On Sep 17, 3:39 am, Mark Kent <mark.k...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>
>
>
>
>
> > ____/ [H]omer on Saturday 15 September 2007 22:19 : \____
>
> >> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>
> >>> Kimball Denies SCO's Motion for Reconsideration/Clarification
> >> [...]
> >>> Stick a fork in SCO. They're done.
>
> >> That particular pot-roast is more than "done", it's burnt to a crisp.
>
> >> Dig a hole, and pay the piper.
>
> > I'd love to find out what Darl ends up doing. This might be amusing. He crashed
> > a fine company in just 4 years. He should be sued, knowing what we know now,
> > about the lawsuit being bogus from the very start. He knew this.
>
> > One wonders if he has a stash of money hidden somewhere (maybe overseas). He
> > may have received cash for doing what he did.
>
> The whole protected bankruptcy thing is deeply dubious, to my mind. It
> essentially prevents the busines's owners from extracting their cash,
> although there perhaps isn't that much left, and leaves the managers to
> continue to throw it away.
>
> It has been used by a large number of US companies in order to give a
> massively unfair competitive advantage internationally, as they were
> able to spend billions, not pay it back, go "bankrupt" for a while, but
> continue to use the assets without having to pay the creditors, ever.
>
> Sort of like a free loan.
>
It used to be like that. Bankruptcy law has been changed.
|
|
