DCG objects to the sale — that is, to the actions of its own subsidiary! DCG argued to Judge Sean Lane that the “sheer quantity of the Trust Assets at issue will pose a serious risk of value destruction.” LOL.
I realize this is all a clown show, but how is it possible for a subsidiary to defy their parent company like this? I figured in cases like this, the people calling the shots at the subsidiary generally get fired and replaced with folks willing to play ball
ch 11 bankruptcy is special. even if the same team is still running things, they’re highly restricted in what they can do. also, equity holders are generally presumed to go to 0 and can go whistle.
I realize this is all a clown show, but how is it possible for a subsidiary to defy their parent company like this? I figured in cases like this, the people calling the shots at the subsidiary generally get fired and replaced with folks willing to play ball
ch 11 bankruptcy is special. even if the same team is still running things, they’re highly restricted in what they can do. also, equity holders are generally presumed to go to 0 and can go whistle.