ihubposter, the $31 million was called a "loan" from TMM to QTN. It was a transfer of funds, QBID stock proceeds, from TMM to QTN. QTN was dissolved by the WA SoS. That left creditors with unpaid debt, unpaid employees and unsatisfied judgments. Gouveia disclosed that QTN was a TMM "liability". So, the question is, WHY WOULD GOUVEIA REINSTATE QTN AND QTN'S LIABILITY to TMM? You can't collect from a dissolved corp. There is nothing to liquidate into cash. Ask Firestone. The moment QTN was reinstated, they got a receiver appointed to make sure it remains in good standing. ;0)
The only reason I can see for the reinstatement is the $31 million cash/QBID stock proceeds that TMM transfered to QTN as a "loan". Unfortunately for Gouveia, Firestone filed for injunctive relief and got a receiver in QTN to prevent Gouveia from doing anything "fraudulent". So the QTN ASSET RECOVERY PLAN is quashed.
Plan B - Fan sells Cinemax Canada the QBID public vehicle it now trades as CPPC and TMM/Cinemax WA goes private. Gouveia discloses the QBID/CPPC public vehicle is worth "$31.6 million" and now the scammers have a wholly owned private entity, Cinemax WA/TMM, that they can transfer the $31 million BACK to. So, though the QTN asset subsidiary is "controlled" by a court appointed receiver, TMM/Cinemax WA & Cinemax Canada are not. Cinemax Canada can transfer $31 million to the now private TMM/Cinemax WA. ;0)
Actually, in most jurisdictions, a corporation is not completely absolved of liability upon mere dissolution. To the contrary, most states have timeframes during which a dissolved corporation can still be sued and held liable for judgments obtained against it. Thus, it is possible that Gouveia, being properly advised by a lawyer, may have determined that actively protecting that asset would be more beneficial than simply hoping no one goes after the company for the requisite number of post-dissolution years that would completely insulate the company. If, in fact, that $31 debt owed is an asset, then by simply sitting back and hoping to avoid a judgment, then Gouveia and company actually could lose control of that asset. On the other hand, by reviving the dissolved entity, which is entirely legal, he now can take control of that asset and at least be actively involved in how that asset eventually gets handled. Thus, it's a matter of controlling the asset that I think would lead to reactivation. So, the upshot is that mere dissolution does not likely lead to immediate absolution of liability for the company in Washington.
