4 ms·
Why they didn't just shut down old shop - i.e. forming a 'bad company' based on it's liabilities but without it's assets and let it bankrupt voiding it's respon
by anovikov 7y ago
Why they didn't just shut down old shop - i.e. forming a 'bad company' based on it's liabilities but without it's assets and let it bankrupt voiding it's responsibilities - and open a new one just using the old one's licenses? Sounds like a logical solution here.
If that wasn't possible, makes me only wonder what the buyers were thinking during privatization.
- Drdrdrq 7y agoProbably that they could force old generation of workers out one way or the other?
- stefan_ 7y agoBecause.. that's not how any of this works? You can't just transfer the assets of one company into a new one and let the old one go into administration with it's liabilities. The administrator will undo any such transfers and you will go to prison.
- anovikov 7y agoWasn't this how banks, automakers, etc. were liquidated at about the same time in ~2009? Say General Motors simply offloaded all stuff it didn't need into Motors Liquidation Co and that one was bankrupted, all good stuff moved in new General Motors.
- cosmodisk 7y agoDon't vbe so sure. Yoy can't do it as simply as you described but there are many ingenious ways to arrive to the same destination and not being on any hook whatsoever.Remington case is a very good example of how it's being done.