Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 33 — CORPORATIONS · Chapter 601 — Business Corporations
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 33-886 (2025)

Known claims against dissolved corporation

✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) A dissolved corporation may dispose of the known claims against it by notifying its known claimants in writing of the dissolution at any time after the effective date of the dissolution.

(b) The written notice shall: (1) Describe information that must be included in a claim; (2) provide a mailing address where a claim may be sent; (3) state the deadline, which may not be fewer than one hundred twenty days from the effective date of the written notice, by which the dissolved corporation must receive the claim; and (4) state that the claim will be barred if not received by the deadline.

(c) A claim against the dissolved corporation is barred: (1) If a claimant who was given written notice under subsection (b) of this section does not deliver the claim to the dissolved corporation by the deadline; or (2) if a claimant whose claim was rejected by the dissolved corporation does not commence a proceeding to enforce the claim within ninety days from the effective date of the rejection notice.

(d) For purposes of this section, “claim” does not include a contingent liability or a claim based on an event occurring after the effective date of the dissolution.

(P.A. 94-186, S. 167, 215; P.A. 96-271, S. 118, 254; P.A. 03-18, S. 29.)

History: P.A. 94-186 effective January 1, 1997; P.A. 96-271 added Subsec. (e) re extension of any applicable period of limitation, effective January 1, 1997; P.A. 03-18 amended Subsec. (a) by replacing “following the procedure described in this section” with “notifying its known claimants in writing of the dissolution at any time after the effective date of the dissolution”, amended Subsec. (b) by deleting provision re notice to known claimants, made technical changes in Subsecs. (c) and (d) and deleted former Subsec. (e) re nothing in section to extend any applicable limitation period, effective July 1, 2003.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2015–2026 · leading case: Girouard v. Cestaro (In re Cestaro), 598 B.R. 520 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Girouard v. Cestaro (In re Cestaro), 598 B.R. 520 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2019). · cites it 2× “Girouard's Rule 15 Motion to Amend Pleadings is Denied Turning to a statute-based state law remedy, Girouard asserted during *533 final argument at the trial - for the first time - that Mike was liable for C & S's corporate obligations pursuant to officer and director personal…”
Zuvic, Carr & Assocs., Inc. v. Morande Bros., Inc., 116 A.3d 358 (Conn. App. Ct. 2015). · cites it 9× “General Statutes § 33-886 (a) and (c). As to unknown claims, a dissolved corporation may publish notice of its dissolution and provide for an opportunity for prospective claimants to present claims; claims not so presented may be barred.”
Jennifer Lyn Lacy, No. 25-20871 (Bankr. D. Conn. Mar. 31, 2026). · cites it 2× “There is a “fair ground of doubt” about whether Liberis’s conduct was unlawful under the automatic stay and discharge order; therefore, the Court cannot hold Liberis in contempt.”
Roumeliotis v. Nordenson, No. 3:23-cv-01366 (D. Conn. July 15, 2024). “These claims include those brought by a claimant “who was not given written notice under section 33-886”, “whose claim was timely sent to the dissolved corporation but not acted on”, or “whose claim is contingent or based on an event occurring after the effective date of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.