5 ms·
Curious. I wonder if they tried to legally carve out the rights when they made the purchase? If you do an asset purchase of a company frequently you have a very
by thoughtstheseus 6y ago
Curious. I wonder if they tried to legally carve out the rights when they made the purchase? If you do an asset purchase of a company frequently you have a very clear list of any liabilities you retain.
- chrischen 6y agoLogically the beneficiary of the sale can't just void their debts/liabilities and pocket the sale money right? So whomever sold the assets should have been required to pay off their own liabilities/debts from the sale first much like a liquidation sale.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y agoThere is a legal principle that contractual benefits can be assigned, but not contractual obligations. But it doesn't work like this. It works on a much simpler basis - e.g. if I'm a landlord and receive rental income and I assign that income to a third party, the third party does not automatically become responsible for fixing the roof. It does not mean that I can assign the income to a third party and all responsibilities for the upkeep of the property are magically wiped out, and everyone involved - except the tenant - can use this as an excuse for a party.
- chrischen 6y agoHow does bankruptcy for corporations work? If that were true wouldn't companies just liquidate, payout to the founders, and screw over investors? But in reality don't courts require the debtors to be paid off first?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]