> Because the investor will not have 100% recovery rate. Says who? At which point in time is it "obvious" that there's "no intention, let alone hope, of actual

> Because the investor will not have 100% recovery rate. Says who? At which point in time is it "obvious" that there's "no intention, let alone hope, of actually turning it into a successful business"? If you and I judge that point in time to be different, does that constitute fraud on the part of the person who's being less conservative? What if that person the investor? Presumably the founder also owns part of the company... Futhermore, even "unsuccessful" ventures can have a greater than 100% recovery rate from a given point in time. An aqui-hire that loses investor money isn't a "successful" businesses, but it can end up losing a lot less cash than a company that folds a month or two before the deal is cut. What if you force my hand and we fold but leaked confidential documents from BigCorp. indicate that if we had waited three weeks my company would've been aqui-hired for 1500% of the value of the liquidated assets? Does that make you guilty of fraud? And if not, then why is it fraud when you turn the tables? Basically, it's really difficult for me to imagine any scenario in which the facts and intentions of all actors are clear enough to trigger koolba's scenario. And even then, it's still possible for a failed business to make it over the 100% recovery rate at the point in time when the investor things the plug should be pulled.