The maneuver can be pierced if the plaintiffs prove that the subsidiary was undercapitalized.

So, a non-corrupt judge may allow this if the maneuver is genuinely done for accounting / management / etc. reasons and the new subsidiary has sufficient capital to cover the liabilities.

A non-corrupt judge may also "allow" it if the plaintiffs never attempt to pierce the veil in the first place. Like a lizard casting off its tail, this may be enough to appease the lawyers representing the class. With the issue never getting to the judge, the judge never has enough information to disallow it.