• deltapi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    15 hours ago

    If the new owners purchased the assets, name, and technology and not the company itself, then it’s beholden on the remains of the old company to honour the deal… Good luck with that.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Except what you’re describing doesn’t make sense. If the new owners purchased all of those things, then in reality they purchased the company. Courts are very likely to agree on this. It looks like a company-wide sale, therefore it probably is, even if someone tries to add a line saying “we aren’t liable”.

      But imagine someone could “sell everything other than the liability”. In such a case, the seller would be putting themselves on the hook to pay outstanding debts (i.e., the seller would be liable). And we know they have money – they just sold the thing. So then the seller would pay… But they know that in advance, so they would not agree to such a sale in the first place, unless they were planning to steal that money through creative accounting of some kind… But both parties know all of that that in advance, so they would both be acting fraudulently.

    • philpo@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Which is a problem of the legal system around it.

      Within most(or all) EU countries this would count as a continuation of business and all previous liabilities (e.g. employees contracts, customers contracts, etc.) would need to be honored.

      Why it is done this way? To prevent people from doing exact that.

    • w3dd1e@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      How many people start companies, rack up a bunch of debt, then create another company that buys everything except the debt?