

Confirmed: OnLive’s assets sold to another company - jconley
http://venturebeat.com/2012/08/17/confirmed-onlives-assets-sold-to-another-company/

======
ChuckMcM
Sad 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.

~~~
fingerprinter
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.

~~~
rooshdi
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.

------
mindstab
So 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....

~~~
hujjio
Well, nothing says the service must shutdown when the people who built it are
screwed by the CEO/VCs...

------
SoftwareMaven
If 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.

~~~
Someone
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...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraudulent_conveyance#United_States).

