I totally agree she would stil have to pay! Could it be a part of settlement where she wouldnt be allowed to use the name and images for branding?.. could also be a complete coinsidence and shes just “rebranding” yet again for her relaunch in January
If there is a buyout the person who buys the other out has full rights and usage of the existing brand. Otherwise there would be no point in a buyout. You’re paying the other owner for their good will of building 50% of the brand.
For example if we owned a biscuit company but I wanted it for myself, I’d have to get it evaluated and we would agree on a figure that represents the projected income for the company (usually for a 3-5 year period) and pay you a good-will fee which reflects the time and effort put into building the company. After we settle I can then do whatever I want with the brand as it’s 100% mine, but I’d still have to pay you out for the company you once owned. Nothing I do going forward changes the fact that you once owned 50% of said business, so no matter what, even if we never sell a biscuit again, I still owe you that original figure we agreed upon. This is why I was surprised that L began speaking of a buyout, they’re quite risky and the person taking over has to be very confident it’s financially a good idea.
if all it took was a name change to get out of paying the other owner, then people would just constantly change a business name after the contracts are signed and not pay.