How have courts interpreted declaratory relief in cases involving a separate entity?

Our high court provided relevant instruction in Riddle v. Leuschner (1959) 51 Cal.2d 574. In that declaratory relief action, the plaintiff was a creditor of the main entity defendant and sought to hold the remaining defendants liable for the debt as alter egos. (Id. at p. 576.) The court reasonably inferred from the evidence that the owners of the debtor entity had transferred its assets to a related entity so that the owners could remain in the same business, and "their manipulations of the affairs of the corporations were designed to foster their own purposes and operated to the disadvantage of [the debtor] and its creditors. Such conduct [was] inequitable within the rule of the cases which permit the disregard of the separate entity of a corporation." (Id. at pp. 581-582.) Riddle, in other words, demonstrates how moving assets among related entities to evade payment of obligations is itself inequitable conduct.