BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT
Act 284 of 1972
450.1842a Publication of notice of dissolution; requirements; claimants commencing proceedings within 1 year of notice.
Sec. 842a.
(1) A dissolved corporation may also publish notice of dissolution at any time after the effective date of dissolution and request that persons with claims against the corporation present them in accordance with the notice.
(2) The notice must be in accord with both of the following:
(a) Be published 1 time in a newspaper of general circulation in the county where the dissolved corporation's principal office, or if there is no principal office in this state, its registered office, is or was last located.
(b) State that a claim against the corporation will be barred unless a proceeding to enforce the claim is commenced within 1 year after the publication date of the newspaper notice.
(3) If the dissolved corporation publishes a newspaper notice in accordance with subsection (2), the claim of each of the following claimants is barred unless the claimant commences a proceeding to enforce the claim against the dissolved corporation within 1 year after the publication date of the newspaper notice:
(a) A claimant who did not receive written notice under section 841a.
(b) A claimant whose claim was timely sent to the dissolved corporation but not acted on.
(c) A claimant whose claim is contingent or based on an event occurring after the effective date of dissolution.
(4) Notwithstanding subsection (3), a claimant having an existing claim known to the corporation at the time of publication in accordance with subsection (2) and who did not receive written notice under section 841a is not barred from commencing a proceeding until 6 months after the claimant has actual notice of the dissolution.
History: Add. 1989, Act 121, Eff. Oct. 1, 1989 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 91, Eff. Oct. 1, 1993 ;-- Am. 1997, Act 118, Imd. Eff. Oct. 24, 1997
Notes of Decisions
Gilliam v. Hi-Temp Prods. Inc., 677 N.W.2d 856 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 5× “Hi-Temp argues that plaintiffs' claims of asbestos-related personal injury are barred by MCL 450.1842a [1] because they were filed beyond the one-year period allowed for the filing of claims after Hi-Temp *862 published notice of its dissolution.”
Freeman v. Hi Temp Prods., 580 N.W.2d 918 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 4× “Additionally, during that same time frame, Hi Temp published a notice in the Oakland Press, a paper published in the county in which Hi Temp's principal office was located, in the form and containing the information required by § 842a of the BCA, M.”
Gilliam v. Hi-Temp Prods., Inc., 677 N.W.2d 856 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 5× “Hi-Temp argues that plaintiffs’ claims of asbestos-related personal injury are barred by MCL 450.1842a 1 because they were filed beyond the one-year period allowed for the filing of claims after Hi-Temp published notice of its dissolution.”
Freeman v. HI Temp Prods., Inc., 229 Mich. App. 92 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 4× “200(841a). Additionally, during that same time frame, Hi Temp published a notice in the Oakland Press, a paper published in the county in which Hi Temp’s principal office was located, in the form and containing the information required by § 842a of the BCA, MCL 450.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 450.1842a(2)(b) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 450.1842a(3) — 4 cases
Gilliam v. Hi-Temp Prods. Inc., 677 N.W.2d 856 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
“Hi-Temp argues that plaintiffs' claims of asbestos-related personal injury are barred by MCL 450.1842a [1] because they were filed beyond the one-year period allowed for the filing of claims after Hi-Temp *862 published notice of its dissolution.”
Freeman v. Hi Temp Prods., 580 N.W.2d 918 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
“Additionally, during that same time frame, Hi Temp published a notice in the Oakland Press, a paper published in the county in which Hi Temp's principal office was located, in the form and containing the information required by § 842a of the BCA, M.”
Gilliam v. Hi-Temp Prods., Inc., 677 N.W.2d 856 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“Hi-Temp argues that plaintiffs’ claims of asbestos-related personal injury are barred by MCL 450.1842a 1 because they were filed beyond the one-year period allowed for the filing of claims after Hi-Temp published notice of its dissolution.”
Freeman v. HI Temp Prods., Inc., 229 Mich. App. 92 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
“200(841a). Additionally, during that same time frame, Hi Temp published a notice in the Oakland Press, a paper published in the county in which Hi Temp’s principal office was located, in the form and containing the information required by § 842a of the BCA, MCL 450.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 450.1842a(3)(c) — 2 cases
Gilliam v. Hi-Temp Prods. Inc., 677 N.W.2d 856 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
“Hi-Temp argues that plaintiffs' claims of asbestos-related personal injury are barred by MCL 450.1842a [1] because they were filed beyond the one-year period allowed for the filing of claims after Hi-Temp *862 published notice of its dissolution.”
Gilliam v. Hi-Temp Prods., Inc., 677 N.W.2d 856 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“Hi-Temp argues that plaintiffs’ claims of asbestos-related personal injury are barred by MCL 450.1842a 1 because they were filed beyond the one-year period allowed for the filing of claims after Hi-Temp published notice of its dissolution.”
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.