Advertise on ILW
Connect to us
Make us Homepage
Chinese Immig. Daily
The leadingimmigration lawpublisher - over50000 pages offree
Copyright© 1995-ILW.COM,AmericanImmigration LLC.
By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law
In an unusual case, the Office of Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) granted a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Personnel Plus, Inc. in U.S. v. Spectrum Technical Staffing Services and Personnel Plus, Inc., 12 OCAHO no. 1291 (Nov. 2016).
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a complaint against Spectrum alleging it committed 2,147 substantive and uncorrected technical errors and sought a penalty of over $1.4 million. A few months later, ICE filed a Motion to amend the Complaint to add Personnel Plus as a Respondent. OCAHO granted the motion.
Personnel Plus filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint asserting it was not a successor or alter ego of Spectrum. Thereafter, Personnel Plus filed a Motion to Dismiss/Motion for Summary Judgment seeking to be removed from the case.
The underlying legal arguments and facts were somewhat complicated and centered around any relationship between Spectrum and Personnel Plus, and if such existed, whether liability should attach to Personnel Plus. ICE asserted Personnel Plus was a “mere continuation” of Spectrum and thus met an exception to the general rule that a successor company does not acquire the liabilities and obligations of a predecessor company; thus, it cannot be found liable. ICE stated four factors should be considered: (1) continuity of ownership, (2) time lapse between dissolution and formation of the respective companies, (3) continuation of the business, and (4) the assumption of liabilities by the new entity.
Concerning ownership, Ms. Goslin was the owner of Spectrum while her husband, Mr. McKay, who was divorcing Ms. Goslin, was the owner of Personnel Plus. Although Spectrum initially listed both Ms. Goslin and Mr. McKay as owners, OCAHO accepted corporate documents filed with the state which showed Mr. McKay was not an owner of Spectrum. Second, although Spectrum curtailed its operations after the formation of Personnel Plus, it did not cease to exist as an entity and continued on a scaled-down basis. Finally, there was no evidence of assumption of liabilities by Personnel Plus although ICE stated it was seeking that information in discovery.
One fact that ICE attempted to use in its favor is that the couple’s divorce decree stated Mr. McKay would receive 55% and Ms. Goslin 45% of profits if either Spectrum or Personnel Plus was sold. However, OCAHO did not find this to constitute common ownership. Another fault cited by ICE was that for a short period of time, Spectrum and Personnel Plus shared office space. However, OCAHO did not find this evidence sufficient to find liability on behalf of Personnel Plus.
Personnel Plus argued there was not any significant transfer of assets from Spectrum to Personnel Plus, which is required before addressing a “mere continuation” analysis. ICE asserted there was a transfer of assets, but it was unable to provide proof of such, although it felt its discovery requests would provide such proof.
OCAHO concluded ICE failed to demonstrate a transfer of all or substantially all of Spectrum’s assets to Personnel Plus, which is a prerequisite to establishing corporate successor liability. Assuming arguendo there was a transfer, OCAHO found the record does not show any exception to the general rule that a successor does not acquire the liabilities of the predecessor.
The case will continue with Spectrum as the only Respondent. I will keep you informed of further developments in this case.