An important legal battle is brewing regarding Bank of America's aquiring of Countrywide during some of the darkest days of the great recession. It seems Bank of America is using a well known doctrine called successor liability in defending itself against claims it is not liable for many of Countrywide's financial liabilities, even though Bank of America bought Countrywide for a rather small price. I'm not a legal expert, but it seems to me this doctrine created a win-win situation for Bank of America, allowing B of A to aquire Countrywide without aquiring many of it's financial liabilities. I don't think this is what the successor liability doctrine was designed for.
Any thoughts?
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/06/08/bank-of-americas-surprising-revelation.aspx
Originally posted by bill718Bankers should be guillotined.
An important legal battle is brewing regarding Bank of America's aquiring of Countrywide during some of the darkest days of the great recession. It seems Bank of America is using a well known doctrine called successor liability in defending itself against claims it is not liable for many of Countrywide's financial liabilities, even though Bank of America bou ...[text shortened]... ttp://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/06/08/bank-of-americas-surprising-revelation.aspx