Confirmed: OnLive’s assets sold to another company
venturebeat.com
Confirmed: OnLive’s assets sold to another company
1–8 of 8 posts
Re: Confirmed: OnLive’s assets sold to another company
#2So does this confirm that it was mostly done to get back potential equity? If so how many of the employees are likely to go back?
Or was this done because they ran out of money and it's the only thing to do so most probably will? Except why fire them and do all that song and dance?
Also I like how the staff is all fired and some rehired but the service remains operating....
Re: Confirmed: OnLive’s assets sold to another company
#3If the company was sold for less than the investments (or not a lot more) and the employees really were fired, it likely represented no loss for the employees and perhaps a way to sweeten the deal for the acquirers. The employees don't see a loss, because their stock wouldn't pay out until after the investors got theirs (which may be at a minimum multiple). The acquirer has less risk because they can weed out anybody they don't want to bring along and the firing risk went to a defunct company.
Re: Confirmed: OnLive’s assets sold to another company
#4So does this confirm that it was mostly done to get back potential equity? If so how many of the employees are likely to go back? Or was this done because they ran out of money and it's the only thing to do so most probably will? Except why fire them and do all that song and dance? Also I like how the staff is all fired and some rehired but the service remains operating....
Well, nothing says the service must shutdown when the people who built it are screwed by the CEO/VCs...
Re: Confirmed: OnLive’s assets sold to another company
#5Sad really. This reads like a legal maneuver to escape prior financial obligations. Fire everyone, sell the assets to a new company, have that company re-hire the staff (if they are stupid enough to work there) and then negotiate new contracts with various vendors until you are up and running. Meanwhile creditors, investors, and disgruntled employees are left to sue an empty husk of a corporation with no assets.
It will be interesting to see the ramifications on Perlman's career. In a valley that embraces shooting high and missing, this doesn't feel very 'gentlemanly' if you will.
Re: Confirmed: OnLive’s assets sold to another company
#6Sad really. This reads like a legal maneuver to escape prior financial obligations. Fire everyone, sell the assets to a new company, have that company re-hire the staff (if they are stupid enough to work there) and then negotiate new contracts with various vendors until you are up and running. Meanwhile creditors, investors, and disgruntled employees are left to sue an empty husk of a corporation with no assets. It w…
I think that depends on if the investors were screwed or not. If they made out, I'm betting it will have no negative effect on him. No one will care if he screwed all his employees if he made someone money. Sad but true.
Re: Confirmed: OnLive’s assets sold to another company
#7Sad really. This reads like a legal maneuver to escape prior financial obligations. Fire everyone, sell the assets to a new company, have that company re-hire the staff (if they are stupid enough to work there) and then negotiate new contracts with various vendors until you are up and running. Meanwhile creditors, investors, and disgruntled employees are left to sue an empty husk of a corporation with no assets. It w…
I think that depends on if the investors were screwed or not. If they made out, I'm betting it will have no negative effect on him. No one will care if he screwed all his employees if he made someone money. Sad but true.
If so, the laws need to change. There is no reason why this type of behavior should be condoned. Employees have a right to be legally protected from these shenanigans.
Re: Confirmed: OnLive’s assets sold to another company
#8If the company was sold for less than the investments (or not a lot more) and the employees really were fired, it likely represented no loss for the employees and perhaps a way to sweeten the deal for the acquirers. The employees don't see a loss, because their stock wouldn't pay out until after the investors got theirs (which may be at a minimum multiple). The acquirer has less risk because they can weed out anybody…
If nobody loses anything in this transaction, why go to the trouble of incorporating a new entity?
At the very least, the employees lost something: their job. However, in the US, that may not be a good reason for this maneuver either, as employers often/typically can fire personnel at will.
So, there either must be something else, or the 'firing risks' are larger than I think they could be. Either case, I guess they will be sailing close to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraudulent_conveyance#United_St....