
Dan Brecher
Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Dan Brecher
Date: October 25, 2021
Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comUnder New York law, the general rule is that a corporation that acquires the assets of another is not liable for the claims of its predecessor. However, there are some exceptions to the rule that can result in successor liability. Accordingly, it is important for businesses contemplating a merger or acquisition to understand their potential liability risks.
For businesses buying another business, the good news is that you will typically only assume those obligations and liabilities expressly agreed to in the asset purchase agreement. However, there are some situations where courts can impose liability. In Schumacher v. Richards Shear 59 N.Y.2d 239, 244 (N.Y. 1983), the court held that a corporation may be held liable for the torts of its predecessor if:
Notably, the traditional rule of corporate successor liability and the exceptions to the rule are generally applied regardless of whether the predecessor or successor organization was a corporation or some other form of business organization.
The most straightforward case of successor liability is when the agreement between the seller and the buyer provides that the seller will assume certain liabilities. To avoid any potential confusion, agreements should expressly state what liabilities the successor entity assumes and/or the circumstances under which such assumption must occur. Conversely, buyers seeking to avoid any future liability should ensure that the agreement states that the buyer will not be responsible for the seller’s liabilities, and require that the seller indemnifies the buyer for any pre-closing liabilities.
With regard to implied liability, courts have held that the conduct or representations relied upon by the party asserting liability must indicate an “intention on the part of the buyer to pay the debts of the seller.” MBIA Ins. Corp. v Countrywide Home Loans. Inc, 105 A.D.3d 412 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). However, “where evidence is introduced demonstrating an intent by the asset buyer to pay the debts of the seller, express disclaimers do not preclude a finding of implied assumption of liabilities.” Under New York case law, “[a] finding of an implied assumption is more likely where the asset seller becomes a mere shell as a result of the sale, creating the real possibility that creditors are left without a remedy.”
The “de facto merger” exception is most frequently cited in successor liability claims Under existing New York precedent, “the de facto merger doctrine creates successor liability when the transaction between the purchasing and selling companies is in substance, if not in form, a merger.” As set forth in Martin Hilti Family Trust v. Knoedler Gallery, LLC, 2015 WL 5773895, 17 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), the hallmarks of a de facto merger include:
New York courts have clarified that the first criterion, continuity of ownership, exists where the shareholders of the predecessor corporation become direct or indirect shareholders of the successor corporation as the result of the successor’s purchase of the predecessor’s assets, as occurs in a stock-for-assets transaction.
Another one of the most frequent litigation exceptions to the general rule regarding successor liability is the “mere continuation” exception. Under this exception, the acquirer may be found to be a mere continuation of the seller’s business and, therefore, deemed to have assumed the seller’s liabilities. Factors New York courts will consider when determining whether a corporation is a “mere continuation” of its predecessor include:
The Court will also find successor liability if they find a transfer was a fraudulent attempt to evade creditors. In determining whether a fraudulent conveyance occurred, courts look to what has been termed “badges of fraud,” which are, among other factors:
If it appears that your corporation is going to lose a lawsuit, know this before dissolving the corporation. I sued a corporation that, when the owners decided it was going to lose the case, they dissolved the corporation. I sued them personally and collected. Their mistake: when a corporation is dissolved, it may leave the controlling shareholders of a closely held company open to being sued personally. Dissolving the entity can cause the loss of the protective corporate shield from personal liability.
While not the general rule, the purchase of another business can sometimes lead to costly successor liability. Because each case involves unique facts and circumstances, it is imperative to work with an experienced New York business attorney.
If you have questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Dan Brecher, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-896-4100.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Corporate transactions can have significant implications for a corporation and its stakeholders. For deals to be successful, companies must act strategically to maximize value and minimize risk. It is also important to fully understand the legal and financial ramifications of corporate transactions, both in the near and long term. Understanding Corporate Transactions The term “corporate […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Ongoing economic uncertainty is forcing many companies to make tough decisions, which includes lowering staff levels. The legal landscape on both the state and federal level also continues to evolve, especially with significant changes to the priorities of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) under the Trump Administration. Terminating an employee is one of the […]
Author: Angela A. Turiano
While filing annual reports may seem like a nuisance, failing to do so can have significant ramifications. These include fines, reputational harm, and interruption of your business operations. In basic terms, “admin dissolution for annual report” means that a company is dissolved by the government. This happens because it failed to submit its annual report […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Antitrust laws are designed to ensure that businesses compete fairly. There are three federal antitrust laws that businesses must navigate. These include the Sherman Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Clayton Act. States also have their own antitrust regimes. These may vary from federal regulations. Understanding antitrust litigation helps businesses navigate these complex […]
Author: Robert E. Levy
If you’re considering closing your business, it’s crucial to understand that simply shutting your doors does not end your legal obligations. Unless you formally dissolve your business, it continues to exist in the eyes of the law—leaving you exposed to ongoing liabilities such as taxes, compliance violations, and potential lawsuits. Dissolving a business can seem […]
Author: Christopher D. Warren
Contrary to what many people think, corporate restructuring isn’t all doom and gloom. Revamping a company’s organizational structure, corporate hierarchy, or operations procedures can help keep your business competitive. This is particularly true during challenging times. Corporate restructuring plays a critical role in modern business strategy. It helps companies adapt quickly to market changes. Following […]
Author: Dan Brecher
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!