Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I do not know what “same reason” means here.

Instant Brands went bankrupt because it could not pay its debts in a timely manner, so lenders decided to take the collateral.

It is possible lenders did not do sufficient due diligence, or maybe they got unlucky, but they did not lend Instant Brands money specifically so Instant Brands’ owners could pay themselves (maybe they did if there was corruption in this case, but it is not the norm otherwise why would anyone lend to anyone?).

And of course, Instant Brands’ owners will lose equity and credibility in the bankruptcy, so it is not like any dividends made possible due to the financing were “free money”.



Loading up orgs with unnecessary debt is what private equity (neé corporate raiders) does. The financiers who underwrite the raids certainly get paid. All the other stakeholders lose.

It's just fancy accounting talk for theft. A shell game. Like u/Spooky23 states upthread.

It's wrong. It doesn't make any sense. And yet here we are.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: