If Twitter were to declare bankruptcy would Elon Musk retain control/ ownership afterwards? If a company declares bankruptcy it doesn't necessarily cease operating, in the US it could continue operating under Chapter 11. Ownership would then go to the creditors of Twitter. But who are those? There are currently some news articles that banks involved in Musks Twitter take-over are trying to sell the debt at 30 to 40% below nominal value but I'm not sure whether the debtor in this case is Musk himself or the company Twitter? I thought a bankruptcy would entail Musk losing control of Twitter making this a very unattractive option to him but if he gets to keep Twitter through such a reorganisation this changes things dramatically for him.
Bankruptcy does not change the owners of a company The shareholders (owners) do not lose ownership in bankruptcy; just control. The creditors appoint a trustee to manage the company and, if and when the company returns to profitability, control is restored to the owners through the board of directors. Musk's takeover did not change Twitter's balance sheet The money paid by the Musk consortium did not go to Twitter, it went to the former owners of Twitter. The impact on Twitter of the transaction was precisely zero - any impact will come about subsequently by a change in management direction. Who owns Musk's debt does not affect Musk or Twitter So Mr Musk borrowed some money from Bank A and has contractual obligations on when and how much he has to repay. So long as he meets those obligations, nothing changes from his perspective. If Bank A seels that debt to Bank B (at a profit or a loss), that does not affect Mr Musk. It certainly doesn't affect Twitter.
The second inferred question is &quot;How does Twitter conform to GDPR?&quot; See the Twitter GDPR FAQ for details on if Twitter is a data controller or a data processor, how Twitter complies with the legal requirements for transferring data, etc. Re: the original question regarding scraping and distributing Twitter data: Read Twitter's Twitter Terms of Service, which is a legally binding contract for use of their service. By using Twitter (or accessing Twitter without an account), you agree to that contract. Twitter very clearly states what they allow as legal uses of their service; pertaining to scraping and selling and/or sharing data: You also agree not to misuse our Services, for example, by... (iii) access or search or attempt to access or search the Services by any means (automated or otherwise) other than through our currently available, published interfaces that are provided by Twitter (and only pursuant to the applicable terms and conditions), unless you have been specifically allowed to do so in a separate agreement with Twitter (NOTE: crawling the Services is permissible if done in accordance with the provisions of the robots.txt file, however, scraping the Services without the prior consent of Twitter is expressly prohibited); ... If you want to reproduce, modify, create derivative works, distribute, sell, transfer, publicly display, publicly perform, transmit, or otherwise use the Services or Content on the Services, you must use the interfaces and instructions we provide, except as permitted through the Twitter Services, these Terms, or the terms provided for (developers) So you can scrape Twitter with prior consent, or scrape according to the robots.txt file, which shows Twitter's limits on what you can scrape. If you don't follow the TOS, you risk Twitter taking legal (civil, possibly criminal, according to jurisdiction) action against you.
I'm pretty sure the bank could go after the owner for any difference between the unpaid loan balance and what they're able to sell it for. Incorrect. The news report states &quot;it ceased making payments toward the $725 million non-recourse CMBS loan&quot;. The term &quot;non-recourse&quot; means that the bank can't go after the owner and is limited to recovering its debt from the collateral. The term &quot;recourse&quot; means that the bank can go after the owner in a lawsuit for amounts still owed after the collateral is applied to the debt. The question is, would something like this force them to write down on their GAAP financials the value of any other loans they've extended. The bank extended the loan, so if the real property is worth less than the amount of the debt, the bank has to write off the balance of the debt on this secured loan. If the bank writes off the loan, it gets a tax deduction in the amount of the write off, however. The written off debt is also taxable income to Park Hotels &amp; Resorts Inc. to the extent that the company as a whole is not insolvent. In California, the &quot;default rule&quot; is that the owner occupied residential mortgages are non-recourse loans, but that loans secured by personal property and other mortgages are recourse loans. Unlike California and about four other states, owner occupied residential mortgages in other U.S. states are also recourse by default. A non-recourse loan on a mortgage of a hotel is not the default rule (even in California) and is contrary to usual commercial practice. Park Hotels &amp; Resorts Inc., in this case, obtained an extraordinarily favorable deal with CMBS (normally it would be a recourse loan with personal guarantees from all related companies and from multiple top executives and investors of the borrower), perhaps in exchange for a higher interest rate than it might otherwise have secured. answers relating to all jurisdictions would be fascinating, especially those of England. The way that real estate in financed in England is so profoundly different from U.S. practice that it isn't really possible to even analogize to this situation in California. For reasons related to tax laws, the structure of English mortgage laws, English insolvency laws, and the way that customary commercial real estate financial deals have evolved over time in England, the kind of deal that was struck between Park Hotels &amp; Resorts Inc. and CMBS in this case would have been structured completely differently if it had been done in England. It might be legal to do the same deal in England, but that isn't what firms trying to achieve the same objectives would actually have done. I know only enough about how real estate finance in handled in England in deals like this to know that it is completely different from how it is handled in the U.S. I am not familiar enough with real estate finance practices there to know how it would actually be done there.
I suspect what has happened is the court has set aside, or refused to enter, a Final Charging Order because you were made bankrupt before the Final Charging Order could be issued. In Nationwide Building Society v Wright [2009] EWCA Civ 811 the Court of Appeal held that bankruptcy was a barrier to a Final Charging Order being issued if the bankruptcy commenced before the Final Charging Order could be issued. On the facts in your question, it is clear that no such Final Charging Order was issued before the bankruptcy commenced. An Interim Charging Order will by necessity end unless a Final Charging Order is made. Since no such Order was made, it would seem that the Interim Charging Order has ended: the interim order is designed to stop someone from disposing of assets until the court can decide whether a final order is necessary. If no final order is made, the interim order dies with it. A check on the Land Registry against the property would be needed to ensure that any notices or restrictions have been removed. If they are still present against the property's entry, an application to have them removed will have to be filed. Furthermore, the Limitation Act 1980 provides a time limit of six or twelve years (cause of action dependent) for the creditor to take action to enforce their rights. In relation to enforcing judgments, the creditor has six years from the date of judgment to enforce it (Section 24 of the Limitation Act 1980) In relation to recovering money secured by a charge or to recover the proceeds relating to a sale of land, the creditor has twelve years from the date that their right to receive the money started (Section 20 of the Limitation Act 1980) In either case, even if a Final Charging Order were able to be made in these circumstances, it is possible to argue that the relevant sections of the Limitation Act 1980 prevent the creditor from pursuing any right of action and so the debt (and any enforcement action) is statute-barred.
Every lot on the subdivision is and always will be acquired “through the Developer” Unless the developer still owns it. Somebody is the heir or assignee of the Developer - that’s who you need to seek approval from. Even if the Developer was at some point a company that got liquidated, the right of being the Developer would transfer to the creditors of that company.
There is certainly precedent. This list of the 10 biggest class action lawsuits in the world indicates that 8 of the 10 were by investors against their own company. In any event your analysis is flawed. The people who initiate the class action may (probably are) no longer be investors because they sold their shares and realised their losses. Further a legacy investor who didn't buy on the basis of the company's wrongdoing would not be entitled to damages. Finally, an investor who bought at say $100 on the basis of false information (like the cars were legal when the company knew they weren't) and now hold shares worth $40 will wait many years (if ever) to make good their losses: a lawsuit will be quicker and more certain.
It is possible that a court would hold Comapny X's agreement with Bob to be unconscionable for overbredth and therefore void. This would depend on the state having jurisdiction, and on the specific facts of the case and the language of the contract between X and Bob. Some states do not favor such broad agreements on automatic assignment of IP rights. If the Contract between X and Bob was held to be void, then Sam would own the rights. Otherwise X would own the rights, as their contract came first. As the answer by Dale M says, Bob entered into the contract with Sam fraudulently, by concealing a materiel fact (Bob's existing employment with X). Bob would potentially be liable to Sam for damages. One possible measure of damages would be what it would cost Sam to buy the rights from X.
Of course it doesn't work. You haven't discovered an end-around to property ownership I gave someone a car and want it back (they refuse) You no longer own this car. It is now titled in their name. Your interest in the car is now exactly zero whether or not they paid for it. I use a shell company to buy my own debt Okay. This has nothing to do with the car. You're now out of the cash it took you to set up this new entity. How are you doing this? I assume it means paying off your creditors with money you already have. You will also have to come up with some type of bogus documents that explain to the future court why this was even done. If you have the money, why do you have debt? My shell company sues me for conveying the car to conceal it from creditors Um, Ok. Now you're also out filing fees. Let's assume you know how to do this without paying an attorney to do it for you. I settle Makes sense, since you're suing yourself. The shell company now gets a court order to seize the car Seize the car how? This is a stretch. A judgement would be against you for the value of the car. You can't settle a lawsuit using assets you do not own. A court won't order something repossessed because of an unrelated squirrelly lawsuit. An exception would be a bankruptcy court that rules the item was sold or disposed of outside the court's orders. I would expect an astute court to hit you with contempt or sanctions for trying to use it to further your interests with some sort of end-around to property ownership. Expect more fees for this use of the court's time. The shell seizes the car No. Now I have the car back No.