Which statement concerning the prayer for piercing the veil of corporate fiction is incorrect?

The statement regarding piercing the veil of corporate fiction that is identified as incorrect pertains to the idea that piercing is a substantive right provided by BP 68 available as a matter of right. This is incorrect because piercing the corporate veil is not an automatic or substantive right that can be invoked at will; instead, it is an equitable remedy granted by a court based on specific circumstances. Courts have discretion in these matters and will only grant this remedy if the petitioner can successfully demonstrate that it is necessary and justified based on the facts of the case.

The other statements accurately reflect the nature of piercing the corporate veil. It is indeed a judicial prerogative, meaning that only a court can decide to pierce the veil based on the evidence presented. Additionally, it must be shown that piercing is both necessary and grounded in factual circumstances, which involves looking into the behavior of the individuals behind the corporation and how they have acted in relation to the corporate entity. Lastly, the remedy is primarily equitable, typically available to those with standing to claim that they have been wronged or harmed due to the separation that corporate fiction provides.