Dive into the intricate world of mergers and acquisitions through a captivating legal narrative. Explore the complexities of transferring liability in bankruptcy acquisitions, particularly in cases involving defective products. Unravel the legal precedents set by landmark cases like Nelson v. Tiffany Industries, Inc. (1985), shedding light on the delicate balance between business acquisitions, bankruptcy law, and product liability. Essential reading for entrepreneurs, CFOs, and legal professionals navigating the intricate landscape of M&A.
M&A Stories
April 19, 2018
In the realm of mergers and acquisitions, a crucial consideration is the potential transfer of liability, particularly concerning defective products. A fascinating case from 1985, dissected by the 9th Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals, sheds light on this intricate legal landscape.
The narrative revolves around Stephanie, whose injuries stemmed from a defective grain auger manufactured by Moody, a company that had filed for voluntary reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in 1970. Enter Tiffany, the purchaser of Moody’s assets in a bankruptcy court-approved sale later that year.
The crux of the matter lies in whether Tiffany, as the new owner of Moody’s assets, should bear responsibility for Stephanie’s injuries. A precedent set by the California Supreme Court in Ray v. Alad Corporation (1977) established that a purchaser could inherit liability for defective products made by the seller if certain conditions were met, notably if the buyer compelled the seller to dissolve post-sale, thus foreclosing legal recourse for injured parties.
However, the 9th Circuit’s analysis in Nelson v. Tiffany Industries, Inc. (1985) diverged from the Ray v. Alad precedent. The court reasoned that because Moody had initiated bankruptcy proceedings before Tiffany’s asset acquisition, Stephanie’s remedies were already compromised by Moody’s financial state. Even without Tiffany’s involvement, Stephanie would have faced challenges pursuing legal action against Moody.
This distinction is pivotal: Tiffany’s acquisition occurred against the backdrop of Moody’s bankruptcy, absolving Tiffany of successor liability for Stephanie’s injuries. Crucially, the court underscored that Tiffany’s lack of involvement in Moody’s bankruptcy proceedings further insulated it from liability.
The takeaway is nuanced but essential: a buyer’s liability for defective products hinges on the circumstances. Under California law, if the seller remains operational when legal action is initiated, the buyer may be exposed to liability. However, if the buyer acquires assets through bankruptcy and played no role in precipitating the seller’s financial woes, successor liability is less likely to apply.
In essence, this case underscores the intricate interplay between business acquisitions, bankruptcy law, and product liability, serving as a cautionary tale and a guiding precedent for entrepreneurs, CFOs, legal professionals, and all stakeholders navigating the complex terrain of mergers and acquisitions.
Case Reference: Nelson v. Tiffany Industries, Inc. (9th Cir. 1985) 778 F.2d 533 and can be found at: https://openjurist.org/778/f2d/533/nelson-v-tiffany-industries-inc
By John McCauley: I help people start, grow, buy and sell their businesses.
Email: jmccauley@mk-law.com
Profile: http://www.martindale.com/John-B-McCauley/176725-lawyer.htm
Telephone: 714 273-6291
Check out my book: Buying Assets of a Small Business: Problems Taken From Recent Legal Battles
Recent Comments