Opinion ID: 197524
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Continuation of Business

Text: 74 Furthermore, Peters proffered ample evidence on the third factor in the Baker test, by demonstrating that C & J did continue [Anson's] business. H.J. Baker, 554 A.2d at 205. Among the considerations pertinent to the business continuity inquiry are: (1) whether the divesting and acquiring corporations handled identical products; (2) whether their operations were conducted at the same physical premises; and (3) whether the acquiring corporation retained employees of the divesting corporation. See id.; see also Bagin, 593 N.E.2d at 407 (The gravamen of the 'mere continuation' exception is whether there is a continuation of the corporate entity. Indicia of the continuation of the corporate entity would include the same employees, a common name, the same product, the same plant.) (citation omitted). 75 C & J was incorporated in October 1993 for the specific purpose of acquiring the assets of the then-defunct Anson. See Asher, 659 So.2d at 599-600 (noting relevance of fact that divesting corporation ceased business operations soon after asset transfer, then liquidated or dissolved); Steel Co., 214 Ill.Dec. 1029, 662 N.E.2d at 600 (noting significance of circumstantial evidence that acquiring corporation was incorporated on the same day that [predecessor] ceased....). Peters adduced evidence that C & J not only continued manufacturing the same jewelry products as Anson, see H.J. Baker, 554 A.2d at 205 (noting that two companies sold virtually identical [ ] products), but conducted its manufacturing at the same physical premises and continued servicing Anson's principal customer, Tiffany's. Moreover, its uninterrupted continuation of the Anson manufacturing business was prominently announced to Anson's customers in an October 1993 letter from C & J. See Glynwed, 869 F.Supp. at 277 (purchasing corporation held itself out to the world ' as the effective continuation of the seller. ' ) (citations omitted); Kleen Laundry & Dry Cleaning Servs., Inc. v. Total Waste Mgt., Inc., 867 F.Supp. 1136, 1142 (D.N.H.1994) (This seamless client transfer reveals that the defendant purchased and operated a complete business and, in so doing, tacitly held itself out to the public as the continuation of [ ] Portland Oil.); cf. United States v. Mexico Feed & Seed Co., 764 F.Supp. 565, 573 (E.D.Mo.1991) (noting that the acquiring corporation continued production of the same product lines and held itself out to the public as a continuation of the divesting corporation), aff'd in relevant part, 980 F.2d 478, 488 (8th Cir.1992). In its October 1993 letter, C & J stated that it had acquired all of the assets of Anson, that it was its intention to build on [Anson's '55-year heritage of quality'] to reestablish the Anson brand as the pre-eminent one [in the jewelry market], and that C & J had therefore retained all of the former Anson employees [including Anson's 'current retail sales representation']--the core of any business. (Emphasis added.) See H.J. Baker, 554 A.2d at 205; see also Cyr v. B. Offen & Co., Inc., 501 F.2d 1145, 1153-54 (1st Cir.1974) (same employees continued to produce same products in same factory); Mexico Feed, 764 F.Supp. at 572 (noting relevance of finding that acquiring entity retained same supervisory personnel or production facilities). Finally, in order to facilitate the product-line continuation, C & J specifically assumed responsibility for, and paid off, all indebtedness due Anson's essential trade creditors. See Asher, 659 So.2d at 600 (noting that purchasing corporation [expressly] assumed those liabilities and obligations of the seller [e.g., trade debts] ordinarily necessary for the continuation of the [seller's] normal business operations). Thus, the Peters proffer handily addressed the third factor in the Baker inquiry. 76