2011 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
1-21-2011 

# W i lli am E inhorn v

. M L Rub e r t on C ons tr C o P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-4204

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2011 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" W i ll i am E inhorn v

. M L R ube r t on C on s tr C o " (2011). 2011 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1877. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011/1877P RE CE DE NT I AL U N I TED STA TES C O U RT O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 09- 4204

WI L L I AM J
. E I NHORN, A dm i ni s tr at orof the T E AM S T E RS P E NS I ON T RU S T F UND OF P HI L ADE L P HI A & VI CI NI T Y a n d th e TEAM STERS HEA LTH A ND W ELFARE T RU S T F UND OF P HI L ADE L P HI A & VI CI NI T Y, A ppel l ant v. M
. L
. RU BE RT ON C ONS T RU CT I ON C OM P ANY

v. R O N A L D L . T O B IA , E S Q .; TOBI A & S ORGER E S QUI RES , LL C; DAVI D M
. DE CL E M E NT , E S Q.
O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D
. C
. N o. 1- 06- cv- 02511) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J os eph E. I r enas
A r gued Sept ember15, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , B A R R Y , and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: J anuary21, 2011)

____2 Jo B e n n e tt Fr ank C
. Sabat i no ( A r gued) St evens & L ee Phi l adel phi a, PA l 9l 03 A t t orney s forA ppel l ant M el i s s a C
. A ngel i ne L aw r en H
. B r i s coe J onathan Landes m an ( A r gued) G eor ge E. Pal l as C ohen, Segl i as , Pal l as , G r eenha l l & Fur m an Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 A t t orney s forA ppel l ee M
. L
. R ubert on C ons truct i on C om pany D avi d M
. K upfer( A r gued) C a rro ll, M c N u lty& K u ll B as ki ng R i dge, N J 07040 A t t orneyforA ppel l ee Ronal d L
. T obi a, E s q.

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT
S L O V IT E R , C i r cui tJudge
. T h is a p p e a l as k s u s to c o n sid e r th e c irc u m sta n c e s in w hi ch a pur chas erof as s et s bear s l i abi l i tyfordel i nquent empl oy ee be nefi tfund contr i but i ons underthe Em pl oy ee R e tirem e n t In c o m e S e c u rityA c t (“ E R IS A ” ) a s a su c c e ss o r in i nter estt o the sel l er of tho se ass et s. A pp el l ant W i l l i am J. E i nhorn, on behal f of e m pl oy ee be nefi tfunds es t abl i s hed pur s uantt o E R I SA , br oughts ui tt o r ecove runpai d contr i but i ons f ro m A p p e lle e M .L . R u b e rt o n C o n s tru c tio n C o m p a n y . A c c o rd in g to E in h o rn , R u b e rto n w a s o b lig a ted to c o n trib u te to the bene fi tfunds undertw o col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement s as a su c c e ss o r e m p lo y e r to th e o rig in a l sig n a to ry , S tate w id e H i-W e s etfor th onl y tho se fa ct s thatar e r el evantt o our 1 h o ld in g . A s d isc u ss e d b e lo w , b e c a u se w e w ill re m a n d th is c a se to th e D is trict C o u rt to re so lv e d isp u ted iss u e s w ith re sp e c t to R ubert on’ s cont i nuat i on of St at ew i de’s b us i nes s , w e nee d notgo i nt o gr eatdet ai l her e. 3 W aySafety , I nc. T he D i s tr i ctC our tappl i ed the tr adi t i onal comm on l aw rul e of s ucce s s or s hi p l i abi l i ty , found thatR ubert on w as n o t a co n ti n u ati o n o f S tat ew ide, an d g ran ted R u b erton ’s m oti on for sum m aryj ud gm ent. E i nh orn app eal s. 1 I. E i nhorn i s the A dm i ni s tr at orof the Team s t er s Pens i on T ru st F u n d a n d W e lf

a re F u n d o f

P h ilad e lp h ia a n d V icin ity ( col l ect i vel y , “the Funds ”)
. T he Funds ar e mul t i empl oy er benef i tpl ans es t abl i s hed pur s uantt o var i ous pr ovi s i ons of E R I SA , 29 U
. S. C
. § 1001 et s eq. , and Sect i on 302( c) ( 5) of the L a b o r M a n a g e m e n t R e la tio n s A c t ( “ L M R A ” ), 2 9 U .S .C . § 1 8 6 (c)(5). S tate w id e , a h ig h w a yc o n stru c tio n c o m p a n yw ith fac i l i t i es i n N ew J er s ey , pl ay s an i nt egr al r ol e i n the di s put e, al though i ti s nota partyt o thi s l aw s ui t
. U ndertw o col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement s ( “C B A s ”) w i th T eamst er s L ocal U ni on N o. 676, St at ew i de w as r equi r ed t o m ake c ontr i but i ons t o the F un ds. I n 2005, St at ew i de fa ced a s er i es of fi nanci al har ds hi ps a n d th e p ro sp e c t o f

b e in g d e b a rre d f

ro m p u b lic c o n tra c t w o rk in N ew J er s eybas ed on al l egat i ons of fr aud. M eanw hi l e, the Funds began a n audi tof St at ew i de’ s payr ol l r ecor ds , w hi ch r evea l ed del i nquenci es ow ed underthe af or ement i oned C B A s . T he d e lin q u e n c ies , inc lu d in g liq u id a ted d a m a g e s, to tale d c lo se to $600, 000. A r ound thi s t i m e R ubert on, a gene r al cons truct i on company , l earned of St at ew i de’ s fi nanci al di ffi cul t i es and enter ed int o n ego t i at i on s w i th S t at ew i de fo r R ub ert on ’s pu rchase of St at ew i de’ s as s et s . L ocal 676 l earned of the pot ent i al tr ans act i on and fi l ed s ui tforan i nj unct i on beca us e i tfea r ed thatT h e o n lyliab ili tyo f S tate w id e ’s th a t R u b e rto n e x p re ss ly 2 as s um ed dur i ng the sale w as an out s t andi ng bal ance of $160, 000 4 Ru b e r t o n , a n o n - u n i o n e mp l o y e r , wo u l d n o ta g r e e t o b e c o me partyt o St at ew i de’ s C B A s . T he D i s tr i ctC our ti s s ued a t empora r yr es tr ai ni ng or der( “TR O ”) enj oi ni ng cons um m at i on of the s al e. Soon aft erthe TR O w as i s s ued, negot i at i ons began among L ocal 676, St at ew i de, and R ubert on, thi s t i m e w i th the uni on’ s r i ght s r epr es ent ed. A t th e f ir st m ee ti n g , E inh o rn d iscu ssed S tat ew ide’s del i nquentcontr i but i ons t o the Funds w i th St at ew i de’ s Pr i nci pal O ffi cerG eor ge Sm i th J r . and R ubert on’ s Pr es i dentA ndr ew B ere n ato. B ere n ato testi fied that at th at m ee ti n g h e h ea rd E i nhorn t el l Sm i th thatSt at ew i de ow ed the Funds “abouta hal f a m i l l i on do l l ars . ” A pp . at16 9. S om e day s l at er, there w as a second m eet i ng am on g the sam e i nd i vidual s. A ccor di ng t o B er enat o, R ubert on’ s pr i nci pal obj ect i ve du ri ng the seco nd m eet i ng , si nce they“kn ew there w as a pr obl em w i th St at ew i de and the Funds , ” w as t o ens ur e that R ubert on “w oul d notbe hel d the s ucce s s ort o them and l i abl e for thatdebt
. ” A pp. at166. Forhi s part , E i nhorn ai m ed t o pr ot ect the Funds ’ i nt er es ti n del i nquentand futur e contr i but i ons . L ocal 6 7 6 so u g h t t o en su re tha t R u b erton w o u ld h ir e it s w o rke rs hithert o em ploy ed b yS t at ew i de, rather than con t i nu i ng t o u se n o n -u n io n w o rk e rs. B yth e e n d o f th is m e e tin g , tw o a g re e m e n ts w er e exe cut ed. T he fi r s tagr eement , betw een Local 676 and St at ew i de, g u a ra n tee d th a t th e u n io n w o u ld d ism iss th e in ju n c tio n su it w ith o u t p re

ju d ice , an d S tate w id e p ro m ise d to c o o p e ra te f u lly w ith the F u n d s’ pa yroll au d itan d to ti m elyrem itall fu ture contr i but i ons . T he s econd a gr eement , betw een Local 676 and R u b erton , p rov ided that R u b erton w o u ld h ir e, subject t o it s w o rk needs , the exi s t i ng w or kfor ce of St at ew i de cove r ed bythe exi s t i ng C B A , thats uch empl oym entw oul d be governed bythat C B A o n a n in ter im b a sis , an d a n e w lyn e g o tiate d C B A w o u ld coveral l R ubert on empl oy ees . N ei theragr eementaddr es s ed R ubert on’ s pot ent i al s ucce s s orl i abi l i tyt o the Funds forthe deli nq uen tcon tri bu t i on s. 2th a t S tate w id e o w e d o n so m e h e a v ye q u ip m e n t. Such as s et s i ncl uded offi ce equi pm ent , furni s hi ng s and 3 f ix tu re s, m a c h in e ry , v e h icle s, c o n stru c tio n e q u ip m e n t, ac c e ss to a ll sales a n d b u sine ss rec o rds an d inf o rm ati o n , ac ce ss to S tat ew ide’s tele p h o n e /f

a c sim ile n u m b e rs, ri gh ts u n d e r a ll l e a se s f o r e q u ip m e n t, p e r m i t s , l i c e n s e s , f

r a n c h i s e s , e t c . , a n d S t a t e w i d e ’ s i n v e n t o ry. S tat ew ide k ep t i ts a c c o u n ts rec eiva b le, w h ich a m o u n ted to m o re than $5 mi l l i on. 5 Fourday s aft erthe s econd meet i ng, on O ct ober10, 2005, St at ew i de s ol d i t s as s et s t o R ubert on for$1. 6 m i l l i on i n cas h. 3 R ubert on began maki ng contr i but i ons t o the Funds i n D ece m ber thaty ear . Si m ul t aneous w i th the s al e, a r eal es t at e hol di ng companyr el at ed t o R ubert on, R A L R eal E s t at e, L
. L
. C
. , l eas ed S t at ew i de’s faci l i tyi n F ols om , N ew Jer sey . U nd er the leas e a g re e m e n t a n o th e r e n tity re la te d to R u b e rt o n , B ri a n n a L .L .C ., ther eaf t erexer ci s ed i t s opt i on t o pur chas e the fa ci l i tyfr om St at ew i de and l eas ed the fa ci l i tyt o R ubert on. R ubert on hi r ed m or e than hal f of St at ew i de’ s form erempl oy ees i n the mont hs fol l ow i ng the s al e, i ncl udi ng i t s V i ce Pr es i dentand thi r ty - thr ee p erc en t sha reh o lder, an d too k o v er se v era l of S tat ew ide’s pr oj ect s . A ppr oxi m at el ytw o m onths aft erthe s al e, R ubert on auct i oned off

m anyof the as s et s i thad pur chas ed fr om St at ew i de that w ere notused in the ex pan ded op erat i on s, real i zi ng j ust m or e than $600, 000. St at ew i de r emai ned i n bus i nes s fors om e t i m e af t erthe asse t sal e u sing su b co n tr ac tors to p rov ide th e n ec essa ry eq u ipm en t and labo r. R u b erton w as o n e su ch su b co n tr ac tor, bi l l i ng St at ew i de more than $400, 000 forr ent ed empl oy ees and e q u ip m e n t. In Ja n u a ry2 0 0 6 , S tate w id e c e a se d a ll fie ld oper at i ons . A s har ehol derfr om St at ew i de r et ai ned an of fi ce a t th e s ite n o w o c c u p ie d b yR u b e rt o n to w in d d o w n th e b u s in e s s . R ubert on’ s pr ofi t s i ncr eas ed as a r es ul tof the s al e and the com pan yi s st i l l eng aged i n the hi gh w aycon struct i on bu si ness. O n D ecem ber 13, 2005 , E i nh orn fi l ed an act i on against St at ew i de and Ruber t on. E i nhorn al l eged thatSt at ew i de ow ed the Funds pur s uantt o t he oper at i ve C B A s and thatR ubert on ow ed the Funds as a s ucce s s ori n i nt er es tt o St at ew i de. T heD u rin g th e p ro c e e d in g s, R u b e rto n f iled a th ird -p a rty 4 c o m p lain t ag a in st its f

o rm e r c o u n se l R o n a ld L . T o b ia a n d D a v id M
. D eC l emental l egi ng m al pr act i ce. T he D i s tr i ctC our ts t ay ed the th ird -p a rtya c tio n p e n d in g d isp o sitio n o f th is a p p e a l. A s not ed by the D i s tr i ct C our t , as of O ct ober2 008, 5 S t at ew i de h ad at l eastfi ft een j ud gm ents enter ed agai nsti tand l ess than $2 50 i n it s bank accou nts
. T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed R ubert on’ s m ot i on t o cert i fyas 6 a fi nal j udgm entth e su m m aryj udgm entor derunderFed. R
. C i v. P. 54( b)
. I n the abs enc e o f cert i fi cat i on, R ubert on’ s unr es ol ved l egal m al pr act i ce c l ai m s agai ns ti t s form eratt orney s w ould ha ve p r e c l u d e d a p p e a l a b i l i ty. 6 part i es r eac hed a s ett l ementagr eementon M ar ch 16, 2006, w h e re in S tate w id e a g re e d to p a yth e d e lin q u e n t co n trib u tio n s in a s er i es of i ns t al l m ent s . St at ew i de br eac hed the s ett l ement agr eementand Ei nhorn fi l ed the pr es entact i on agai ns tR ubert on i n J une 2006. T he fol l ow i ng w eek, E i nhorn obt ai ned a

4 j udgm entagai ns tSt at ew i de i n the pr i ors ui tforthe br eac h, w hi ch Ei nhorn has been una bl e t o enfor ce. 5 II. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under29 U
. S. C
. §§ 1 1 3 2 , 1 8 5 (a ), as w e ll as 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 1 . W e h a v e a p p e llate j ur i s di ct i on under28 U
. S. C
. § 1291. 6 W e exe r ci s e de novo rev iew o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s re s o lu tio n o f

th e p a rt ie s ’ c ro s s m o tio n s f o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. S e e S ta rtz e ll v. C ity o

f P h ila ., 5 3 3 F .3 d 1 8 3 , 1 9 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). S im il arly , w e e x erc ise p lena ryrev iew o v er the D istri ct C o u rt ’s “choi ce a nd i nt erpr et at i on of l egal pr ece pt s . ” A m . Soc’ y f or Tes t i ng v. C or r

pr o C os . , I

nc. , 478 F. 3d 557, 566 ( 3d C i r . 2007) (cit ati o n an d q u o tat ion s o m itted). III . A t issu e in th is a p p e a l is w h e th e r R u b e rto n m a yb e h e ld l i abl e forSt at ew i de’ s debt s t o the Funds undera theoryof7 s ucce s s orl i abi l i ty . I ti s s ett l ed thats ucce s s orl i abi l i tym aybe i m pos ed fordel i nquentE R I SA fund contr i but i ons i n the cont ext o f a m e rg e r. T

e a m ste rs P e n sio n T

ru st Fu n d

o f P h ila . & V

icin ity v. Li t t l ej ohn , 155 F. 3d 206, 208- 10 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( hol di ng that underthe fe der al comm on l aw , the s ur vi vi ng ent i tyi n a mer ger i s l i abl e forthe debt s of the pr edec es s orr egar dl es s of w hether the s ucce s s orhad pr e- m er gernot i ce of s uch debt s )
. A s the D istri ct C o u rtfo u n d an d is un d ispu ted b ythe p arti es, ho w ev er, th e tra n sa c tio n b e tw e e n S tate w id e a n d R u b e rto n w a s n o t a m er ger . R ather , the tr ans act i on her e w as one i n w hi ch a c o rp o ra te e n tity b o u g h t th e a s s e ts o f a n o th e r c o rp o ra te e n tity. L i abi l i tyunderthats i tuat i on i s notw el l s ett l ed. A tthe D i s tr i ctC our t , both part i es as s um ed thatthe Seventh C i r cui t ’ s deci s i on i n U phol s t er ers ’I nt ’ lU ni on P ens i on Fund v. A r t is t i c Furni t ur e of P ont i ac , 9 2 0 F
. 2 d 1 3 2 3 (7th C ir
. 1 9 9 0 ), p ro v id e d th e a p p lic a b le ru le o f la w in th e c a s e . A rtistic Furniture h e ld th a t a s u c c e ss o r p u rc h a se r o f a ss e ts m a yb e liab le f o r th e se ller’ s d e lin q u e n t E R IS A f u n d c o n trib u tio n s to v in d ica te i m por t antfede r al s t atut orypol i cyw her e the buy erhad not i ce of the l i abi l i typr i ort o t he s al e and ther e w as s uffi ci entevi dence of
“ c o n tin u ity o f

o p e ra tio n s ” b e tw e e n th e e n titie s . I d. a t 1 3 2 7 -2 9
. I n s o hol di ng, the Seventh C i r cui tdepart ed fr om the gene r al comm on l aw rul e thatan ent i tythatpur chas es the as s et s of anotherdoes notas s um e the s el l er ’ s l i abi l i t i es unl es s one of the fol l ow i ng exce pt i ons appl i es : the pur chas erexpr es s l yor i m pl i edl yas s um ed l i abi l i ty ; the tr ans act i on amount ed t o a de fac t o m er ger ; the pur chas i ng corpor at i on i s a mer e cont i nuat i on of the s el l er ; orthe tr ans ferof as s et s w as forthe fr audul ent p u rp o s e o f

e s c a p in g lia b ility f

o r u n p a id d e b ts
. Id

. at1325- 26. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdecl i ned t o fol l ow the expa nded su c c e ss o rsh ip d o c trin e e sp o u se d b yth e S e v e n th C irc u it i n A rt ist i c Furniture . G ui ded bythi s court ’ s pr ece dent s , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s t i ngui s hed Gold e n S ta t e Bo t t l i n gCo. v . NLRB , 4 1 4 U .S . 1 6 8 (1 9 7 3 ), u p o n w h ich th e S e v e n th C irc u it relie d in A rt ist i c Furniture . T he D i s tr i ctC our ti nt erpr et ed ourpr i or deci s i on i n Li t t l ej ohn to h o ld th a t u n iv e rsa l co n c e p ts o f c o rp o ra te law su p p lied th e f

e d e ra l co m m o n law ru le o f su c c e ss o r liab ili ty i n the pr es entE R I SA cas e. B eca us e the D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatnone of the exc ept i ons perm i t t i ng l i abi l i tyappl i ed, i tgr ant ed8 R u b e rto n ’s m o tio n f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. T he Supr eme C our thas r ecogni zed that“s tr i ki ng a bal ance betw een the conf l i ct i ng l egi t i m at e i nt er es t s of the bona f id e su c c e ss o r, th e p u b lic, a n d th e a f f e c ted e m p lo y e e [ s]” to e f f e c tu a te n a tio n a l lab o r p o licy“ is o f ten a d if f icu lt an d d e lica te r es pons i bi l i ty . ” G o lde n S ta te , 414 U
. S. at181 ( ci t at i ons and q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ); s ee al s o EE O Cv. V

uci t ech , 842 F. 2d 936, 9 4 4 (7 th C ir. 1 9 8 8 ) (n o tin g th a t su c c e ss o r liab ili tyis “ d re a d f u lly t angl ed, r efl ect i ng the di ffi cul tyof s tr i ki ng the r i ghtbal ance b etw ee n the c o m p eti n g interests at st ak e” ). W h il e this co u rt app reci at es the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s effo rt s t o b al ance the i nter est s, lik e th e S e v e n th C irc u it w e “ f e e l co n stra in e d to d isa g re e w ith its rul i ng thatl aborl aw s ucce s s or s hi p pr i nci pl es cannots uppor tthe i m pos i t i on of l i abi l i tyupon [R ubert on]
. ” A rt ist i c Furniture , 920 F. 2d at1325. Feder al court s begi nni ng w i th G olden Stat e have devel oped a f

eder al comm on l aw s ucce s s or s hi p doctr i ne i m pos i ng l i abi l i tyupon s ucce s s or s bey ond the conf i nes of the comm on l aw rul e w hen nec es s aryt o pr ot ecti m por t ant e m p lo ym e n t- re la te d p o lic ie s . See Brz oz ow s kiv. C or r . P hys i ci an Ser vs . , I nc. , 360 F. 3d 173, 177 ( 3d C i r . 2004)
. I n G o lde n S ta te , the Supr eme C our thel d thatthe pur chas erof a bus i nes s coul d be hel d l i abl e underthe N at i onal L aborR el at i ons A ct( “N L R A ”) forr emedy i ng the s el l er ’ s unl aw ful di s char ge of a n empl oy ee w her e the s ucce s s orempl oy erhad not i ce of the unfa i rpr act i ce and “c ont i nued, w i thouti nt errupt i on ors ubs t ant i al change , the pr edec es s or ’ s bus i nes s oper at i ons . ” 414 U
. S. at184. T he re m e d yre q u ire d th a t th e su c c e ss o r re in sta te th e e m p lo y e e w ith b a c k p a y. T he Supr eme C our tacknow l edged i n G o lde n S ta te that the s ucce s s orcompany“w as notpartyt o the unfa i rl abor pr act i ces ” and now “oper at e[s ] the bus i nes s w i thoutany connec t i on w i th hi s pr edec es s or . ” I d. at171 n. 2 ( quot at i ons o m itt e d ). N o n e th e les s, it sta ted , o th e r f a c to rs m u st b e tak e n in to a c c o u n t w h e n b a lan c in g th e e q u iti e s. A m o n g th o se e q u iti e s is th a tth e s u c c e s s o r“ i s g e n e r a l l y i n th e b e s tp o s i t i o n t o r e m e d y” th e v io latio n a n d , b e c a u se n o tice is re q u ire d , p o ten tial liab ili ty “ca n be r efl ect ed i n t he pr i ce [ the s ucce s s or ] pay s fortheSee, e .g ., Stei nb ach v. H ub ba rd , 5 1 F
. 3 d 8 4 3 (9th C ir
. 7 1 9 9 5 ) (F a ir L a b o r S tan d a rd s A c t); A rtist i c Furniture , 920 F. 2d 1 3 2 3 (E R IS A ); C r is w el lv. D el ta A i rLine s, I nc. , 868 F. 2d 1093 (9 th C ir. 1 9 8 9 ) (A g e D isc rim in a tio n in E m p lo ym e n t A c t); Sec’ y of Labor v

. Mul l i ns , 888 F. 2d 1448 ( D
. C
. C i r . 1989) ( M i ne Safe tyand H ea lth A c t); V

uci t ech , 842 F. 2d 936 ( Pr egnanc yD i s cr i m i nat i on A ct); Mus i ki w am ba v. E SSI , I nc. , 760 F. 2d 740 ( 7th C i r . 1985) ( 42 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 1 ); B a te s v . P a c . Ma r . A s s 'n , 7 4 4 F .2 d 7 0 5 (9th C ir
. 1 9 8 4 ) (T it le V II)
. O ther c ir cu it s h av e e x tend ed su cc esso r l iabili ty to T it le V II 8 v io la tio n s a s w e ll. See, e. g. , R oj as v. TK C om m c’ ns , I nc. , 87 F. 3d 7 4 5 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ); W

heelerv. SnyderB ui ck, I nc. , 794 F. 2d 1228 (7 th C ir. 1 9 8 6 ); I

n r e N at ’ lA i r l i nes , I

nc. , 7 0 0 F
. 2 d 6 9 5 (11 th C ir
. 1 9 8 3 ); Truj i l l o v. Longhorn M f g. C o. , I nc. , 6 9 4 F
. 2 d 2 2 1 (10 th C ir
. 1 9 8 2 ); EE O Cv. M

acMi l lan B l oedel

C ontai ners , I

nc. , 5 0 3 F. 2d 1 0 8 6 (6th C ir
. 1 9 7 4 ). 9 b u sin e ss , o r [ th e su c c e ss o r] m a yse c u re a n in d e m n ityc lau se in the s al es contr act
. ” I

d. (qu o tat ion s o m itted). M o reo v er, thr oughouti t s anal y s i s , the Supr eme C our temphasi zed the i m por t ance of pr ovi di ng “pr ot ect i on forthe vi ct i m i zed empl oy ee” w i thouta r emedyagai ns tthe now defunc t p re d e c e s s o r e n tity. I

d. at181. A s n o te d b yth e S e v e n th C ir c u it, G o lde n S ta te l ai d the foundat i on fora s er i es of ca s es i n thi s courtand other s that expande d s ucce s s or s hi p l i abi l i tyi n the l aborfi el d hol di ng that lab o r p o licie s h a v e su p e rse d e d th e c o m p e tin g in ter e st o f f lu id ity o f c o rp o ra te a s s e ts re f

le c te d in th e c o m m o n la w ru le
. A rtistic Furniture , 920 F. 2d at1326- 27. 7 T hi s court , fol l ow i ng G o lde n S ta te , has ext ended the l aborl aw s ucce s s or s hi p doctr i ne t o empl oym entdi s cr i m i nat i on c la im s u n d e r T itle V II
. See Brz oz ow s ki , 360 F. 3d 173; R ego v. A R CW at erTre atm ent

C o. of P a. , 1 8 1 F
. 3 d 3 9 6 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 9 ). 8 I n B r z oz ow s ki , the pl ai nt i ff br oughtan ac t i on agai ns therform er e m p lo y e r a lleg in g g e n d e r d isc rim in a tio n th a t re su lted in $150, 000 of damages
. 360 F. 3d at175- 76. W hen the pl ai nt i ff re a lize d th a t th e c o m p a n yw a s in so lv e n t, sh e a ss e rte d a c laim a g a in s t th e s u c c e s s o r w h o h a d p u rc h a s e d th e c o m p a n y ’s a s s e ts
.W e r eal i ze tha t her e the l i abi l i tyl i es cl os e t o $1 m i l l i on. 9 W hi l e thi s i s gr eat er t han the s ucce s s orl i abi l i tyi m pos ed i n the c a se s re lied u p o n , th is f a c t a lo n e d o e s n o t d icta te w h e th e r liab ili ty i s f a i r . I n G o lde n S ta te , the s ucce s s orw as r equi r ed t o payfour y ea rs of b ac k p ay f

o r o n e e m p loy ee . 4 1 4 U
. S
. at 18 7 n . 9
. If m ult i ple em ploy ees h ad been i m pli cat ed i n u nfairl abo r pr act i ces, m u lti -y e a r sa lar ies c o u ld h a v e im p o se d a h e f tysu m a n d n o th in g in the Supr eme C our t ’ s anal y s i s w oul d have pr ecl uded s ucce s s or li ab il ityfo r m u lt iple em p loy ee s so lon g as t h e re w as n o ti ce . In B r z oz ow s ki , the pl ai nt i ff c l ai m ed $150, 000 i n damages forj us tone empl oy ee. Her e , th e r e a r e a n u mbe ro f p l a n b e n e f

i c i a r i e s who s t and t o be harm ed. T he r ecor d demonstr at es thatthe as s ets al e has been l ucrat i ve fo r R ub ert on ’s bu si ness. R ub ert on ’s bu si ness acumen s erves notas a bas i s forpuni s hm entas i t as s ert s , butr ather a factort o b e t aken i nto accou nt w hen balanci ng the eq uit i es. 10 Id

. T ak ing into c o n side rati o n the th ree p ri n cipa l fac tors appl i cabl e t o s ucce s s orl i abi l i tyi n the empl oym ent di s cr i m i nat i on cont ext , w e found thati m pos i t i on of s ucce s s or l i abi l i tyw as appr opr i at e bec aus e the s ucce s s orw as on not i ce, ther e w as s uffi ci entcont i nui tyof oper at i ons and w or kfor ce, and th e p re d e c e s s o r w a s u n a b le to p ro v id e a d e q u a te re lie f
. Id

. at 1 7 8
. W e c o n s i d e r e d th e b a l a n c e o f e q u i t i e s a n d “ th e p r i me c o n s id e ra tio n ” o f

f a ir n e s s . Id

. T he s ucce s s or - empl oy erhad ampl e opportuni tyt o i ns ul at e i t s el f fr om l i abi l i tydur i ng the n e g o tiatio n s. In d e e d , the sa les a g re e m e n t in c lu d e d a n in d e m n ity c lau se d isc laim in g th e su c c e ss o r’s liab ili tyf o r c e rta in law su its a n d E E O C c la im s . Id

. at175. O urcas es ext endi ng s ucce s s or s hi p l i abi l i tyfr om the N L R A to th e T itle V II c o n te x t s u g g e s t im p o rt a n t p ri n c ip le s . Fi r s t , w e have notconfi ned the theoryof s ucce s s orl i abi l i tyaft er an as s ets al e t o t he N L R A cont ext , buthave e xt ended i tt o other cont ext s bas ed on the bal ance of equi t i es . Second, the i m pos i t i on of a f

i nanci al bur den on the s ucce s s orempl oy erhas n o tr e s tr i c t e d i m p o s i t i o n o f l i a b i l i ty. See A rt ist i c Furniture , 920

9 F .2 d a t 1 3 2 7 (“ T h e re is, o f c o u rse , n o re lev a n t ec o n o m ic d iffe ren ce b etw ee n the a w ard o f b ac k p ayo r co m p en sato ry damages ati s s ue i n ourpr evi ous s ucce s s orl i abi l i tycas es and the11 del i nquentcontr i but i on l i abi l i tyati s s ue her e. ”)
. T he re q u ire m e n t o f

n o tice a n d th e a b ili tyo f th e su c c e ss o r to sh ield i t s el f dur i ng negot i at i ons t emperconce rns thati m pos i ng successor l i abil i tym i gh tdis cou rage corporat e t ransact i on s. W e agr ee w i th the Seventh C i r cui tthatthe fe der al pol i ci es under l y i ng E R I SA and the M ul t i empl oy erPens i on Pl an A m e n d m e n ts A c t o f

1 9 8 0 (“ M P P A A ” ), P u b .L . 9 6 -3 6 4 , 9 4 S tat. 1208, “ar e no l es s i m por t ant , and no l es s compel the i m pos i t i on o f s u c c e s s o rl i a b i l i tyth a n d o th e p o l i c i e s a n i ma t i n g th e NL RA , T i t l e V I I , ” orthe others t atut es t o w hi ch the doctr i ne has been e x te n d e d
. I

d. I n l i ghtof the Seventh C i r cui t ’ s compre hens i ve a n a ly sis , w e n e e d n o t re in v e n t th e w h e e l. R a th e r, w e w ill addr es s s om e of the conc erns r ai s ed bythe D i s tr i ctC our tand su m m arize th e p ri n cipa l con side rati o n s tha t pro v ide o u r ra tio deci dendi
. A centr al pol i cygoal under l y i ng E R I SA ’ s enac t m ent “w as t o pr ot ectpl an part i ci pant s and thei rbenef i ci ar i es . ” Li t t l ej ohn , 1 5 5 F .3 d a t 2 0 8 ; see al so Sh aw v. D el ta A i r Lines, I nc. , 4 6 3 U .S . 8 5 , 9 0 (1 9 8 3 ) (“ E R IS A is a c o m p re h e n siv e sta tu te d e sig n e d to p ro m o te th e in ter e sts o f e m p lo y e e s a n d th e ir b e n e f icia rie s in e m p lo y e e b e n e f it p lan s.” ); P i t t

s bur gh Mack Sa l es & Serv. , Inc. v. Int ’l U nion of O perati ngE ng ’r

s , 580 F. 3d 185, 194 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( E R I SA w as enac t ed t o ens ur e “that p en sion fu n d s w il l be a d eq u atelyfu n d ed , ev en w h en em p loy ers w i thdr aw fr om them, and thatempl oy ees w ho ar e r el y i ng on th o se f u n d s w ill b e p ro tec ted .”); B eckerv. Mack Tr ucks , I nc. , 281 F. 3d 372, 381 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( “ER I SA i s des i gned t o pr ot ect benef i t s pr om i s ed t o an empl oy ee a r i s i ng fr om a pr e- exi s t i ng e m p lo ym e n t re latio n sh ip .”). C o n g re ss e v in c e d a stro n g d e sire to fur therpr ot ectpart i ci pant s w hen i tenac t ed the M PPA A , w hi ch amended E R I SA t o pr event“the adve r s e cons equenc es that r es ul tw hen i ndi vi dual empl oy er s t erm i nat e thei rpart i ci pat i on or w ith d ra w ” f

ro m m u ltie m p lo y e r p e n s io n p la n s . Super val u, I nc. v. B d. of Trs. , 500 F. 3d 334, 336 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( quot at i ons o m itted). S tate w id e ’s f

a ilu re to p a yc o n trib u tio n s c a u se d h a rm to pl an bene fi ci ar i es and cha nged the natur e of the empl oym ent r el at i ons hi p. A s the D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed dur i ng the s ett l ement12 hear i ng i n J anuary2006, the H eal th and W el far e Fund s us pended be nefi t s aft erthe s al e, l eavi ng fi fty - thr ee uni on w o rk e rs a n d , in s o m e c a se s, th e ir f a m ili e s w ith o u t h e a lth i ns ur ance . A bs enti m pos i t i on of s ucce s s orl i abi l i tyon R ubert on, o th e r e m p lo y e rs w ill b e f o rc e d to m a k e u p th e d if f e re n c e to ensure t hat w orkers recei ve thei r ent i t l ed b enef i t s. If these out comes w er e perm i t t ed, i tw oul d contr avene congr es s i onal p o lic yf o r m u ltie m p lo y e r p e n s io n f u n d s . See A rt ist i c Furniture , 920 F. 2d at1328 ( pr ovi di ng an i n depth di s cus s i on of the legislat ive h ist o ry ). T he rul e pr om ul gat ed i n A rt ist i c Furniture c o m p o rts w ith ouropi ni on i n Li t t l ej ohn
. A s not ed above , w e hel d i n Li t t l ej ohn thats ucce s s orl i abi l i tyfordel i nquentE R I SA fund contr i but i ons c o u l d b e i mp o s e d a f

t e ra me r g e rwi th o u tn o t i c e . I n s o d o i n g , we r el i ed i n parton the “a l m os tuni ver s al l yacc ept ed s t at e l aw pr i nci pl e thatw hen tw o corpor at i ons m er ge, the s ur vi vi ng corpor at i on as s um es the l i abi l i t i es of the ext i nctcorpor at i on. ” Li t t l ej ohn , 155 F. 3d at209. B eca us e the pr es entcas e i nvol ves an as s ets al e r atherthan a mer ger , the “uni ver s al l yacc ept ed” pr i nci pl e adopt ed i n Li t t l ej ohn does notdi r ect l yappl yher e. H o w e v e r, Li t t l ej ohn e sta b lish e d a f ra m e w o rk b yw h ich to d e ter m in e su c c e ss o r liab ili tyu n d e r E R IS A . A s w e sta ted in Li t t l ej ohn , “w h e re th e sta tu te d o e s n o t p ro v id e e x p licit i ns truct i ons , i ti s w el l s ett l ed thatC ongr es s i nt ended thatthe fede r al court s w oul d fi l l i n the gaps bydevel opi ng, i n l i ghtof r eas on, exper i ence , and comm on s ens e, a fe der al comm on l aw of r i ght s and obl i gat i ons i m pos ed bythe s t atut e. ” I d. a t2 0 8
. “ Of cour s e, [w e cont i nued, ] the fe der al comm on l aw m us tbe devel oped w i th E R I SA ’ s pol i cygoal s i n m i nd. ” I d. A l though w e r el i ed i n Li t t l ej ohn on the s t at e comm on l aw rul e of s ucce s s or l i abil i tyfor deli nq uen tcon tri bu t i on s i n a m erger , w e did so s tr es s i ng thatfol l ow i ng s t at e l aw i n thatcont extfur ther ed C o n g re s s ’ g o a ls in e n a c tin g E R IS A
. S e e id

. at210 ( adopt i ng a gener al rul e of s ucce s s orl i abi l i tyform er ger s “demonstr at es not onl yi t s bas i s i n r eas on butal s o thatadopt i ng i ti n thi s cont ext w i l l fur therE R I SA ’ s pol i cygoal of pr ot ect i ng empl oy ee pe ns i on pl an part i ci pant s and thei rbenef i ci ar i es ”)
. W e ar e s at i s fi ed that the Seventh C i r cui tgave pr operw ei ghtt o the pol i cy cons i der at i ons thatw e hel d i n Li t t l ej ohn govern the fe der al13 c o mm o n l a w o f

E RI S A. T he D i s tr i ctC our t , and R ubert on on appea l , dw el l on l a n g u a g e f

r o m Li t t l ej ohn t o s u p p o r ta d e p a r tu r e f r o m A rtistic Furniture and the G o lde n S ta te l i ne of c as es . I n Li t t l ej ohn , we sa id th a t G o lde n S ta te and i t s pr ogenyw er e “s om ew hat di s t i ngui s habl e bec aus e theydeal tw i th the appl i cat i on of l abor l aw conce pt s and the t erm s of a c ol l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement to a c o rp o ra tio n o th e r t h a n th e s ig n a to ry to th e a g re e m e n t,” w her eas , i n Li t t l ej ohn th e iss u e in v o lv e d “ th e tra n sf e r o f a v a lid a n d o rd in a ryd e b t . . . w h ich ju st h a p p e n s to h a v e its g e n e sis in the t erm s of a c ol l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement
. ” Id

. at209. T he D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatthe bal ance of equi t i es i s di ffe r enti n a su itto rec o v er a n “o rdin aryd eb t” be ca u se th e u n iqu e e m p loy erempl oy ee r el at i ons hi p governed byfede r al l aborl aw and pol i cy is n o t im p lic a te d a s it is in a n u n f a irla b o r p ra c tic e s u it. E i nh orn v. M

. L. R uber t on C ons t
. C o. , 66 5 F
. S up p. 2d 46 3, 47 4 (D
. N
. J. 2 0 0 9 ). W e a re u n p e rs u a d e d
. Li t t l ej ohn i s w eak pr ece dentforthe not i on thatan ER I SA debti s m er el y“or di nary . ” I n thatcas e, “t he p art i es agr ee[d] thatonl ythe tr ans ferof a va l i d and o rd in a ry d e b t [ w a s ] a t is s u e .” 1 5 5 F .3 d a t 2 0 9 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). T h u s, th e c o u rt d id n o t deci de th a ta n E R I S A d e b ti s o r d i n a ry; the p ointw as conce ded and the courtas s um ed i t
. N ei therthe Li t t l ej ohn courtnorthe D i s tr i ctC our toffe r ed anyfur ther ju stif ica tio n f o r c o n c lu d in g th a t su c h a d e b t is m e re ly c o n tra c tu a l. T her e i s m or e than a c ontr actual arr angementats t ake her e. A s the A rt ist i c Furniture courtobs erved, contr i but i on dut i es underE R I SA ar e mandat ed bys t atut e, w i th a s peci al fede r al caus e of a ct i on forthei renfor cement
. 920 F. 2d at1328 ( ci t i ng 29 U
. S. C
. §§ 1145, 1132)
. C ongr es s has thus adopt ed a pol i cyof pr ot ect i ng E R I SA funds agai ns tdel i nquent contr i but or s t o a degr ee thati s gr eat erthan thataff or ded bythe comm on l aw of contr act s . T hi s pol i cyj udgm ental t er s the pr eexi s t i ng bal ance of cons i der at i ons thatl ed t o the adopt i on of the comm on l aw rul e, w hi ch couns el s i n favorof expa ndi ng s u c c e s s o rl i a b i l i ty.14 M or eover , the cons i der at i ons i n Li t t l ej ohn are di s t i ngui s habl e fr om the pr es entcas e. T he i s s ue i n Li t t l ej ohn focus ed on the r equi r ementof not i ce. T hi s courtw as conce rned thatr equi r i ng not i ce be for e a de btfol l ow s i n the cont extof a m er ger“w oul d r es ul ti n perver s e i ncent i ves , encour agi ng the s ur vi vort o note x a m in e re c o rd s a n d h id e its h e a d in th e s a n d ,” and al l ow the di s appea r i ng ent i tyt o “uni l at er al l yext i ngui s h a d e b t” b yh id in g it f

ro m th e s u rv iv o r. I

d. a t 2 1 0 (e m p h a sis in o rig in a l). In th e c o n tex t o f a n a ss e t sa le, re q u irin g n o tice w o u ld have the oppos i t e ef

fec t
. T he s ucce s s or - pur chas erw oul d have in c e n tiv e to in q u ire a b o u t th e se ller’ s p re v io u s lia b ili ties to negot i at e fora l ow erpur chas e pr i ce. T he pr edec es s or - s el l er w o u ld h a v e in c e n tiv e to d isc lo se d e b ts a n d f in d w o rk a b le so lu tio n s d u rin g th e sa le to re lea se itse lf f ro m liab ili tya n d a v o id pr otr act ed di s put e. In its b rie f

, R u b e rto n o p in e s th a t “it w o u ld m a k e little s ens e forcourt s . . . t o appl ya narr ow s t andar d fordet erm i ni ng s ucce s s orl i abi l i tyi n E R I SA cas es i nvol vi ng m er ger s and an expande d s t andar d i n cas es i nvol vi ng as s et s s al es – unl es s the goal i s t o pl ace a ‘ thum b on the s cal es ’ of j us t i ce t o obt ai n a part i cul arr es ul t
. ” A ppel l ee’ s B r . at24. A l though w e have r efe r r ed t o the A rt ist i c Furniture s t andar d as the “e xpanded” s ucce s s or s hi p doctr i ne, thi s i s notent i r el yacc ur at e. O n one hand, the A r t is t i c Furni t ur e s t andar d i s m or e expa ns i ve than the comm on l aw rul e of s ucce s s orl i abi l i tybeca us e i tdoes not r equi r e comm onal i tyof ow ner s hi p betw een the s el l erand buy er forthe cont i nuance anal y s i s ( di s cus s ed i nfr a )
. O n the other , the A rt ist i c Furniture s t andar d i s narr ow erthan the comm on l aw beca us e i tr equi r es thata s ucce s s orbe puton not i ce be for e the assum pti on of d ebt fol l ow s. A nd , as Li t t l ej ohn i nst ruct s, b a lan c in g th e e q u iti e s in lig h t o f f e d e ra l lab o r p o licyis p re c ise ly w hatw e ar e s uppos ed t o do i n s ucce s s or s hi p cas es under E R IS A . T h is m a y , as h e re , req u ire th a t d if f e re n t sta n d a rd s a p p ly i n d i fferentcon t exts
. T he A rt ist i c Furniture opi ni on comport s w i th other preceden t s of t his cou rt
. W e hav e recogn i zed thatbecau se E R I SA and the M PPA A ar e r emedi al s t atut es , they“s houl d be lib e ra llyc o n stru e d in f

a v o r o f p ro tec tin g th e p a rticip a n ts in empl oy ee be nefi tpl ans . ” I U E A F L- C IO P ens i on Fund v. B arker15 & W i l l i am s on, I

nc. , 7 8 8 F .2 d 1 1 8 , 1 2 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 6 ). M or eover , as ar gued byE i nhorn, i n C ent
. P a. Team s t ers P ens i on Fund v. McC or m i ck D r ay Li ne, I nc. , 8 5 F
. 3 d 1 0 9 8 (3d C ir
. 1996) , thi s courtr ecogni zed thatE R I SA di s pl ace s tr adi t i onal comm on l aw pr i nci pl es i n l i t i gat i on br oughtt o r ecove r d e lin q u e n t co n trib u tio n s to m u lti e m p lo y e r p lan s. W e h e ld in McC or m i ck D r ay thatthe def ens e of mutual m i s t ake, val i d under th e tra d iti o n a l co m m o n law , w a s n o t av a ilab le in a n E R IS A su it i n or dert o eff

ectuat e fe der al l aborpol i cyas i nt ended by C o n g re s s . Id

. a t 1 1 0 6 -0 7 . T h e p rin c ip les se t f o rth in McC or m i ck D r ay su p p o rt a d e p a rtu re f ro m th e c o m m o n law ru le in th e p re se n t ca se a s w e ll. T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s r el i ance on ourdeci s i on i n P ol i us v. C lark Equi

p. C o. , 8 0 2 F .2 d 7 5 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 6 ), w a s m is p la c e d
. P ol i us i nvol ved a s t at e pr oduct s l i abi l i tys ui tand does not govern ouranal y s i s i n the l aborcont ext
. M or eover , the not i ce r equi r ementobvi at es the conc ern w e expr es s ed i n P ol i us , and echoe d bythe D i s tr i ctC our t , thatexpande d l i abi l i tyw oul d be u n f o r e s e e n a n d i s l i k e l yt o d i s c o u r a g e c o rp o r a t e tr a n s a c t i o n s . As w e n o ted a b o v e , w e d o n o t ag re e th a t im p o sin g liab ili tyw ill negat i vel yaff

ectthe l i qui di tyof corpor at e as s et s . A s the Supr eme C our tr eas oned i n G o lde n S ta te , the s ell er’s out s t andi ng l i abi l i t i es can be r efl ect ed i n the pur chas e pr i ce, or the s ucce s s orm ays ecur e an i ndemni tycl aus e i n the s al es contr act
. 414 U
. S. at172 n. 2. A num berof otherci r cui tand di s tr i ctcourt s have ext ended the G olden Stat e rati o n ale in a cti o n s see k ing rec o v ery of del i nquentpens i on fund contr i but i ons underE R I SA aft eran a s s e t s a le
. See M

as s . C ar pent ers C ent
. C ol l ect i on A gency v. B elm ontC oncr et e C or

p. , 139 F. 3d 304, 308 ( 1s tC i r . 1998) ( ci t i ng A rt ist i c Furniture , the courtr ecogni zed that“[a ] l though devel oped i n t he l aborl aw cont ext , al t erego ors ucce s s or l i abi l i tyanal y s i s has been appl i ed t o cl ai m s i nvol vi ng empl oy ee b e n e f it fu n d s b ro u g h t u n d e r E R IS A a n d th e L M R A ” ); St ot t er D iv. o f G ra d u a te P la stic s C o ., In c . v. D ist. 6 5 , U n itedA u to W orkers , 991 F. 2d 997, 1002 ( 2d C i r . 1993) ( ci t i ng A rtistic Furniture , the c o u rt f

o u n d th a t th e a rb itrato r d id n o t ex c e e d h is author i tybyi m pos i ng l i abi l i tyon the s ucce s s or - empl oy erfor d e l i n q u e n tc o n tr i b u t i o n s o we d u n d e rth e p r e d e c e s s o r ’ s CBAR u b e rto n c ites to c a se s f ro m th e F if

th a n d E ig h th c irc u its 10 a s i n c o n s i s t e n twi th e x p a n d e ds u c c e s s o r s h i p l i a b i l i tyu n d e rE RI S A. H o w e v e r , n e i th e rc a s e p r o v i d e s p e r s u a s i v e o rr e l e v a n ta u th o r i ty. See G r eat erKan. C i t

y Labor ers P ens i on F u n d v. Super i orG en. C ontr actors , I

nc. , 1 0 4 F
. 3d 1050 ( 8th C i r . 1997) ( cas e di d not i nvol ve an a s s ets al e and i s s ue w as w hether defe ndantw as an al t er eg o ); C en. Stat es , Se. & Sw

. A r eas P ens i on Funds v. P Y A / Monar ch of Tex. , I nc. , 851 F. 2d 780 ( 5th C i r . 1988) ( pl ai nt i ff s ued on narr ow g rou n d s u n d er the co m m o n law ). 16 w ith a u n io n ); H

a w . C a rp e n ters T

ru st Fu n d

s v . W a io la C ar pent erShop, I

nc. , 823 F. 2d 289 ( 9th C i r . 1987) ( i n w ake of an assetsal e, the co urtfoll ow ed the subst anti al con t i nu i tyt est fo r de term ining su cc esso r l iabili tyfo r de li n q u en t con tr ibu ti o n s); Bd. of Trs . of U ni t e He r e Loc al

25 v . M R W at e r ga t e LLC , 67 7 F. Supp. 2d 229, 231- 32 ( D
. D
. C
. 2010) ( r ecogni zi ng A rtistic Furniture ); C ent
. P a. Team s t ers P ens i on Fund v. B earD is tr i b. C o. I nc. , N o. 07- C V
- 3554, 2009 W L 812224, at*8 ( E
. D
. Pa. M ar . 26, 2009) ( adopt i ng the A rt ist i c Furniture s t andar d i n an a n a lo g o u s c a se ); Trs

. of the Utah C ar

pent ers & Cem ent

Mas ons P ens i on Trus tv. DA W

, I nc. , N o . 2 : 0 7
- C V
- 8 7 T C , 2 0 0 9 WL 77856, at*3 ( D
. U t ah J an. 7, 2009) ( fol l ow i ng A rt ist i c Furniture fi ndi ng buy erl i abl e fors el l er ’ s w i thdr aw al l i abi l i tyunder E R IS A ); s ee als o 1 4 F letc h e r, C y c . C o rp . § 6 7 5 5 (“ f e d e ra l co u rts i n the l aborl aw fi el d have t aken a farm or e l i ber al appr oach [than the comm on l aw ] i n i m pos i ng the obl i gat i ons of a s el l erof as s et s on the pur chas er. . . [i ncl udi ng] w her e the pr edec es s or h ad fa il ed to m ee t i ts pa ym en t ob li g ati o n s u n d er a m ult i em ploy er pl an”) ( ci t at i on s om i t t ed). N o co urtof ap peals , t o ourknow l edge, has r ej ect ed the hol di ng i n A rtistic Furniture . 10 In su m , w e h o ld th a t a p u rc h a se r o f a ss e ts m a yb e liab le f o r a se ller’ s d e lin q u e n t E R IS A f u n d c o n trib u tio n s to v in d ica te i m por t antfede r al s t atut orypol i cyw her e the buy erhad not i ce of the l i abi l i typr i ort o t he s al e and ther e exi s t s s uffi ci entevi dence of cont i nui tyof oper at i ons betw een the buy erand s el l er . T he i nqui r ys houl d be ef

fec tuat ed on a c as e bycas e bas i s bal anci ng th e e q u itie s p re s e n tly b e f o re th e c o u rt
. W e w ill re m a n d th is c a se to th e D istric t C o u rt to a p p ly17 the G olden Stat e s ucce s s or s hi p doctr i ne t o det erm i ne w hether R u b e rt o n is lia b le f

o r S ta te w id e ’s d e lin q u e n c ie s to th e F u n d s . A tor al ar gum entthe part i es di d notdi s put e thatthe not i ce re q u ir e m e n t h a s b e e n s a tis f ie d
. A rt ist i c Furniture , 920 F. 2d at 1 3 2 9 ( th e n o t i c e i n q u i r yc e n t e r s o n wh e th e rth e b u y e rk n o ws aboutthe debt s , notw hetherthe buy erknow s thatthe funds i nt end t o s eek r ecove r yfr om i t )
. A s s uch, the onl yi s s ue on r emand w i l l be w hetherR ubert on s ubs t ant i al l ycont i nued S t at ew i de’s operat i on s. U n d e r t h e s u b s ta n tia l c o n tin u ity te s t c o u rt s lo o k to , i nt er a lia , the fol l ow i ng fac t or s : cont i nui tyof the w or kfor ce, m an ag em en t, eq u ipm en t and loca ti o n ; com p let ion o f w o rk o rd e rs b e g u n b yth e p re d e c e s s o r; a n d c o n s ta n c yo f c u s to m e rs . S e e Fa l lRi v e rDye i n g& Fi n is h i n gCor p . v . NLRB , 482 U
. S. 27, 4 3 (1 9 8 7 ); A rt ist i c Furniture , 9 2 0 F .2 d a t 1 3 2 9 . T h is a n a ly sis di ffe r s fr om the tr adi t i onal comm on l aw de fa ct o m er gerand m er e cont i nuat i on exce pt i ons beca us e comm onal i tyof o w n e rs h ip is n o t r e q u ir e d
. S e e B e rgC h ill in gS y s., In c . v. H

u ll C or p. , 435 F. 3d 455, 467- 69 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( di s cus s i ng the f a c to rs f o r d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a tra n sa c tio n is a d e f a c to m erg er o r co n ti n u ati o n , inclu d ing co n ti n u ityo f sh are h o lders); G en. E l ec. C api talC or

p. v. Leas e Resolut i on C or p. , 128 F. 3d 1074, 1084 ( 7th C i r . 1997) ( “a pur chas erof as s et s w i l l notbe l i abl e underthe theoryof de f act o m er gerorm er e cont i nuat i on in the ab sen ce o f c o n ti n u ityo f o w n ersh ip”) (q u o tat ion s o m itted). T he part i es di s put e w hetherR ubert on cont i nued St at ew i de’ s bus i nes s and, i f s o, t o w hatext ent
. Forexampl e, R ubert on ar gues that“eve n i f R ubert on w er e dee m ed t o have cont i nued St at ew i de’ s bus i nes s , thatcont i nuat i on w oul d be l i m i t ed t o the gui de r ai l , fenc i ng and s i gnage bus i nes s ” cove r ed bythe Local 676 C B A and i tcoul d notbe l i abl e for c o n tr ib u tio n s o w e d in c o n n e c tio n w ith S ta te w id e ’s o th e r C B A s . A p p e llee ’s B r. at 9 n .4 . T h e p re se n c e o f a f a c tu a l d isp u te re n d e rs s u m m a ryju d g m e n t at th is ju n c tu re f o r e ith e r p a rty i nappr opr i at e and thi s ques t i on i s bes tr es ol ved bythe D i s tr i ct C o u rt. I V.Forthe r eas ons s etfor th, w e w i l l vaca t e the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof R ubert on, and r emand forfur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on.

18