## Facts

- Stanley Knapp, Jr., an employee of Mrs. Smith’s Pie Company, was injured on October 6, 1969, when his hand was caught in a “Packomatic” machine.
- The Packomatic was designed and manufactured by Textile Machine Works (TMW) and sold to Mrs. Smith’s Pie Company in 1966 or 1967.
- On April 5, 1968, TMW agreed to exchange substantially all of its assets for stock in North American Rockwell Corporation (Rockwell).
- TMW retained limited items (corporate records and cash intended for expenses) and agreed to change its name, distribute Rockwell stock to its shareholders, and dissolve as soon as practicable after distribution.
- Rockwell acquired, among other things, the right to use the name “Textile Machine Works.”
- The agreement stated Rockwell would assume specified TMW obligations, but excluded liabilities against which TMW was insured or indemnified to the extent of such coverage, unless the insurer/indemnitor agreed in writing to cover Rockwell to the same extent.
- TMW had liability insurance that would have covered a claim like Knapp’s.
- The transaction closed on August 29, 1968; TMW dissolved on February 20, 1970.
- After Rockwell denied liability, Knapp sued TMW in state court, but that action was barred by time limits and/or limits on suits against dissolved corporations.

## Issues

1. Whether a purchaser of substantially all assets of a manufacturer may face successor tort liability where the transaction is structured as an asset sale rather than a statutory merger or consolidation.
2. Whether the Rockwell–TMW transaction could be treated as a de facto merger or “mere continuation,” making Rockwell liable for injuries allegedly caused by defects in TMW’s product.
3. Whether summary judgment was improper because a genuine dispute existed as to Rockwell’s express or implied assumption of TMW’s tort liabilities given the agreement’s insurance-related exclusions.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Rockwell and remanded.
- Applying Pennsylvania law (as predicted by a federal court sitting in diversity), the court held the record could support a finding that the asset transfer functioned as a de facto merger or continuation.
- The court held disputes of material fact also existed regarding whether Rockwell assumed liabilities related to Knapp’s injury, including the effect of the contract’s exclusions for insured liabilities.
- The court rejected resolving successor liability by formal labels alone and required examination of the practical substance of the transaction.

## Legal Principles

- General rule: a corporation that purchases another’s assets is not liable for the seller’s debts and liabilities.
- Exceptions (Pennsylvania): successor liability may attach when (1) the purchaser expressly or impliedly assumes liabilities, (2) the transaction amounts to a de facto merger or consolidation, (3) the purchaser is a mere continuation of the seller, or (4) the transaction is fraudulent to escape liability.
- De facto merger/continuation analysis focuses on the substance of the transaction, including continuity of the enterprise, continuity of shareholders (e.g., stock-for-assets consideration), cessation of the seller’s ordinary business and planned dissolution, and assumption of ordinary business obligations.
- A seller’s technical corporate existence for a period after closing does not foreclose de facto merger/continuation where the seller has effectively ceased operating and lacks meaningful business substance.
- Summary judgment is improper where the transaction’s character (asset sale versus de facto merger/continuation) and the scope of assumed liabilities turn on disputed facts or competing inferences from the record.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that an asset acquisition followed by the seller’s functional cessation and dissolution could be treated as a de facto merger or continuation under Pennsylvania successor-liability doctrine, and that factual disputes regarding both the nature of the transaction and the assumption of liabilities required reversal of summary judgment and a remand for further proceedings.


Knapp v. N. Am. Rockwell Corp., 506 F.2d 361 (3d Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 965 (1975)