Johnson Trucking, Inc., owned by Pat Johnson, charged its fuel purchases to an account at Juice Express. When Johnson Trucking, Inc. was not paid on several jobs, it was unable to pay amounts owed to Juice. Shortly thereafter, Johnson Trucking, Inc. ceased doing business and was dissolved. However, Pat continued to provide trucking services as a sole proprietor. Juice sued Pat Johnson for the unpaid amount - about $35,000. Pat argued that he was not personally liable for corporate debt. What are the factors the court will consider in deciding whether or not to pierce the corporate veil? Should the court pierce the corporate veil? Why or why not?© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 10, 2019, 8:18 am ad1c9bdddf
The court should pierce the veil of Johnson Trucking Inc. Johnson Trucking Inc was owned by Pat Johnson. He was the owner of the dissolved company. Currently, he is continuing to provide trucking services, which is the same service that the dissolved company was providing. Pat Johnson cannot deny that he is using the past contacts of Johnson Trucking Inc to run ...
The answer to this problem explains if the doctrine of piercing the veil applies to Johnson Trucking Inc and its owner Pat Johnson. The references related to the answer are also included.