[dylan604]

I didn't say it removed the liability of the company. It just means that the company that is left after selling off its profitable assets has the burden of the liability but with nothing but literal toxic assets. They can use the proceeds of the sales to start paying down the debts.

The assets sold would obviously not be the toxic assets.

[s1artibartfast]

See my response to the sibling post for Clarity on what I mean.

The nature of the liability depends on what is being sold off and the terms of the bankruptcy settlement

[dylan604]

right, but you introduced "breaking up" into the conversation

[s1artibartfast]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but you said the company would be sold off in individual parts to pay the debt.

My point is that selling it off as a complete company or mini companies doesn't really impact the liability. Both would be possible. What matters from a debt or liability perspective is the terms of the settlement.

In reality, the company is probably worth more as a single entity, sorry I wouldn't be surprised if it stays that way. That would maximize the recovery of damages and repayment of debt.

[dylan604]

You sell of the formulas for scotch tape, and maybe the factories that make it as long as it is sequestered from the PFAS type stuff. You sell of the audio tape/VHS factories (haha). You sell off the patents/copyrights for all of that stuff as well. Those are the salable parts.

[s1artibartfast]

You can do that, but it isnt very practical.

My point is that the whole thing is sellable. Propbably with a new stock offering for the whole company as a single entity.

If there is a huge judgement larger than the market cap, the most likely oputcome would be chapter 11 bankruptcy wiping out the investors, and the company moving forward as a single entity with a new ticker and new investors

This is the best of all worlds because it maximises the money recovered for damages and debtors.