Finding Proof Insufficient to Pierce the Corporate Veil, Suffolk Court Dismisses Breach of Contract Claim
If the unsubstantiated claims of this plaintiff are actually true, then I feel bad for the plaintiff. But, as noted by the Court, therein lies the problem: the allegations are unsubstantiated. In Lecce Penn Co. SPA v. Adrenaline Marketing & Promotions, Inc., the plaintiff sued in breach of contract and fraud to recover over $300,000 that they were purportedly owed. Fair enough. But the plaintiff took it a step further: they tried to sue one of the shareholders of the defendant corporation personally. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, they had no competent proof that this individual did anything that should have resulted in his being held personally liable for the corporate debt; in fact, the plaintiff did not even allege that he did anything that should have entitled them to pierce the corporate veil. The thing that troubles me about this case is simply this: while I can understand that there are instances where the proof you expected to become available to support your claim doesn't materialize, I don't understand how the complaint itself can even fail to have any of the requisite allegations to support a claim seeking to pierce the corporate veil. That's just poor draftsmanship.
Post a comment
Post a Comment to "Finding Proof Insufficient to Pierce the Corporate Veil, Suffolk Court Dismisses Breach of Contract Claim"To reply to this message, enter your reply in the box labeled "Message", hit "Post Message."