still necessary to determine what effect TAP’s failure to do so would have on the two-year survival of claims. Although there are no Washington cases on point, other courts have held that the abatement of claims provision is ineffective with regard to claims by creditors who did not receive required notice. See Department of Social Servs. v. Winyah Nursing Homes, Inc., 282 S.C. 556, 320 S.E.2d 464, 468 (App.1984) (“Failure to strictly comply with the mandates of the dissolution statutes effectively continues the corporation with respect to creditors whose rights are prejudiced by the noncompliance.”); Alpine Property Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Mountaintop Dev. Co., 179 W.Va. 12, 365 S.E.2d 57, 64-65 (1987); cf. Licht v. Association Servs., Inc., 236 Neb. 616, 463 N.W.2d 566, 569-70 (1990) (<HOLDING>). Having reviewed the record, it is unclear
holding that a plaintiff must comply with the notice of claim requirements in order to maintain an action against a government employee even if the plaintiff claims that the employee acted with fraud or malice holding that a notice recommending termination of an employee to the board without notice to the employee of employees right to attend and dispute the claims violated due process holding that where claimant had actual notice of corporate dissolution limitation period began on date of dissolution despite failure to provide written notice holding that actual notice fulfills a notice requirement that an applicable federal regulation be conspicuously posted because actual notice is the best notice holding that where employee was aware of dissolution abatement of claims provision applied even in absence of written notice because employee had actual notice