Assignment task:
Select the most accurate summary of the holding in the AZTE, Inc. v. Auto Collection, Inc. case. Piercing the corporate veil and holding Steven Lever individually for the judgments against Auto Collection was an appropriate equitable remedy where there was substantial evidence that Steven Lever commingled funds, did not treat Auto Collection as a separate entity, and used the company as his alter ego. Given that both AZTE and Auto Collection were merchants, AZTE should have been on notice concerning the risk associated with engaging in business with Auto Collection. Although Steven Lever's conduct was less than perfect, piercing the corporate veil and holding Steven Lever individually for the judgments against Auto Collection was not appropriate equitable remedy. AZTE was free to seek a judgment against Auto Collection, however. Although the business of Auto Collection ultimately failed, Steven Lever's decisions in connection with Auto Collection were protected by the business judgment rule. He should not be held personally liable for the results of those decisions.