5 ms·

It doesn't seem like the executive and judicial branches will need to get involved whatsoever if there is a multibillion dollar lawsuit; if successful this will

It doesn't seem like the executive and judicial branches will need to get involved whatsoever if there is a multibillion dollar lawsuit; if successful this will basically 'dissolve' Equifax.

joe_the_user 9y ago
Well, I wouldn't shed any tears over the dissolution of Equifax and other credit agencies - though a lawsuit would of course involve the judicial branch (the courts). But the problem is: A. If Equifax gets a judgment for close to or for more than the company is worth, the simplest way one could assure the suit is paid to sell the company, keeping the operation going rather than ending it. B. Many businesses integrate credit checks into their operations - it's ridiculous and despicable as mentioned by other but most of these companies and individuals (landlord for example) at least imagine they couldn't survive without the credit agencies so this large group would push for another solution then just getting rid of the credit agencies. C. Getting rid of one credit agencies leaves the other two even stronger.
- jgowdy 9y ago
  "Well, I wouldn't shed any tears over the dissolution of Equifax and other credit agencies" In Project Mayhem we have no names.
- 90s-socal-kid 9y ago
  If there were a $17 billion judgement against a $17 billion company, it would not sell for $17 billion. It is also unlikely a $17 billion market cap = $17 billion in assets during an emergency sale. Especially with the shadow of a $17 billion judgement that could encumber the acquired assets. It's bad business to acquire assets from someone with a judgement against them, unless you're getting a great deal.
  - joe_the_user 9y ago
    If there were a $17 billion judgement against a $17 billion company, it would not sell for $17 billion. If there is a judgment against a company which that company cannot pay, that company enters bankruptcy. What happens when a corporation enter bankruptcy is the assets of the corporation are assigned to a receiver. The receiver then disposes of those assets with the aim of raising as much money as possible to pay the creditors involved. In the case of a credit bureau, keeping the bureau functioning would arguably be the best way to earn money to pay the individuals who the corporation owes money to - both the people who the got the judgment (first priority), other creditors(second priority) and then the share-holder (third priority). This situation means that corporation that produces toxic waste, dumps it in a river and goes bankrupt from a private suit against it could continue to produce toxic in order keep producing and making money, in order to pay that judgment (it would probably be argued that the toxic-waste leak was a one-time thing). Part of the problem is a private lawsuit isn't a substitute for state regulation even if it's often presented as such. Part of the problem is the very worst that happen to the owners, the shareholder, is their shares become worthless so their incentive for stopping truly bad behavior by organizations is limited. You might say this is fucked-up and I would agree with you. Don't confuse my comments with statements of support for how things. I simply want to thorough, accurate and complete summary of just what a messy we're in.
    - bga 9y ago
      Bankruptcy is the strange other side of the US debt system. In this case, it would be an unfair get out of jail free card, a shirking of responsibility.
- subroutine 9y ago
  > they couldn't survive without the credit agencies Europe operates just fine without the notion of credit or credit agencies.
dragonwriter 9y ago
If there is a lawsuit, the judicial branch is involved.

It doesn't seem like the executive and judicial branches will need to get involved whatsoever if there is a multibillion dollar lawsuit; if successful this will basically 'dissolve' Equifax.

joe_the_user 9y ago

Well, I wouldn't shed any tears over the dissolution of Equifax and other credit agencies - though a lawsuit would of course involve the judicial branch (the courts). But the problem is: A. If Equifax gets a judgment for close to or for more than the company is worth, the simplest way one could assure the suit is paid to sell the company, keeping the operation going rather than ending it. B. Many businesses integrate credit checks into their operations - it's ridiculous and despicable as mentioned by other but most of these companies and individuals (landlord for example) at least imagine they couldn't survive without the credit agencies so this large group would push for another solution then just getting rid of the credit agencies. C. Getting rid of one credit agencies leaves the other two even stronger.

jgowdy 9y ago
"Well, I wouldn't shed any tears over the dissolution of Equifax and other credit agencies" In Project Mayhem we have no names.
90s-socal-kid 9y ago
If there were a $17 billion judgement against a $17 billion company, it would not sell for $17 billion. It is also unlikely a $17 billion market cap = $17 billion in assets during an emergency sale. Especially with the shadow of a $17 billion judgement that could encumber the acquired assets. It's bad business to acquire assets from someone with a judgement against them, unless you're getting a great deal.
- joe_the_user 9y ago
  If there were a $17 billion judgement against a $17 billion company, it would not sell for $17 billion. If there is a judgment against a company which that company cannot pay, that company enters bankruptcy. What happens when a corporation enter bankruptcy is the assets of the corporation are assigned to a receiver. The receiver then disposes of those assets with the aim of raising as much money as possible to pay the creditors involved. In the case of a credit bureau, keeping the bureau functioning would arguably be the best way to earn money to pay the individuals who the corporation owes money to - both the people who the got the judgment (first priority), other creditors(second priority) and then the share-holder (third priority). This situation means that corporation that produces toxic waste, dumps it in a river and goes bankrupt from a private suit against it could continue to produce toxic in order keep producing and making money, in order to pay that judgment (it would probably be argued that the toxic-waste leak was a one-time thing). Part of the problem is a private lawsuit isn't a substitute for state regulation even if it's often presented as such. Part of the problem is the very worst that happen to the owners, the shareholder, is their shares become worthless so their incentive for stopping truly bad behavior by organizations is limited. You might say this is fucked-up and I would agree with you. Don't confuse my comments with statements of support for how things. I simply want to thorough, accurate and complete summary of just what a messy we're in.
  - bga 9y ago
    Bankruptcy is the strange other side of the US debt system. In this case, it would be an unfair get out of jail free card, a shirking of responsibility.
subroutine 9y ago
> they couldn't survive without the credit agencies Europe operates just fine without the notion of credit or credit agencies.

dragonwriter 9y ago

If there is a lawsuit, the judicial branch is involved.