Reversing a directed verdict for the defendants, a state appeals court found that it should be up to a jury to decide whether piercing the corporate veil is appropriate where a corporation is alleged to have diverted funds owed to creditors.

The Tennessee Court of Appeals reviewed a case appealed by a subcontractor plaintiff, who entered into a work agreement with DJ Exteriors, a construction company providing masonry, siding and roofing services. After the company failed to pay for the work completed and they took cash distributions instead, the plaintiff, Ruben Estrada, filed claims for breach of contract, arguing on appeal that piercing the corporate veil, fraudulent conveyance and punitive damages were appropriate.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]