An interesting successor liability case was recently decided by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. An auto glass installer had the misfortune of going into receivership and was purchased by a business that was in a similar field, but used a different corporate management headquarters and paid installers different benefits and offered them different terms and conditions of employment, increased their job responsibilities and required that they use different equipment and methods to install the glass. There was an appeal from a determination that they were a successor, and the appeal centered around the idea that the order approving the purchase explicitly stipulated that the purchase was "free and clear of any liens and encumbrances" and the secured creditor, who received the proceeds of the sale, was ultimately going to pay any penalty by virtue of its promise to indemnify, resulting in an inequitable outcome of a grossly underpaid secured creditor. The Court, however, had no sympathy and, based on prior cases, made three factual findings that made the new company a successor employer:

1. The bona fide purchaser acquired the company with actual knowledge of the pending unfair labor practice charges.

2. There was little or no interruption in business operations at the acquired company's stations as a result of the acquisition.

3. The bona fide purchaser continued to operate the enterprise without substantial change, and a majority of the bona fide purchaser's employees at the acquired company's stations were former employees of the acquired company.

NLRB v. Leiferman Enterprises, LLC (8th Cir. 2011).