QUOTE (RunnerPaul @ Jun 28 2010, 12:49 PM)

Yeah, but for all we know, their lawyer is telling them behind closed doors that the odds on their pending court case aren't good, and they're making plans to close up shop and dissolve the company before the judgment hits. It'd explain why the other "owners" aren't too worried about their names not actually being on file as owners, because that just insulates them even further from any potential liability from the company folding up abruptly (and even the two listed owners are protected due to the nature of Limited Liability Companies). Sure, there's still the issue of the co-mingling of funds and the tax consequences of such, but if the company closes up and disposes of all its records in the process, that becomes much harder to investigate.
Generally speaking, an involuntary petition in a case like this is less likely to be granted with each passing day. Involuntary petitioners have to show that a firm or person isn't paying its debts as they come due. A court isn't concerned so much with the past as the present and future. "Is and will this debtor be able to service its debts?" is the question being asked. And it's asked when the matter is before the judge, not as of the moment the petition was filed. Not paying people in the past is a HUGE strike, obviously, but if checks are going out the door
now, the amount owed to creditors is becoming more manageable
now and revenues look likely to cover the debts
now and in the future . . . well, you should be able to see why time is not a friend to a group of petitioners faced with a debtor that wants to survive and has even a slim shot at fending off an attack.
For Catalyst, pushing things back to
the day after GenCon has to be a huge win. Do you honestly think they're going to secure a short-term license renewal, launch new product, get good press, and then walk into court in Washington with the expectation they'll get liquidated? You could be right, I suppose, but fighting to put things off until after Con season and putting money into print product aren't actions I'd interpret as cutting and running.
Your liability insulation theory is nonsensical. The minor owners aren't worried about their status because that's a fight for later. If the firm is liquidated today, there's nothing to own tomorrow. Ken's said as much here. He's a pretty credible source considering that he's, you know, one of those owners. That's a much more logical reason to delay resolution of ownership issues than some crackpot scheme amongst the minority owners to avoid potential future liability.
IMR/Catalyst may very well end up getting liquidated, but the kind of scheming you're suggesting just doesn't make sense and wouldn't actually work. They're clearly trying to survive.