Practice question
An asset purchaser expressly agrees to assume identified employee debts. It says no liability can exist unless the employees prove alter-ego domination too. What Nell-rule point matters?
- Express assumption is itself a listed exception requiring its own analysis
- Express assumption can never matter
- Only identical logos create assumed debt
- Every asset purchaser is immune regardless of agreement
- Employees must ignore the assumption document
Legal references
- Maricalum Mining v Florentino GR221813 July23,2018 MAIN: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2018/jul2018/gr_221813_2018.html Transaction-specific domination and Nell asset-transfer exceptions.
- Kukan International v Reyes GR182729 September29,2010 MAIN: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_182729_2010.html Jurisdiction and due process distinct from veil-piercing liability.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.