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

Heading: Insolvency of Divesting Corporation

Text: 82 Finally, C & J does not dispute that Anson is a defunct corporation, consequently unable to pay its debt to Peters. See Nelson v. Tiffany Indus., 778 F.2d 533, 535-36 (9th Cir.1985) (Justification for imposing strict liability upon a successor to a manufacturer ... rests upon ... the virtual destruction of the plaintiff's remedies against the original manufacturer caused by the successor's acquisition of the business.); The Ninth Ave. Remedial Group, 195 B.R. at 727 (The successor doctrine is derived from equitable principles, and it would be grossly unfair, except in the most exceptional circumstances, to impose successor liability on an innocent purchaser when the predecessor is fully capable of providing relief....). 22 83 Accordingly, since the Peters proffer, at the very least, generated a trialworthy dispute under each of the five Baker factors, the Rule 50 motion was improvidently granted. 23 84