[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

The whole point of an asset sale is to get the assets out of the mess of the old entity. If the head of the acquiring company is telling Wes and possibly other people that the acquiring company is the same as the old one and therefore the contract with the old one is still in effect, the new company is an alter ego of the old one. There is no way, under any scheme of law that I've ever heard of, that a company can claim not to be a continuation of the old enterprise for some purposes yet insist that it is for other purposes, like forcing those who contracted with the old enterprise honor their contracts as to the new enterprise because the two are one and the same. Legendary can't be the successor to Mastro only when it suits them. Second, there is a fraudulent transfer issue here. Mastro has left some consignors (and I'm going to bet some other creditors) high and dry, including the potential alleged victims of its alleged crimes. It would seem that the transfer to Legendary of its assets made Mastro insolvent, which is grounds for a Mastro creditor to go after the assets and try to get them back under the local version of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act. Then there are other potential claims, like civil or criminal conspiracy to defraud, RICO, etc., all of which are very tempting to level against Legendary as part of any case against Mastro based on what its management has been doing and saying about its ties to Mastro. If the idea was a clean, fresh start, probably could have been executed a hell of a lot better than what's being reported.

Now I'm not advocating for or against any of these issues; I am just pointing out that Mastro/Legendary has entered a real morass and apparently has done so with the delicate touch of a sledgehammer.

Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc