Lawrence Small formed Seatwo LLC to operate a Burger King restaurant in Wyoming. Seatwo was capitalized by $500 of contributions from its three members: Small, $500; his wife, $125; one of their children, $125. Gasstop Two LLC owned real property, which it leased to Seatwo beginning June 2000. The payments would total almost $1 million over the term of the lease. Seatwo also borrowed $350,000 to obtain furniture and equipment for the new Burger King operation and had a $15,000 line of credit. Unfortunately, Seatwo never turned a profit and ceased operations in October 2003 due to its poor location and lack of customers. Despite operating at a loss, Seatwo had made rental payments to Gasstop until it ceased business in 2003. Gasstop sued Small and his wife for the remaining $237,000 payments under the lease, arguing that the veil should be pierced between the LLC and the Smalls. What grounds did Gasstop use to argue for piercing the veil? Did the court agree with Gasstop?
Answer to relevant QuestionsNew York law required that every taxicab company carry $10,000 of accident liability insurance for each cab in its fleet. The purpose of the law was to ensure that passengers and pedestrians injured by cabs operated by these ...Seven Springs Farm, Inc., is a Pennsylvanian corporation that owns and operates a 5,000-acre, year-round resort, with both skiing facilities and a conference center. The shareholders signed an agreement, providing that no ...Selectica, Inc., a Delaware corporation, provides enterprise software solutions to business. It has never been profitable and has amassed net operating losses (NOLs) that it may use to offset future income for tax purposes. ...Kinetic Solutions, LLC, is an Internet software business with 15 members. Five members are the only managers of the business; the other 10 members are only investors. The five managing members want to sell part of the ...Sutter Ranch Corporation, an Oklahoma farming and ranching family corporation, had a provision in its articles of incorporation that provided the corporation could take action to dissolve only with the approval of 75 percent ...
Post your question