Opinion ID: 60708
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Successor-in-Interest

Text: Under Florida law,3 the liabilities of a selling predecessor corporation will not be imposed upon the buying successor corporation unless “(1) the successor impliedly assumes the obligations of the predecessor, (2) the transaction is a de facto merger, (3) the successor corporation is a mere continuation of the predecessor, or (4) the transaction is a fraudulent effort to avoid the liabilities of the predecessor.” Orlando Light Bulb Serv. Inc. v. Laser Lighting & Elec. Supply, Inc., 523 So. 2d 740, 742 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988). In this case, GBA’s theory of successorship fails from the outset as GBA does not establish a successor-predecessor relationship between Impression and Emme. There was no transfer or merger of assets from Impression to Emme. As we have said elsewhere, “[g]enerally, one of the fundamental requirements for consideration of the imposition of successor liability is a merger or transfer of assets between the predecessor and successor companies.” Coffman v. Chugach Support Servs., Inc., 411 F.3d 1231, 1237 (11th Cir. 2005). Here, where Emme was formed as a separate company, where Emme purchased none of its assets from Impression, where neither Impression nor Nick 3 The district court applied Florida law to the question of Emme’s contractual liability and no party raises the choice of law issue on appeal. 11 Yeh had any ownership interest in Emme and received no royalties from Emme, where Impression continued its business and did not dissolve subsequent to Emme’s formation, and where there has been no assertion of fraud, we cannot hold that GBA established an issue of material fact as to successor-in-interest liability. See, e.g., Bernard v. Kee Mfg. Co., Inc., 409 So. 2d 1047, 1048 (Fla. 1982) (holding that successor-in-interest relationship did not exist where the old company sold its manufacturing business to a new company operating under different ownership and management); Orlando Light Bulb Servs., Inc., 523 So. 2d at 742-43 (holding that successor-in-interest relationship did not exist where alleged successor was separately owned and acquired only a limited amount of assets from alleged predecessor); cf. Amjad Munim v. Azar, 648 So. 2d 145, 15455 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994) (holding that successor-in-interest existed where ownership between the old and new companies was the same, the new company began when the old company ceased, and the new company provided the same services to the same clients while using the same staff).