|
 |
Elite Member
 |
Joined: 11-Sep-2003
Posts: 3043
From: here To: there | | |
|
| @samface
Quote:
Quote:
samface wrote:
That's completely irrelevant, we aren't talking about bankruptcy, the contract specifically mentions "insolvency" by name. |
It says "Bancruptcy/Insolvency" with no further definition. |
Hyperion's defense is this insolvency clause.
(BTW, the slash between the two words means "either", it doesn't mean the words mean the same thing, they don't)
Quote:
Quote:
| A court does not need to "declare" you insolvent, you are insolvent by nature of assets < debts, and these numbers are the responsibility of the Corporation, alone. |
Sigh... And who do you think is in position to determine wether the company is in a state of insolvency or not? |
Insolvency is a "state". Insolvency isn't "determined", it's not a label a Court or Auditor gives you, it's something you "are" when your assets < debts.. That's what the definition means when it refers to it as a "State". it is not a legal label that has to be given to you. You are confusing Insolvency with both the European insolvency laws and Bankruptcy.
Quote:
| You see, that's what matters here. A creditor (Hyperion) may claim that a company (Amiga Inc.) is insolvent, but the issue can only be settled by the courts. Wanna try this again or did it finally become clear to you now? |
I thought we were discussing whether or not Amiga Inc was insolvent. You think Amiga is only insolvent if a court says they are. That's not true, and that's not what insolvency is. It's not a court finding like "bankruptcy" is.
Quote:
Quote:
So? We know the assets were less than the debts, because the assets HAVE been sold, and the debt remains. Even a Layman can figure that one out... (Or are you one of those people who think laymen can't... oh nevermind  ) |
Again, what debts and exactly how recent is that information? If you don't answer me this, you don't know if any debts are still not paid and cannot pursue this reasoning until you do. |
All it takes to be insolvent in the face of NO assets, is ANY debt, any at all. Even $1. There are plenty, take your pick. Any one alone meets the criteria. I'll choose Bolton Peck though, he hasn't been paid, and this information is after Amiga Washington dissolved, so only has to be current from that date, as Amiga Washington can't repay debts when they no longer exist.
Assets=0, and debts are >0. This is insolvency. Asking me for dollar figures pokes no holes in this.
Quote:
Quote:
| Do you think the assets sold for more than the debt? Where is it then? |
Even better, tell me how much debt is still not paid. |
Why?
The fact that *ANY* debt exists, while ASSETS don't, is insolvency.
"How much" is irrelevant, and pokes no holes in this. Insolvency is a state, there is no "little bit insolvent" or "very insolvent", there's just "insolvent"
It's like you're asking me how pregnant someone is.
Quote:
Quote:
No. You are talking about Amiga Washington as if they still have books. They don't, they've been dissolved, and no assets remain, only debts. |
WTF? Can you not grasp the concept of a hypothetical situation for the sake of proving a point? |
Not when your hypothetical situation isn't analogous to the situation being discussed, no.
Amiga Washington's books are closed, that means the numbers aren't changing, there are no bookkeeping errors we need to be concerned with. All the columns are totaled when you dissolve a corporation and turned into the State of Washington.
Quote:
Quote:
Any bookkeeping errors are moot, the books are closed.
|
If a court declared them bancrupt and/or insolvent, |
You're talking about something not happening here. We aren't IN bankruptcy court, and
"bankruptcy" is not an issue here in any way, shape or form. Hyperion hasn't used it as a defense, Amiga hasn't mentioned bankruptcy, this isn't a bankruptcy court, why do you keep bringing this word into play?
We're not in bankruptcy court.
Quote:
| they would have to have something to base that on |
You mean proving they were insolvent? No sweat. Evidence abounds.
It's a pretty good defense on Hyperion's part. Amiga's lawyers were dumb for letting them interject the word "insolvency" into the contract. Major oversight. Amiga's best defense would probably be to try to get this clause thrown out as illegal.
Quote:
| and if I'm not mistaken, such documents are even a matter of public records. |
You're thinking of Bankruptcy. Still.
Insolvency is a state, it's not something you get certified.
Quote:
| Furthermore, it's a criminal offence to not have your book keepings in order and I don't know about the U.S. but atleast here in Sweden, you have to save all your book keepings for atleast 10 years. It's for this reason that Swedish book keeping archives ignites very easy and go down in flames peculiarly often. Are you saying this happened to Amiga in Washington? |
Why? If they were insolvent, why would they need to burn books?
If they claim to have been SOLVENT, that might take some book burning, or else everyone will winder where the money is that's supposedly enough to pay the debts. Do YOU think they were solvent? If so, are YOU saying they burned books?
_________________
"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." - Oscar Wilde |
|
23 crawler(s) on-line.
104 guest(s) on-line.
1 member(s) on-line.
T_Bone 
