pur pose ▁company , ▁it ▁was ▁im pec un ious ▁and ▁unable ▁to ▁mit ig ate ▁without ▁significant ▁capital ▁invest ment ▁of ▁the ▁parent ▁company ▁or ▁without ▁the ▁corpor ate ▁mand ate ▁to ▁do ▁so . ▁In ▁addition , ▁it ▁would ▁be ▁reason ably ▁for ese e able ▁to ▁those ▁contract ing ▁with ▁a ▁single - pur pose ▁corpor ation ▁that ▁such ▁an ▁entity ▁would ▁have ▁finite ▁resources ▁and ▁a ▁conf ined ▁corpor ate ▁mand ate . ▁This ▁was ▁held ▁to ▁be ▁ins u fficient : ▁▁ ▁The ▁claims ▁rel ating ▁to ▁specific ▁performance ▁and ▁dam ages ▁were ▁prem ised ▁upon ▁resources ▁that ▁were ▁not ▁tied ▁up ▁as ▁a ▁result ▁of ▁the ▁bre ach ▁alleg ed , ▁which ▁in ▁this ▁case ▁did ▁not ▁affect ▁South c ott ’ s ▁ability ▁to ▁obtain ▁capital . ▁ ▁In ▁the ▁absence ▁of ▁actual ▁evidence ▁of ▁im pec un ios ity , ▁finding ▁that ▁losses ▁cannot ▁be ▁reason ably ▁avoided ▁simply ▁because ▁it ▁is ▁a ▁single - pur pose ▁corpor ation ▁within ▁a ▁larger ▁group ▁of ▁companies , ▁would ▁give ▁an ▁unf air ▁advantage ▁to ▁those ▁conduct ing ▁business ▁through ▁single - pur pose ▁corpor ations . ▁ ▁As ▁a ▁separate ▁legal ▁entity , ▁South c ott ▁was ▁required ▁to ▁mit ig ate ▁by ▁making ▁dil igent ▁efforts ▁to ▁find ▁a ▁substitute ▁property , ▁because ▁those ▁who ▁choose ▁the ▁benefits ▁of ▁incorpor ation ▁must ▁bear