Subject:
|
Re: Bush defends exclusion order on contracts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 Dec 2003 09:04:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
397 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
| |
Wait why would Iraq have a debt? Saddam’s regime had a debt but what does
that have to do with Iraq?
|
Who else should pay it. When a company gets a new CEO, does its debt usually
get wiped?
|
Depends if the old CEO is responsible for bringing the company to its knees.
Often when companies go into receivership the creditors receive a miniscule
portion of what is owed.
|
That’s if the company has no assetts. Iraq has assets; I doubt the war would
have happened otherwise. ;)
Scott A
| |
But generally those creditors are not barred from
helping to re-build the company based on how they voted at the last AGM...
ROSCO
|
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Bush defends exclusion order on contracts
|
| (...) Depends if the old CEO is responsible for bringing the company to its knees. Often when companies go into receivership the creditors receive a miniscule portion of what is owed. But generally those creditors are not barred from helping to (...) (21 years ago, 15-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
12 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
