Huray v. Fournier N.C. Programming

2 Citing cases

  1. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Prill

    Civ. No. 12-1218 (RHK/JSM) (D. Minn. Feb. 14, 2014)

    Defendants assert that the current limited liability company, which the FDIC named as a Defendant, cannot be held liable for Prill's or the former CACG's negligent actions. Under Minnesota law, a transferee of a business's assets is generally not liable for the transferor's debts, obligations, and liabilities, except "to the extent provided in the contract or agreement between the transferee and the transferor," Minn. Stat. ยง 302A.661, subd. 4, or if the transfer was fraudulent, Schwartz v. Virtucom, Inc., No. A08-1059, 2009 WL 1311816, at *2 n.2 (Minn. Ct. App. May 12, 2009), or lacked sufficient consideration, Huray v. Fournier NC Programming, Inc., No. C9-02-1852, 2003 WL 21151772, at *5-6 (Minn. Ct. App. May 20, 2003). The FDIC has not produced the purchase agreement or any other agreement indicating CACG assented to successor liability, nor has it produced evidence indicating the transfer was fraudulent or lacked consideration.

  2. Gamradt v. Federal Laboratories Inc.

    02-CV-816 (JMR/RLE) (D. Minn. Sep. 2, 2003)

    In Huray, a successor company operated with the same directors, officers and employees as the predecessor company, and did not pay sufficient consideration for the assets purchased. See Huray v. Fournier NC Programming, Inc., 2003 Minn. App. LEXIS 620, *17 (Minn.Ct.App. May 20, 2003) (unpublished) (finding inadequate consideration evidence of fraud). The present transaction involved substantial payment to DTC-Wyoming's shareholders.