Jump to content

Rudiger

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    872
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rudiger

  1. That’s nothing. We had a streaker one time when I was playing rugby in England. One of the forwards took care of him. Now that was a murder. /csb
  2. So it wasn’t that he was slow, it was that he wasn’t motivated? Because that’s the kind of guy I want on my team.
  3. She’s lost some weight. Good for her.
  4. That veal parm is a beast. A delicious beast.
  5. It’s a perfectly cromulent name.
  6. Neat. How are football and men’s basketball doing?
  7. “I’m not a big conspiracy guy, but it was obvious the OU players were skin-suit-wearing lizard men….”
  8. Although in fairness it loses a little in translation.
  9. Yes, but only because it’s the top of the 9th, and it’s tied.
  10. It’s every kid’s dream playing whiffle ball in the back yard. Top of the ninth. Home run to tie it.
  11. Hey but at least we have football season to look forward to, right?
  12. More Francis Bacon if we’re being honest.
  13. Now that’s what I call a head on collision.
  14. Rudiger

    USMNT 2022

    That’s a pretty weak goal. How does the keeper let that past him? Oh, right, MLS.
  15. That your friend in the foreground? Lanky guy with a big nose?
  16. Thanks Schrödinger.
  17. I see someone is a Goldilocksian.
  18. Car was white.
  19. No, you’re thinking of a Kyler Murray.
  20. I’m using market value to mean market capitalization, but we could substitute book value and the point would remain the same.
  21. Almost certainly. It would be a fraudulent transfer because it was undertaken with the purpose of delaying, hindering, or defrauding a creditor, and probably because the assignor did not receive reasonably equivalent value in return.
  22. Not familiar with the “quato” term—I’m used to good-co/bad-co or old-co/new-co. The starting point of the fraudulent transfer question is the Texas Business Organizations Code, which expressly states that a merger doesn’t result in a transfer or assignment having occurred. Conceivably, that pervades the analysis under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act and the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code that relate to fraudulent transfer. But because of the Supremacy Clause, maybe not. Ultimately, it’s complicated, and a question that won’t be addressed for years and years if ever (there’s an interesting side note about why creditors don’t get to raise that issue during the bankruptcy proceeding, and why LTL “merged” in Texas then reincorporated immediately in North Carolina). By the time that legal question gets reached, many of the claimants will have died from cancer, so it puts pressure on claimants to reach a resolution within the LTL bankruptcy, even if it’s a shitty one.
×
×
  • Create New...