[jonlucc]

Or they thought that the losses were acceptable to avoid having to make sworn statements about the series of events that are still at issue in the previous owner's case and some events that may very well still be charged by Oregon prosecutors.

[usehand]

So they chose to lose a case on merits related to the other case instead of making statements that would help (if they are in the right)?

[jonlucc]

That’s one possibility, yes.

[usehand]

Quantum physics guarantees us anything is a possibility. The question is, is it a likely one at all? And the overwhelmingly likely reasons are obvious to anyone with half a brain, given all the surrounding context here.

[eloisant]

They didn't even lose any money, because by closing the store the damages were never paid.

It's really depressing to see to be honest.

[jonlucc]

While this is true at the moment, closing a store and transferring its assets to another store owned by the same people could reasonably be alleged to be fraudulent transfer. The owners don't just get to keep whatever was in the store because they closed it before they paid.

[abirch]

I believe they would need to dissolve the business entity. These default judgments against them should count as debt that needs to be paid before the business is closed unless they declare bankruptcy in court and not like Michael Scott.