Quote:
Originally Posted by glypo
I know perfectly well how companies work, hence I made the post above. Unsurprisingly I don't know the specifics of Dutch Government and Legislation, so please rather than just posting a smug remark why not let me know what is so important about the Dutch Government?
If is perfectly reasonable for say a company, lets call it 'Company N.V.' to produce a product under 'Brand A'. Lets say you keep 'Brand A' associated to a person or separate company so that 'Company N.V.' can still produce products under name 'Brand A' just with permission. Say that 'Company N.V.' gets intro financial difficulties, as such liquidators seize their assets for sale at auction. It would be perfectly possible for that separate entity or indeed a person that owns 'Brand A' to set up another company, say in the far east called 'Company Ltd.' and then grant 'Company Ltd.' to make products under the same 'Brand A' and really there is nothing anyone can do about it, as legally the brand doesn't have to be associated with the business.
This isn't foul play, but it's not a great way of doing business as it leaves lots of people out of pocket.
Again I will clarify this is just theory, and I am not accusing Serpent of anything.
|
This is what I was getting at to, no idea how Dutch law works but have had family members suffer personally from being a creditor to such a company.
I'm interested if Serpent have done this or not because lots of rumours/emails/notices have flown around, and if a company deals in a way as described above it would certainly influence whether I'd be a customer of them!
Although without an S500 that's probably moot for me anyway!!