The purpose of this Note is to carefully analyze the Ohio Supreme Court\u27s reasoning in Welco and its implications. Part II discusses corporate successor liability in general, and then focuses narrowly on the mere continuation exception to successor nonliability. Part III breaks down the case itself, presenting the facts, procedure, and reasoning of the majority and dissent. Finally, Part IV analyzes the court\u27s refusal to expand the mere continuation exception, suggesting that had the court chosen to expand the the exception, the advantages of a cash-for-assets acquisition in Ohio would have been lost
