The Watergate Hotel in Washington, D$.$C$.,$ obtained a loan from PB Capital. At this time, hotel employees were represented by a labor union, and under a collective bargaining agreement, the hotel agreed to make contributions to an employees$$ pension fund run by the union. A few years later, the hotel was closed due to poor business, although the owner stated that the hotel would reopen. Despite this expectation, PB Capital$$which was still owed $$40$ million by the hotel owner$$instituted foreclosure proceedings. At the foreclosure sale, PB Capital bought the hotel and reopened it under new management and with a new workforce. The union sued PB Capital, contending that it should pay $$637,855$ owed by the previous owner into the employees$$ pension fund. Should PB Capital, as the hotel$$s new owner, have to incur the previous owner$$s obligation to pay into the pension fund under the theory of successor liability? Why or why not?