Quote:

number6 wrote: Quote: Consequently, the Settlement Agreement is unenforceable and void from inception. That claim from Amino might change one's thinking.

Amino's lawyers are looking for some loophole to get out of the judgement. This is a common tactic in court battles. If the loophole was successful in voiding the contract then obviously it could not be passed on in the event of a Hyperion bankruptcy.

For example, it's possible the contract transferring assets from the (first?) Amiga Inc. to KMOS could be voided in court for lack of quid pro quo. The new Amiga Inc. would not own any Amiga intellectual property in this case. Any contract by the new Amiga Inc. with Hyperion would obviously be void. Lawyers can go back to an earlier legal transaction and challenge it with any legal changes affecting all later legal outcomes.

Quote:

As far as admonishing anyone for not taking control at a particular time, you have no idea who the shareholders are/were and how many shares they own/owned. This is an overlooked issue.

I don't think it matters who the shareholders are or how many shares they own unless Trevor already owned Hyperion shares. I know how desperate the shareholders *should* have been unless the bankruptcy really was a "mistake" (IMO, not likely but I'm not going to accuse Hyperion of legal shenanigans). It's not like a business who has been declared bankrupt can go out trying to raise money saying, "We have been declared bankrupt, can you give us a loan?" As far as I know, the shareholders of a business around here would lose control of the business and no longer have the right to conduct business if legitimately forced into bankruptcy.