“The complaints are resolved from a defined source of funds, with the money making assets separated out so that an going concern isn’t destroyed.”
It’s here I have a problem. Who gets to decide what a defined source of funds is, what arbitrary limitations there should be, and why wouldn’t a going concern be able to continue? To the first point, it certainly shouldn’t be the defendant co., and it certainly shouldn’t find any refuge in bankruptcy that isn’t simultaneously the whole value of the enterprise with any fake splitting veil pierced back to the original pre-split Entity and liability carried by all.
Secondly, there is no threat to a going concern, only the ownership of it - the plaintiffs probably want to be paid, even if the company’s own assets and its insurance are exhausted, by receiving equity in the going concern.
It’s here I have a problem. Who gets to decide what a defined source of funds is, what arbitrary limitations there should be, and why wouldn’t a going concern be able to continue? To the first point, it certainly shouldn’t be the defendant co., and it certainly shouldn’t find any refuge in bankruptcy that isn’t simultaneously the whole value of the enterprise with any fake splitting veil pierced back to the original pre-split Entity and liability carried by all. Secondly, there is no threat to a going concern, only the ownership of it - the plaintiffs probably want to be paid, even if the company’s own assets and its insurance are exhausted, by receiving equity in the going concern.