That was my understanding. This is work for hire meaning the copyright holder was the prior company and was the only one with an asset that would require a usage license. They chose to pay Alan, which is not a statutory agreement.
The copyright holder (the company) is the only one that can levy usage licenses aka royalties that other people need to pay it.
Disney became the copyright holder and so Disney is owed royalties from whomever has a usage license that the previous company negotiated.
Anything else is a liability that was shed or simply stayed in the now defunct company. If the contract was irreconcilably tied to the company then Disney would opt not to buy the shares and instead by all the assets and network and trademark.
The copyright holder (the company) is the only one that can levy usage licenses aka royalties that other people need to pay it.
Disney became the copyright holder and so Disney is owed royalties from whomever has a usage license that the previous company negotiated.
Anything else is a liability that was shed or simply stayed in the now defunct company. If the contract was irreconcilably tied to the company then Disney would opt not to buy the shares and instead by all the assets and network and trademark.