I think it's completely rational to assume that mergers and acquisitions would assign all assets, liabilities, and obligations to the purchasing entity. Given the history of Hollywood Accounting, I think it's also rational to assume that WB is trying to use legal loopholes to weasel their way out of obligations.
That being said, I thought the bulk of WBs case wasn't that they weren't beholden to her contract, but that the movie GRAVITY is a derivative of a different work entirely.
> I think it's completely rational to assume that mergers and acquisitions would assign all assets, liabilities, and obligations to the purchasing entity. Given the history of Hollywood Accounting, I think it's also rational to assume that WB is trying to use legal loopholes to weasel their way out of obligations.
Absolutely. To argue otherwise would be anarchy. Can you imagine if some company bought Microsoft and decided to start fresh? Like discard all the responsibilities it has to support its software and such. I know this is far fetched but my point is that this is what due diligence is supposed to discover and the acquirer's inability to find it does not mean they are absolved of the responsibility.
Bad example; Microsoft supports its software because it wouldn't be able to maintain market share if it didn't, not because of contractual obligations.
That being said, I thought the bulk of WBs case wasn't that they weren't beholden to her contract, but that the movie GRAVITY is a derivative of a different work entirely.