[dragonwriter]

> Trying to take this in a more constructive direction though: what happens if I go bankrupt?

If that is an important real consideration, you should consult an attorney; my general understanding, whixh yoi should not rely on, is that non-transferrability clauses mostly are not enforceable in bankruptcy, with some particular exceptions.

[stock-throwaway]

It's a theoretical question, and I'm not trying to be annoying here, just genuinely curious.

If this stock is non-transferable, does that mean it has an inherent value of zero? Does that mean I can file for bankruptcy and still keep the stock? I just feel like the nature of property rights in this country doesn't square with transferability restrictions. :shrug:

[stock-throwaway]

I used ChatGPT so who knows if this is true but:

> For example, in a U.S. case, Associated Grocers of Maine, Inc., the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine ruled that federal bankruptcy law preempted a restriction on the transfer of the debtor's stock, thereby permitting a sale of the stock free and clear of the restriction.

Makes sense though, honestly

[givemeethekeys]

If it is permissible to sell in bankruptcy, then I don't see why it wouldn't be permissible to sell to buy a new car.

[dragonwriter]

Its not “permissible”; asset sales in bankruptcy aren’t permissive, they are compulsory.

The governments power to compel sale to resolve bankruptcy trumps your counterparty’s right to limit the sale.

[dragonwriter]

> If this stock is non-transferable, does that mean it has an inherent value of zero?

The value of stock comes from the claim against the assets in the case of dissolution, the ability ot sell in the market just enables one to realize that value without the company dissolving in whole or (as by issuing dividends) in part.