[peterhi]

If he can prove that he was saying what he did as an employee of IW then IW, the company, is responsible. The US doesn't necessarily hold that the company and the owner (even a sole owner) are the same. The phrase "corporate veil" is used here. However if it can be shown that AJ was using IW as a he, the person, wants then he can be held liable "piercing the corporate veil"

Keeping the owner and the company separate is a necessity under US law, even for one person companies