Right, because typically businesses that are unsuccessful are the ones that people are able to sell and make a boatload of money off of
It's not that black and white.
Many big corporations have been duped into buying smaller, private companies with the assumption that those companies are doing really well.
In fact, private companies are not required to divulge any of their finances. There are no public records on private companies. The only ones who really know what is going on are the company owners and the IRS (provided that the company does their business legally).
Now, in a buyout, the buyer will request to see that information, but many times a lot of problems can be cleverly hidden. This may include debts owed (both internally and externally), burned bridges with suppliers etc.
Thus my statement earlier, that if a lawsuit is filed against Schottenstein we will know exactly where the company left off when he sold it.
My point earlier was that if a guy starts a company doing something that he is really passionate about, and that company becomes really successful, they will usually want to continue building the company. They will only sell it for a ridiculously enormous amount of money, which I don't believe to be the case here. (It was a lot of money, but not enough to buy out something that he was passionate about and that was already "very successful").