Superfluous
My Mail is Forwarded Here
- Messages
- 3,995
- Location
- Missing in action
That wouldn't fly. Same company, jut a different name... in any case, it would be very difficult to move assets around in a way that wasn't traceable and ultimately recoverable - if, indeed, the company felt any need to try and do that. The law takes a dim view of that sort of thing, so I'd like to think it's not relevant here. Really, I think it's just an attempt to try and rebrand and break away from the negative publicity of the Will Lauder connection; whether it will stick is another matter. They do seem to be going about it in a very half-cocked and ill-thought out manner.
I agree. A mere name change is insufficient to escape liability incurred by the same company operating under the original name.
In the US, it is not uncommon for a company burdened by debt to illegitimately sell all of its assets to a new company (often with ownership ties or other relationships to the original company), so that the new company can attempt to carry on the business without the burdensome debt. There are procedures for challenging these illegitimate transactions, such that the creditors of the original company can often enforce their claims against the new company.
I think you guys are missing the plan here. If AL/SB act sorta stupid, they can claim they got duped by WL, et al. This is the ignorance defense. They're gonna excel here...
:eusa_clap