Confirmed: OnLive’s assets sold to another company

Sad really. This reads like a legal maneuver to escape prior financial obligations. Fire everyone, sell the assets to a new company, have that company re-hire the staff (if they are stupid enough to work there) and then negotiate new contracts with various vendors until you are up and running. Meanwhile creditors, investors, and disgruntled employees are left to sue an empty husk of a corporation with no assets.<p>It will be interesting to see the ramifications on Perlman's career. In a valley that embraces shooting high and missing, this doesn't feel very 'gentlemanly' if you will.

So does this confirm that it was mostly done to get back potential equity? If so how many of the employees are likely to go back?<p>Or was this done because they ran out of money and it's the only thing to do so most probably will? Except why fire them and do all that song and dance?<p>Also I like how the staff is all fired and some rehired but the service remains operating....

If the company was sold for less than the investments (or not a lot more) and the employees really were fired, it likely represented no loss for the employees and perhaps a way to sweeten the deal for the acquirers. The employees don't see a loss, because their stock wouldn't pay out until after the investors got theirs (which may be at a minimum multiple). The acquirer has less risk because they can weed out anybody they don't want to bring along and the firing risk went to a defunct company.