The trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion to amend the judgment (which confirmed an arbitration award in plaintiff’s favor against two LLCs) to add two individual defendants as the LLCs’ alter egos.  Two elements are needed to prove alter ego statues:  unity of interest and ownership and inequity resulting from treating the acts of the corporate entities as theirs alone.  Here, the trial court erred in finding against plaintiff on each of these elements.  As to unity of interest, though the LLCs were duly registered during the litigation, they weren’t during the time the wrongful acts occurred.  There was evidence that the individuals used the LLC’s intangible property (customer names, etc.) for the benefit of the individuals’ other businesses–i.e., for the individuals’ personal use, not the LLC’s.  That the individuals did not use the LLCs as a sham, in bad faith, or to defraud did not shield them from alter ego status.  It was enough that they used the LLCs for some other wrongful or inequitable purpose.  Here, an inequitable result would be created if the LLCs’ separate existence were recognized.  While difficulty in collecting a judgment alone is not enough, here the individuals transferred $1.3 million from the LLCs to themselves shortly after judgment to avoid execution.  No greater showing of inequity is required for alter ego in the context of a contract action, and in any event, in this case there were findings of tortious conduct by the LLCs.