Term Paper: Bart Arconti and Sons, Inc. Et Al. Vs. Ames Ennis

Pages: 3 (761 words)  ·  Bibliography Sources: 0  ·  Topic: Business - Law  ·  Buy This Paper


The issue here is that the two involved gentleman, Bart and George, were found to be responsible for punitive and compensatory damages based on the lower court's ruling that a fine of over $475,000 be imposed upon the two of them. The setting is that the two gentlemen being sued were owners and controllers of three separate legal business entities. A number of years ago the decision was made to allow one of the entities to remain dormant, since it was being litigated against. The gentlemen would continue to run the other two entities as legal businesses.

At the trial level, the finding was against the two gentlemen, essentially stating that the business entities were not separate at all, but were created to shield the assets maintained by the two gentlemen. This, the trial found, was illegal and the court therefore found that the purpose of these activities had been to "evade legal obligations devolving upon Arconti during the pendency of the present action." Other actions taken by Bart and George, the two defendants in this case, included using all the assets of Arconti to conduct business of the other two entities, as well as transferring an insurance policy with a surrender value of approximately $38,000 from Arconti to the two men. The court decided that since these actions ultimately was the cause of Arconti becoming essentially 'insolvent', then the court was able to 'pierce the corporate veil' in this case and found against the two gentlemen, holding them responsible for any fines and damages levied by the court against Arconti.

As authority for its action, the court relied exclusively on Brune, Maryland Corporation Law and Practice, a 371 (rev. ed. 1953). The appellate court found that the trial court's findings were based on erroneous assumptions and, therefore, reversed the trial court's findings, no longer holding Bart and George responsible for the fines levied against them and Arconti. Instead, Arconti (the company), was held liable for the fines and damages as levied by the trial court.

The reasons for the reversal against Bart and George according to the appellate court's findings were based on the contention that Bart and George are not individually responsible under a theory of tortious interference with the subcontracts; and that Bart and George did… [END OF PREVIEW]

Immelt Et Al. ). Becht ) Term Paper

Findley Et Al. ) Utilize an Analytical Research Paper

Fresco Et Al. ) Self -- Regulation Article Review

Kershaw, T. Et Al. ). The Skinny Essay

Maercker Et Al. ) Cite Research Essay

View 1,000+ other related papers  >>

Cite This Term Paper:

APA Format

Bart Arconti and Sons, Inc. Et Al. Vs. Ames Ennis.  (2007, October 17).  Retrieved August 23, 2019, from https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/bart-arconti-sons-inc-et-al-ames-ennis/2731

MLA Format

"Bart Arconti and Sons, Inc. Et Al. Vs. Ames Ennis."  17 October 2007.  Web.  23 August 2019. <https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/bart-arconti-sons-inc-et-al-ames-ennis/2731>.

Chicago Format

"Bart Arconti and Sons, Inc. Et Al. Vs. Ames Ennis."  Essaytown.com.  October 17, 2007.  Accessed August 23, 2019.