MESC v Park Lane Management Digest no. 2.22 Section 22 Cite as: MESC v Park Lane Mgt, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals of Michigan, issued September 28, 1999 (Docket No. 210592). Appeal pending: No Claimant: N/A Employer: Park Lane Management Docket no.: N/A Date of decision: September 28, 1999 View/download the full decision COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: The… Read More »
Pioneer Cabinetry, Inc v MESC Digest no. 2.17 Section 41(2) Cite as: Pioneer Cabinetry, Inc v MESC, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals of Michigan, issued September 27, 1994 (Docket No. 145657). Appeal pending: No Claimant: N/A Employer: Pioneer Cabinetry, Inc. Docket no.: L88-08050-2003 Date of decision: September 27, 1994 View/download the full decision COURT… Read More »
CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: The Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee was an employing unit pursuant to Section 40 and, therefore, by definition an “employer subject to this Act” under Section 41(2)(a). Therefore, employer Bruce & Roberts Inc. is a successor, having acquired 75% or more of Balderstone assets by means of bankruptcy.
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Where a vertical merger takes place involving multiple corporate entities related as parent – subsidiary, the merger transactions occur in sequence, not simultaneously.
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: The value of pending litigation was too speculative to be considered an asset. As such the employer acquired 75% or more of the predecessor and is a successor employer under Section 41(2).
Midway Stop-n-Shop, Inc v MESC Digest no. 2.19 Sections 22, 41 Cite as: Midway Stop-n-Shop, Inc, v MESC, unpublished opinion of the Cass County Circuit Court, issued March 29, 1990 (Docket No. 86-12638AA). Appeal pending: No Claimant: N/A Employer: Midway Stop-N-Shop, Inc. Docket no.: L86-08390-RM1 (Bypassed Board of Review) Date of decision: March 29, 1990 View/download the full… Read More »
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: A weighted average of the tax rate of the employer’s two predecessors which were merged into it must be used to determine the employer’s tax rate under Section 19 and 22(e)(3).
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Where various business elements were transferred including some physical assets, disclosure of customers, gain of business from several customers of transferor, there was substantial evidence of a business transfer although the computation of the percentage of the rating account to be transferred was arbitrary.
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: When a chain store sells 3 of 126 stores and the purchaser continues to employ 90% of the seller’s former employees, there is a transfer of business, and that part of the seller’s rating account pertaining to the employees of the 3 stores must be transferred, pursuant to Section 22 of the Act, to the purchaser.
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: “If a vital integral part of the business is not transferred, regardless of how many people make up that integral part, so that the business could not continue, then there has not been a transfer of the `organization’ for the purposes of this Act.”