the goal is this:
find a company that has coins/assets but they separately have fiat debt that out paces the assets. where by they cannot cover the debt
EG $500m good assets. $1bill fiat debt = minus $500m(unrecoverable debt)
a liquidator will take on the business. take out the good assets. leaving the dying brand with even larger debt ($500m unrecoverable->$1b unrecoverable)
also pass on the liquidators own bad debt into the dying company.. to clean out the main companies own obligations
You sure this is allowed?
So basically you are saying someone can buy a company for say $100million, and take the $500million in assets without paying off any of the debt and profit $400 million in return?
This doesn't make sense and no creditors would agree since this company would be better off just liquidating all their good assets and paying the debt back for 50% instead of 0%.
I am confused how this works exactly.
a dying company in debt cant have its investors buy out their own company else they is not in dying/in debt
so for those that are in debt they need to seek an outside buyer
its the process of mergers, acquisitions.. then liquidations of the dying brand with all the bad debt
creditors could club together but then what you find is them as sole owner of company with no other company as parents are stuck
however bringing over the a new buyer who buys out the share holders. thus they are out...
new buyer brings the assets into the parents company including the customers of that asset balance. the segretgates off the debt and makes the customer happy to be separated from the debt of the old brand
however yes the debt owners of old brand are not happy if that old brand then goes into bankruptsy as the assets are gone.
in short
lets take that $500m asset analogy and call it company(D)
lets say it does $1bill trade volume a week($52bill volume a year)
at a 0.1% trade fee $52m a year cashflow
company(D) owner decides its company(D) is at a 3x cashflow valuation so offers 100m shares on offer of full value $156m
round A investors pay in $156m (or % of that amount at that ratio)
the company(D) does other business and ends up gaining $1b in debt from some bad business.. lets say tax evasion or sanctions or something.. is the debt total reason where debtors are (A)uthorities
the share holders are not happy. they want out but not at a 0 return
so someone(x) else buys them out. pays in $156m to make shareholders happy and out..
and new buyer(x) now acquires the company(D).
it merges in the (D)customers and the (D)customers assets of $500m to become customers(X)
however the company(D) still has liabilities(A) it owes from other things that total $1b
well a moral company would pay out a further $1b.. or..
now that company(x) has the customers it does not need the dying brand(D). so can just bankrupt it
..
other shady but legal practices are:
imagine X also had its own debt of $500m from its own stuff (its own tax evasion of A2)
X does a paper loan to (d) of fake $500m
and X (acting as D) 'buys' X debt(a2) (its just contract speak no real money changes hands)
so now D is $1.5b in debt becasue its got all the debt(A)(A2).
and now X can just bankrupt the lot in a nice neat package called DAA2
and the fun part. because(x) it loaned D $500m(on paper) it can claim that x is a creditor of Ddeny to X and the D total debt is $2b call it XAA2D debt
..
but this is all mentioned in a 5minute written forum post where the process to do this is more convoluted and more timely to meet all the legal loopholes of avoiding clawbacks.
but yes its legal IF DONE RIGHT