Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 92A.250 (2026)

Effect of merger, conversion or exchange

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NRS 92A.250 Effect of merger, conversion or exchange.

1. When a merger takes effect:

(a) Every other entity that is a constituent entity merges into the surviving entity and the separate existence of every entity except the surviving entity ceases;

(b) The title to all real estate and other property owned by each merging constituent entity is vested in the surviving entity without reversion or impairment;

(c) An owner of a constituent entity remains liable for all the obligations of such constituent entity existing at the time of the merger to the extent the owner was liable before the merger;

(d) The surviving entity has all of the liabilities of each other constituent entity;

(e) A proceeding pending against any constituent entity may be continued as if the merger had not occurred or the surviving entity may be substituted in the proceeding for the entity whose existence has ceased;

(f) The articles of incorporation, articles of organization, certificate of limited partnership or certificate of trust of the surviving entity are amended to the extent provided in the plan of merger; and

(g) The owner’s interests of each constituent entity that are to be converted into owner’s interests, obligations or other securities of the surviving or any other entity or into cash or other property are converted, and the former holders of the owner’s interests are entitled only to the rights provided in the articles of merger or any created pursuant to NRS 92A.300 to 92A.500, inclusive.

2. When an exchange takes effect, the owner’s interests of each acquired entity are exchanged as provided in the plan, and the former holders of the owner’s interests are entitled only to the rights provided in the articles of exchange or any rights created pursuant to NRS 92A.300 to 92A.500, inclusive.

3. When a conversion takes effect:

(a) The constituent entity is converted into the resulting entity and is governed by and subject to the law of the jurisdiction of the resulting entity;

(b) The conversion is a continuation of the existence of the constituent entity;

(c) The title to all real estate and other property owned by the constituent entity is vested in the resulting entity without reversion or impairment;

(d) The resulting entity has all the liabilities of the constituent entity;

(e) A proceeding pending against the constituent entity may be continued as if the conversion had not occurred or the resulting entity may be substituted in the proceeding for the constituent entity;

(f) The owner’s interests of the constituent entity that are to be converted into the owner’s interests of the resulting entity are converted;

(g) An owner of the resulting entity remains liable for all the obligations of the constituent entity existing at the time of the conversion to the extent the owner was liable before the conversion; and

(h) The domestic constituent entity is not required to wind up its affairs, pay its liabilities, distribute its assets or dissolve, and the conversion is not deemed a dissolution of the domestic constituent entity.

(Added to NRS by 1995, 2085; A 1999, 1630; 2001, 1413, 3199; 2015, 3243)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2003–2024 · leading case: Cohen v. Mirage Resorts, Inc., 62 P.3d 720 (Nev. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cohen v. Mirage Resorts, Inc., 62 P.3d 720 (Nev. 2003). · cites it 2× “[6] NRS 92A.250(1)(f). [7] See Alabama By-Products v.”

The Capital Gold Grp., Inc. v. Nortier, 176 Cal. App. 4th 1119 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 5× “” (Nev. Rev. Stat. § 92A.250, subd. (3)(a).) “The conversion is a continuation of the existence of the constituent entity,” (Nev.”

HD Supply Facilities Maint., Ltd. v. Bymoen, 210 P.3d 183 (Nev. 2009). · cites it 2× “and be subject to all the restrictions, disabilities and duties of each of the constituent corporations so merged," this early statute differs little in regard to the succession of rights of a surviving entity set forth in NRS 92A.”

Parametric Sound Corp. Vs. Dist. Ct. (rakauskas), 2017 NV 59 (Nev. 2017). · cites it 2× “8, 2011); see also NRS 92A.250(1)(d) (providing that the entity surviving a merger "has all of the liabilities of each other constituent entity").”

Deutsch Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co. (D. Nev. 2020). · cites it 2× “250(1)(a) (providing that once a merger takes effect “the separate existence of every 28 || entity except the surviving entity ceases”); NRS § 92A.250(1)(d) (“The surviving entity has all of the liabilities of each other constituent entity.”

Parametric Sound Corp. Vs. Dist. Ct. (rakauskas), 2017 NV 59 (Nev. 2017). “8, 2011); see also NRS 92A.250(1)(d) (providing that the entity surviving a merger "has all of the liabilities of each other constituent entity").”

Cnty. of Clark v. Orbitz Worldwide, LLC (9th Cir. 2024). “See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 92A.250(1)(a). Thus, the district court correctly determined that the naming of Travelocity, Inc.”

In Re: Go Global, Inc. (9th Cir. BAP 2014). “-38- 1 denial of their declaratory relief claim was in error because 2 under NRS 92A.250(1)(b), Lodge took title to the cabins from 3 View upon the execution of the merger.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 92A.250(1)(a) — 1 case

Cnty. of Clark v. Orbitz Worldwide, LLC (9th Cir. 2024). “See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 92A.250(1)(a). Thus, the district court correctly determined that the naming of Travelocity, Inc.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 92A.250(1)(b) — 1 case

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 92A.250(1)(d) — 3 cases

Deutsch Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co. (D. Nev. 2020). “250(1)(a) (providing that once a merger takes effect “the separate existence of every 28 || entity except the surviving entity ceases”); NRS § 92A.250(1)(d) (“The surviving entity has all of the liabilities of each other constituent entity.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 92A.250(1)(f) — 1 case

Cohen v. Mirage Resorts, Inc., 62 P.3d 720 (Nev. 2003). “[6] NRS 92A.250(1)(f). [7] See Alabama By-Products v.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 92A.250(l)(f) — 1 case

Cohen v. Mirage Resorts, Inc., 62 P.3d 720 (Nev. 2003). “[6] NRS 92A.250(1)(f). [7] See Alabama By-Products v.”

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.