>That seems more of a technicality than a practicality [...] the fact that the actual legal entity changes, matters for shit. If I can go a meta layer above th

>That seems more of a technicality than a practicality [...] the fact that the actual legal entity changes, matters for shit. If I can go a meta layer above this subthread and explain the 2 different conversations happening: - the gp (maxerickson) comment was responding to "2008 GM nearly went under", and it's correct (not technicality) that the old_company (with its own assets-liabilities) did go under. Not "nearly", but completely went under. A new_company was created as different legal entity with a clean slate to pick and choose assets-liabilities.[1] - the other replies (Aloha, wil421) are more philosphical "Ship of Theseus"[2] type of arguments All 3 (maxerickson, Aloha, wil421) can simultaneously be right because they are all emphasizing different aspects of what "General Motors" means. It can be either "GM the assets&liabilities" or "GM the brand, the public perception". [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/business/11primer.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/business/11primer.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus