Madison Corporation sold tractors to Bartlett Corporation. Jessica owns 100 percent of the outstanding shares of Bartlett and serves as the company’s CEO. Six months ago, Madison initiated a breach of contract action against Bartlett because Bartlett failed to pay \($325,000\) to Madison, the amount due on the sale of tractors to Bartlett. The court awarded Madison a judgment for the full amount due (\($325,000).\) After extensive efforts to collect the judgment, Madison realized it was highly unlikely it would collect any funds from Bartlett, which had nominal assets in its possession at the time of the judgment. Consequently, Madison petitioned the court to seek relief by piercing the corporate veil of Bartlett Corporation and collecting the \($325,000\) judgment from Jessica’s personal assets.
In support of its argument to pierce Bartlett’s corporate veil, Madison introduced evidence that Jessica had misrepresented the facts about Bartlett’s financial condition on numerous occasions. For example, Jessica assured Madison that Bartlett Corporation had sufficient cash flow to pay the outstanding balance due, when in fact Jessica knew that Bartlett had less than \($5,000\) in its checking account. Additionally, Madison alleged that Jessica had complete and unbridled control over the operations and finances of Bartlett, which allowed Jessica to use Bartlett’s cash to pay personal expenses totaling more than \($150,000.\) Do you believe the court should allow Madison to pierce the veil of Bartlett Corporation and collect its judgment from Jessica’s personal expenses? Explain?