Originally posted by CA100
View Post
We already know that there is broad scope to transfer debt and the reason for joint and several liability across this broad base was to prevent a debt going unpaid simply because the MSC could not pay it. Ability to pay will be a significant factor in their decision process. It is questionable whether CK and Boox will still be around when it gets to that stage and, even if they are, they are unlikely to have the required assets. Likewise the MSCs, so this will probably get punted to natural persons, either way. However, it's also worth noting that CBS didn't test the ability to transfer the debt further down the chain, even to an end client that promoted the use of a PSC/MSC in some way (e.g., by requiring that a PSC was used to engage), yet this cannot be ruled out.
As you say, it is hard to be confident, not least because the "ability to pay" will be a significant factor. It is clear that the MSC will be pursued first. Beyond that, I think it's reasonably safe to assume that the director(s) of the MSC will be pursued next, but that could be in combination with the MSCP too. There would be some degree of fairness in pursuing the MSCP for ErNI, but it doesn't really work like that.
Comment