ILCS » Chapter 805 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

805 ILCS 5/11.50 (2026)

Effect of merger, consolidation or exchange

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(805 ILCS 5/11.50) (from Ch. 32, par. 11.50)
    Sec. 11.50. Effect of merger, consolidation or exchange. (a) When such merger or consolidation has been effected:
    (1) The several corporations parties to the plan of merger or consolidation shall be a single corporation, which, in the case of a merger, is that corporation designated in the plan of merger as the surviving corporation, and, in the case of a consolidation, is the new corporation provided for in the plan of consolidation.
    (2) The separate existence of all corporations parties to the plan of merger or consolidation, except the surviving or new corporation, shall cease.
    (3) Such surviving or new corporation has all the rights, privileges, immunities, and powers and is subject to all the duties and liabilities of a corporation organized under this Act.
    (4) Such surviving or new corporation shall thereupon and thereafter possess all the rights, privileges, immunities, and franchises, as of a public or a private nature, of each of the merging or consolidating corporations; and all property, real, personal, and mixed, and all debts due on whatever account, including subscriptions to shares, and all other choses in action, and all and every other interest, of or belonging to or due to each of the corporations so merged or consolidated, shall be taken and deemed to be transferred to and vested in such single corporation without further act or deed; and the title to any real estate, or any interest therein, vested in any of such corporations shall not revert or be in any way impaired by reason of such merger or consolidation.
    (5) Such surviving or new corporation shall thenceforth be responsible and liable for all the liabilities and obligations of each of the corporations so merged or consolidated; and any claim existing or action or proceeding pending by or against any of such corporations may be prosecuted to judgment as if such merger or consolidation had not taken place, or such surviving or new corporation may be substituted in its place. Neither the rights of creditors nor any liens upon the property of any such corporations shall be impaired by such merger or consolidation.
    (6) In case of a merger, the articles of incorporation of the surviving corporation are deemed to be amended to the extent, if any, that changes in its articles are stated in the articles of merger; and, in the case of a consolidation, the articles of incorporation of the new corporation are set forth in the articles of consolidation.
    (b) When such merger, consolidation or exchange has been effected, the shares of the corporation or corporations to be converted or exchanged under the terms of the plan cease to exist in the case of a merger or consolidation, or are deemed to be exchanged in the case of an exchange. The holders of those shares are entitled only to the money, securities or other property into which those shares have been converted or for which those shares have been exchanged in accordance with the plan, subject to any dissenters' rights under Section 11.70 of this Act.
    (c) The merger, consolidation or exchange of shares of a corporation shall not: (i) prohibit the State from prosecuting a corporation criminally by indictment, information or complaint filed subsequent to its merger, consolidation or exchange for any offenses it committed prior thereto; or (ii) abate or suspend a criminal proceeding which is pending against a corporation on the effective date of said merger, consolidation or exchange.
    (d) Where a corporation has been criminally prosecuted pursuant to subsection (c) herein, and has been convicted and fined for a criminal offense, the surviving or new corporation shall be responsible for the payment of the fine only to the extent of any assets contributed to the merger, consolidation or exchange of shares by the convicted corporation, provided that the surviving or new corporation, at the time of acquisition, did not know, or have reason to know, of the criminal acts which were the basis for the criminal action. In the event the surviving or new corporation did know, or have reason to know, of the criminal acts which were the basis for the criminal action, it shall be responsible for the entire amount of the fine. Nothing herein shall prohibit the State from collecting a fine which was assessed against a corporation from a shareholder to the extent that the corporation may have distributed assets to the shareholder.
(Source: P.A. 85-1440.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1993–2020 · leading case: Citizens Nat'l Bank v. Kids Hope United, Inc., 922 N.E.2d 1093 (Ill. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Citizens Nat'l Bank v. Kids Hope United, Inc., 922 N.E.2d 1093 (Ill. 2009). · cites it 4× “50(a)(2) of the Business Corporation Act (805 ILCS 5/11.50(a)(2) (West 2006)), [3] the court reasoned that because the merger agreement identified Hudelson, not ECCH, as the surviving corporation, ECCH "ceased to exist.”
Illinois Ins. Guar. Fund v. Priority Transp., Inc., 2019 IL App (1st) 181454 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). · cites it 4× “The merger at issue in this case was between a Wisconsin corporation (Fox Midwest) and a Delaware corporation (TGT Merger), in which only a Delaware corporation survived, in accordance with those states’ business statutes based on the merger documents. But there is no meaningful…”
Citizens Nat'l Bank of Paris v. Kids Hope United, Inc., 898 N.E.2d 734 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 12× “General Rule: Merger Does Not Cause Gift To Lapse In regard to whether Kids Hope should continue to receive income from Blackman's trust, Kids Hope contends that the trial court should have relied on the general rule, set forth both in statute (805 ILCS 5/11.50 (a)(4) (West…”
USX Corp. v. White, 817 N.E.2d 896 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 3× “” 805 ILCS 5/11.50(a)(1) through (a)(5) (West 2000).”
Harry F. Chaveriat, Jr. v. Williams Pipe Line Co., 11 F.3d 1420 (7th Cir. 1993). “” A seller who is exiting from a business doesn’t want to be plagued by lawsuits afterward and may not even retain the organizational capacity to defend against them.”
Coulter Corp. v. Leinert, 869 F. Supp. 732 (E.D. Mo. 1994). “1106(1)(b); 805 ILCS 5/11.50(4). Defendants point to a Florida statute which they interpret as preventing a surviving corporation in a merger from enforcing a non-competition agreement against employees of the merged corporation.”
A Plus Janitorial Co. v. Grp. Fox, Inc., 2013 IL App (1st) 120245 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “50 of the Business Corporation Act of 1983 (805 ILCS 5/11.50 (West 2010)), “the surviving corporation from a merger has all the rights and power” previously belonging to the nonsurviving corporations.”
West Shore Assocs., Ltd. v. Am. Wilbert Vault Corp., 645 N.E.2d 494 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994). “50 of the Act (805 ILCS 5/11.50 (West 1992)), as of the effective date of the merger, July 8, 1993, West Shore lost its status as an AWV shareholder, subject to its dissenter’s rights under section 11.”
Citizens Nat'l Bank of Paris v. Kids Hope United, Inc. (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 3× “50(a)(2) of the Business Corporation Act of 1983 (Act) (805 ILCS 5/11.50(a)(2) (West 2006)), the restrictive conditions that each respective testator placed on her gift came to pass.”
USX Corp. v. White (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 3× “) 805 ILCS 5/11.50(a)(1) (West 2000). As we noted above, statutes "should be construed as a whole, with each section read in conjunction with every other section.”
Aquino v. C. R. Bard, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2018). “805 ILCS 5/11.50(2) (“The separate existence of all corporations parties to the plan of merger or consolidation, except the surviving or new corporation, shall cease.”
— 805 ILCS 5/11.50(2) — 1 case
Aquino v. C. R. Bard, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2018). “805 ILCS 5/11.50(2) (“The separate existence of all corporations parties to the plan of merger or consolidation, except the surviving or new corporation, shall cease.”
— 805 ILCS 5/11.50(4) — 1 case
Coulter Corp. v. Leinert, 869 F. Supp. 732 (E.D. Mo. 1994). “1106(1)(b); 805 ILCS 5/11.50(4). Defendants point to a Florida statute which they interpret as preventing a surviving corporation in a merger from enforcing a non-competition agreement against employees of the merged corporation.”
— 805 ILCS 5/11.50(a)(1) — 3 cases
Illinois Ins. Guar. Fund v. Priority Transp., Inc., 2019 IL App (1st) 181454 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “The merger at issue in this case was between a Wisconsin corporation (Fox Midwest) and a Delaware corporation (TGT Merger), in which only a Delaware corporation survived, in accordance with those states’ business statutes based on the merger documents. But there is no meaningful…”
USX Corp. v. White, 817 N.E.2d 896 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “” 805 ILCS 5/11.50(a)(1) through (a)(5) (West 2000).”
USX Corp. v. White (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “) 805 ILCS 5/11.50(a)(1) (West 2000). As we noted above, statutes "should be construed as a whole, with each section read in conjunction with every other section.”
— 805 ILCS 5/11.50(a)(2) — 6 cases
Citizens Nat'l Bank v. Kids Hope United, Inc., 922 N.E.2d 1093 (Ill. 2009). “50(a)(2) of the Business Corporation Act (805 ILCS 5/11.50(a)(2) (West 2006)), [3] the court reasoned that because the merger agreement identified Hudelson, not ECCH, as the surviving corporation, ECCH "ceased to exist.”
Citizens Nat'l Bank of Paris v. Kids Hope United, Inc., 898 N.E.2d 734 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). “General Rule: Merger Does Not Cause Gift To Lapse In regard to whether Kids Hope should continue to receive income from Blackman's trust, Kids Hope contends that the trial court should have relied on the general rule, set forth both in statute (805 ILCS 5/11.50 (a)(4) (West…”
Illinois Ins. Guar. Fund v. Priority Transp., Inc., 2019 IL App (1st) 181454 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “The merger at issue in this case was between a Wisconsin corporation (Fox Midwest) and a Delaware corporation (TGT Merger), in which only a Delaware corporation survived, in accordance with those states’ business statutes based on the merger documents. But there is no meaningful…”
USX Corp. v. White, 817 N.E.2d 896 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “” 805 ILCS 5/11.50(a)(1) through (a)(5) (West 2000).”
Citizens Nat'l Bank of Paris v. Kids Hope United, Inc. (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). “50(a)(2) of the Business Corporation Act of 1983 (Act) (805 ILCS 5/11.50(a)(2) (West 2006)), the restrictive conditions that each respective testator placed on her gift came to pass.”
— 805 ILCS 5/11.50(a)(4) — 3 cases
Illinois Ins. Guar. Fund v. Priority Transp., Inc., 2019 IL App (1st) 181454 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “The merger at issue in this case was between a Wisconsin corporation (Fox Midwest) and a Delaware corporation (TGT Merger), in which only a Delaware corporation survived, in accordance with those states’ business statutes based on the merger documents. But there is no meaningful…”
Citizens Nat'l Bank of Paris v. Kids Hope United, Inc., 898 N.E.2d 734 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). “General Rule: Merger Does Not Cause Gift To Lapse In regard to whether Kids Hope should continue to receive income from Blackman's trust, Kids Hope contends that the trial court should have relied on the general rule, set forth both in statute (805 ILCS 5/11.50 (a)(4) (West…”
Citizens Nat'l Bank of Paris v. Kids Hope United, Inc. (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). “50(a)(2) of the Business Corporation Act of 1983 (Act) (805 ILCS 5/11.50(a)(2) (West 2006)), the restrictive conditions that each respective testator placed on her gift came to pass.”
— 805 ILCS 5/11.50(a)(5) — 1 case
Harry F. Chaveriat, Jr. v. Williams Pipe Line Co., 11 F.3d 1420 (7th Cir. 1993). “” A seller who is exiting from a business doesn’t want to be plagued by lawsuits afterward and may not even retain the organizational capacity to defend against them.”
— 805 ILCS 5/11.50(a)(l) — 2 cases
USX Corp. v. White, 817 N.E.2d 896 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “” 805 ILCS 5/11.50(a)(1) through (a)(5) (West 2000).”
Citizens Nat'l Bank of Paris v. Kids Hope United, Inc., 898 N.E.2d 734 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). “General Rule: Merger Does Not Cause Gift To Lapse In regard to whether Kids Hope should continue to receive income from Blackman's trust, Kids Hope contends that the trial court should have relied on the general rule, set forth both in statute (805 ILCS 5/11.50 (a)(4) (West…”
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.