Lonman wrote:
MrBoo wrote:
kjathena wrote:
many companies "morph"(as you put it) into more than 2 or 3.....look at banks or airlines for many examples
But how many morph from a company that was being pursued heavily on the legal front into a company who's sole purpose is to litigate? That's why this "morph" is dripping with irony.
But none consist of any of the owners of CB, so they didn't morph into anything. New owners altogether, new entity. So they bought (or tookover) the trademark and took over the litigation on their own behalf.
New owners? Really?
From:
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=24509&p=339569&hilit=+investors#p339569HarringtonLaw wrote:
PR and DT are owned by people who were investors in CB, who took security interests in CB's assets, and who foreclosed on those security interests, taking the assets in order to protect their investments. PR and DT were formed to hold and exploit those assets. The principals of CB are not owners of PR or DT. CB is not "in business" although the entity that owned the CB business may still exist.
I think the word "investor" has been used as a distraction because as KJs we aren't supposed to be smart enough to figure out anything as complicated as this.
Aren't you an investor in your own business? If you have no other investors, you have invested in a 100% interest. If you have other investors, then you own less than 100% and somebody else owns the rest.
Try convincing any investor they are not owners in the entity in which they have invested... especially an investor that can "foreclose" and pull out their interests when they see fit resulting in the end of the company. It sounds like the "owner" was merely a "figure-head" for these investors and the true power behind these companies are these "investors".
Same investors - Same product - Same tactics - Different name - Same company
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
