A recent decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is noteworthy for transactional practitioners:

In T. Butera Auburn vs. Williams, the Court held that a purchaser of a veterinary business was not entitled to withhold payment on a promissory note issued in connection with the purchase of defendant’s business.  The case involved the purchase of a veterinary clinic business from the defendant via an asset purchase agreement, where $800,000 was paid at the closing, the another $400,000 was payable via a promissory note over 15 years.  According to the decision, when plaintiffs discovered that the defendant was in violation of her covenant not to compete and other post-closing obligations, they brought suit and sought to hold back payment on the note to set off their damages.  Plaintiffs argued that they were excused from performance under the Note based on language on the APA that a default under a related transaction document (such as the Note) would be a default under the APA.  The Court rejected this argument, noting that this case involved the opposite scenario.  Here the breach occurred under the APA provisions, not the Note, and the Note did not contain a cross-default provision that would have potentially allowed the Plaintiffs to stop payment.  The Court did comment however, that if the plaintiffs could have shown that “the damaged business itself was supposed to generate the income from which the debt … was to be repaid, [the defendant] might well be estopped from obtaining judicially compelled acceleration on the basis that the Note was breached when payments were not subsequently made on time by the borrower.”

This case is a useful reminder that:

• cross-default provisions and rights for setoff in the event of an indemnification or other claim should be included in Notes and other transactional documents
• Language such as that quoted below may be helpful to add as an acknowledgment to a remedies section in the transaction documents to prevent a similar result

Tags: acquisition, change of ownership, duty to indemnify, escrow, holdback, indemnity, M&A, massachusetts supreme judicial court, promissory note

If you look at promissory note in your form file, odds are that the signature line indicates that the note was signed “under seal.” Aside from custom, there are several reasons why this somewhat archaic language was included. The most important reason, at least in Massachusetts, was that the language elevated the note from a plain contract to a sealed instrument. This extended the statute of limitations relating to the Note from six years to twenty.

In 1998, in connection with the revision of Article 3 of the UCC, Massachusetts adopted G. L. C. 106, § 3-118, which provided for a uniform six year statute of limitations for all negotiable instruments. In its recent decision in Premier Capital, LLC v. KMZ, LLC, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that Section 3-118 governs all negotiable instruments, sealed and unsealed. However, to the extent that a cause of action predates this adoption of law, the Court held that the law in effect prior to 1998 will apply. As there are probably few instruments still lying around that predate this adoption, odds are that we may start see the “under seal” language slowly disappear from these types of documents.

The other significant aspect of this decision is the Court’s concise restatement of Massachusetts law on successor liability. (The issue in the case was whether a promissory note could be enforced against KMZ, an entity that the plaintiff claimed to be a successor in interest to Max Zeller Furs, Inc., the party that signed the original note.)

First, in order to be deemed a “successor corporation”, there must be a transfer to that entity of “all or substantially” of another corporation.

If the first test is met, then to impose liability on the successor corporation, one of the following factors must also be met:

• the successor assumes the predecessor’s liability expressly or impliedly
• the transaction is a “de facto merger”
• the succession is merely a continuation of the predecessor, or
• the transaction is really just a fraudulent attempt by the predecessor to avoid liability.

Here, the Court affirmed the ruling in favor of the defendants, holding that there were no undisputed facts proving that Zeller transferred “all, or substantially all” of its assets to KMZ. While Premier argued that Zeller transferred its good will to KMZ, it could not show any actual agreement memorializing that transfer. The court also held that engaging in the same business and having the same stockholders, without meeting the transfer test, was not enough.

The take away from this case is that successor liability can only be established with a clear showing of facts within the established guidelines of the case law. Courts are not likely to find successor liability for purposes of summary judgment without undisputed proof of transfer of liability.

If you have any questions about this topic, please feel free to email us.

Tags: acquisition, Article 3 UCC, change of ownership, G. L. C. 106, KMZ, liability transfer, M&A, Massachusetts law, massachusetts supreme judicial court, Premier Capital, promissory, promissory note, section 3-118, successor, successor corporation, successor liability, transfer of liability, UCC, under seal, § 3-118