[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Quite right, from a legal point of view. It's supposed to give the >debtor either a chance to reorganize or a fresh start, while giving >the creditors a fair id meagre settlement. However, and this is the >point, it shuts down or reorganizes inefficient enterprises that >fail to produce stuff people want in a cheap and nonwasteful way. It also is a way to handle firms that may be operationally ok, but which have been saddled with debt by financial parasites. Or a way - e.g. Manville - to avoid paying damage claims. Doug
- Re: To glib or not too glib? JKSCHW
- Re: To glib or not too glib? Yoshie Furuhashi
- Re: Re: To glib or not too glib? Ken Hanly
- To glib or not too glib? Timework Web
- Re: To glib or not too glib? Timework Web
- Re: Re: To glib or not too glib? Jim Devine
- Re: Re: Re: To glib or not too glib? JKSCHW
- Re: To glib or not too glib? Doug Henwood
- Re: To glib or not too glib? Michael Perelman
- Re: Re: To glib or not too glib? JKSCHW
- Re: To glib or not too glib?) Yoshie Furuhashi
- Re: Re: To glib or not too glib? Charles Brown
- RE: Re: To glib or not too glib? Mikalac Norman S NSSC
- Re: RE: Re: To glib or not too glib? Michael Perelman
- Re: RE: Re: To glib or not too glib? Jim Devine