[jawns]

Unless the entire corporation files for bankruptcy, they can't just shut down a store to avoid paying a debt, much less a court judgment.

There's clearly something else going on here that the blog post is either intentionally leaving out or grossly misunderstanding.

[itsalwayscults]

> There's clearly something else going on here

Yes, what you're missing on is that it's an intentional stalling strategy. It's obvious the debt goes to either the corporate, or to whoever owns the affiliate store. None of that is the problem. None of that is meant to be what's stated. Closing the store was done to hide the responsibility and the responsibili-tee.

The video has people doing that type of shit down to the leve of the employee

> talk to the owner

> okay, give me their number

> no

[trehalose]

They can't nullify the debt by shutting the store down, but can they shut it down to create further headaches and delays for the person trying to collect the debt?

[AntonyGarand]

The entity that was sued is the franchise that is now closed, and not corporate.

[dghlsakjg]

Corporate was involved with transferring the consigned goods to a new franchisee, and was aware that the goods were consigned. They may have significant liability.