#Best Bankruptcy Lawyer | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

genericpuff · 2 months ago

Note

So Webtoons is getting sued by a bunch of law firms in class action lawsuit. Saw it on reddit. Apparently they lied to shareholders about revenue which is like one of the worst things I could imagine doing to your shareholders. Then their stock dropped again. Wow....wonder how this is gonna effect readers going forward or how they're gonna be more exploitative in the future. Not saying the down of Webtoons has begun but I wonder if it's gonna be the start of it.

Yep, I've been following this since the initial investigations began.

All that said, we likely won't see anything of this for a while, if anything even comes of it. The reality is that Webtoons... really didn't actually lie about being bad at making money. It's literally outlined in their IPO documentation:

So these lawsuits, at least in my opinion (*I AM NOT A LAWYER NOR AM I ANYONE WHO HAS ANY EXPERIENCE PLACING WALL STREET BETS, TAKE WHAT I HAVE TO SAY WITH MOUNTAINS OF SALT) is less about Webtoons 'lying' to shareholders and more so about them kicking the debt down the road which these lawyers want to try and hold them accountable for. It's not uncommon for startups to seek out private and/or public funding to help them stay out of bankruptcy, but such practice is incredibly shitty because if a company was already near the point of bankruptcy to begin with, what exactly is going to change to ensure that they actually make that money back with an additional net gain for those investors?

So in that sense, either something will come of this, or it won't, nothing's really a guarantee as of now. It's just as common for startups seeking public investments to get sued within their first 1-2 years because a company not returning on their initial investments within 3-6 months is a prime cut for lawyers to drool over. Despite their attempts to be honest about their earnings, the vast majority of Wall Street investors are paranoid little fuckers who invest in whatever's new and exciting with the hopes that it'll turn them a profit quickly and without headache. Unfortunately, Webtoons isn't a company that's known for having huge profit margins, which these investors would have realized if they knew anything about this industry or at the very least, bothered to read the fine print that Webtoons was obligated to lay out for them in their documentation. At best the majority of them saw Webtoons' offering that covered buzzwords like "content generation" and "AI" and went "yes please, I love money!" without realizing that webtoons, as a medium, have some of the highest production expenses to lowest-paying demographics out there and therefore companies like Webtoons aren't going to be a short-term gratification. It's more like waiting it out for the "next big thing" that will make that stock valuable again, a massive gamble that isn't guaranteed to payoff. And that's just the game of Wall Street in general.

That said, it's because of how difficult it is to directly monetize digital comics that Webtoons often has to rely on selling merchandise and IP rights in the hopes they'll land a whale - but even their pre-existing whales like Lore Olympus and Let's Play have either nothing to show for themselves, or have left the platform entirely. Of course, they'll vaguely claim that two of Netflix's highest-performing projects came from their platform, but any peek at an aggregated Top 10 list will prove that that is simply not true, and at best, they're referring to True Beauty's live action adaption, which is simply not even close to breaching that list of all-time top-performers (except probably in Korea but this is Goldman Sachs and their American investors they're trying to convince), All of Us are Dead (see above, same situation as True Beauty), and Heartstopper which is... not even an Originals series. Of course, that didn't stop Webtoons and Tapas from boasting about Heartstopper's Netflix adaption and its success on the platform, but literally none of its success is exclusively owed to either of those platforms, Alice Oseman flies solo and if anything, Heartstopper never would have gotten to the point it's at if it were tied down to a Webtoon Originals contract.

So in a sense, until anything comes of these lawsuits, they're more so just lawyers jumping on their own investment opportunity - the opportunity to get settlements from Webtoons for both their clients and themselves by extension. At best what they feasibly have against Webtoons is the company getting way too high on their own supply without anything to feasibly show in terms of profit for their IP's. Considering how many IP's they sold to television and film production studios back in 2019-2022 when they were at their peak over the lockdowns - a peak that is long in the rearview mirror - they are incredibly behind in actually paying off those promises. Even in a recent meeting they held just the other day with Goldman Sachs, they're quoted as saying: "When Rachel Smythe was a graphic designer in New Zealand, 4 or 5 years ago, and she had a story to tell, we enabled her to not just tell it in one part of the world, but globally. She became a NYT Bestselling author, she is rumored to be releasing soon as a major animated release."

When even the company that hosts Lore Olympus as its prize pig can only say that its long-anticipated TV production that both Rachel and Webtoons have been assuring people on repeat that the show is "still happening" and that what they've seen so far "looks amazing" is simply 'rumored to be releasing soon'... I don't even have the words to describe how embarrassing that is for them. Never mind the fact that Lore Olympus has been over for months and both it and its creator, Rachel, have been falling into the pits of irrelevancy. They don't have any other home-runners to bet on, they're just continuing to bank on Rachel as their own example of someone who "got big" even though it was years ago and that fame is now shrinking with the passage of time, you can even see the performance of the series dipping in its own front-end metrics over time. They are trying so hard to convince people that they're worth investing in when the one thing that actually DID have that kind of allure has now come and gone.

Never mind the fact that again, most Wall Street investors probably don't even participate in webtoon culture so the name "Rachel Smythe" isn't some golden ticket to fortune. Lore Olympus might get a bit more of a reaction, but it's going to be a lot more mixed due to how divisive the series became in the end, and general audiences who are new to Webtoons as a public company (and the medium as a whole) are still not so likely to know what the fuck that means or why it's significant. The best time to pull the "we have Rachel Smythe!" card in the public investing pool was, like many other things Webtoons has fallen behind in, years ago. Now it's clear Webtoons thinks that Rachel is their own personal J.K. Rowling, but they forgot the part where Rachel is creating for an incredibly niche and historically unprofitable medium that is nowhere near as big as what Harry Potter was back in its prime, and - personally speaking - that Rowling and Rachel are both, well... terrible at what they do.

Webtoons also has the added burden of not being a startup company. They're not some grassroots Silicon Valley tech startup run by a bunch of friends "with a dream", they're an extension of an industry that thrives overseas but barely has any infrastructure to support it here. They've been bankrolled for years by an overseeing tech company - Naver - but have consistently failed to get out of the red and so of course, now they're turning to public investments to help them out and subsequently, are passing that debt off to the next highest bidder, which is Wall Street. They had nearly a decade to figure their shit out here in the West and while they had their opportunities to thrive, those opportunities have come and gone, a lot of doors have closed and now this all feels like their own attempts to rip those doors back open again.

There is a LOT to insinuate already that Webtoons - a Korean-hosted platform - wasn't ready to enter the Western market and this fumbling of their public stock image is yet another great example of that. Even outside of Webtoons, other Korean-run platforms like Tapas have relied on private investments to keep them afloat (and still do, Tapas is still operating privately) and have routinely struggled to get a real foothold in the greater Western industry despite how much they hyped themselves up as the "next big thing". They're all playing the same game over and over again expecting better scores even though the playing fields are entirely different than what they've come to expect in Korea, where much of the entertainment industry is built around webtoons, much like how our entertainment industry in the West is built around comic giants like Marvel and DC (and even those giants are faltering as we've been seeing over the past several years).

Anyways. I don't know if this lawsuit is gonna go anywhere, there's a lot to the legal process that could lead to a variety of different outcomes, but at the very least, their plummeting stock value and the lawyers circling them from above is yet another notch on their belt of fuck-ups over the past few years. I know it's easy to say this in hindsight and I'm not the kind of guy to say "I told you so", but considering I've been following along with the bullshit of these major platforms for years and knew as soon as Webtoons was rumored to be going forward with an IPO that it would lead to disaster, I'm pretty confident in saying, "No really, I told you so." And I don't entirely blame the investors for that (except for the ones that clearly didn't read the fine print) - I also blame Webtoons for that, because they are a chronically unprofitable company run by a bunch of clowns who manufactured their own demise by getting in WAY over their heads and clearly don't even have a concept of a plan let alone an actionable one.

And that sucks, because the people who stand to get hurt the most are the ones who were made those empty promises years ago, long before the platform entered Wall Street - and that's the creators who were promised that their livelihoods would be secured and their work would be protected.

I will forever bully and make fun of Webtoons for everything they've done in and to this industry. I hope at the very least those investors learned an expensive lesson, and that the damage these lawsuits have already caused to Webtoons' public image - regardless of whether or not these lawsuits win - empowers others who have been screwed over by them to speak up and make their moves. They are not a monolith. They are a brittle business operating from the trunk of a clown car on their way to becoming a penny-stocks sham.

Fuck Webtoons <3

#ask me anything #ama #anon ama #anon ask me anything #webtoon critical

54 notes · View notes

digitalpup444 · 7 months ago

Text

how i view bimbo!reader and princess!reader <3

☆ﾟ･*:.｡.☆

oookaayyyy, so i feel like dove cameron is the perfect example of what i imagine bimbo!reader looks like! i imagine her to be very bratty and high maintenance, always clinging to rafe’s arm in a cute little outfit that shows too much skin. she gets her nails done every two weeks on the dot, using rafe’s money, she always goes for a classic coffin french tip with an ‘R’ on her ring finger for rafe <3

she’s really not afraid to stand up for herself if rafe is next to her to reassure her, but when she’s alone? you bet she is running off crying if someone says something in the slightest mean tone to her.

she comes from money but that wasn’t always the case, a pogue turned kook basically after her dad got a promotion at his lawyer job. her mom is always wondering how her she got to be so ditzy considering that both of her parents are very smart with good jobs as a nurse and lawyer.

she’s very very small, only being about five foot one, which naturally always has her looking up at rafe whenever she’s talking to him.

megan fox is absolutely without a doubt, princess!reader. but to be more specific, megan fox in jennifer’s body. jennifer just captures the perfect, stuck up, bitchy, attitude that princess has towards everyone but jj, of course. she’s unfortunately a kook turned pogue after her single mother had to file for bankruptcy after her dad very recently divorced her, leaving them to live in a shitty trailer in the cut. she essentially joined the pogue gang after sarah, her best friend, introduced her to them after she asked who jj was at a beach party.

after that, princess just couldn’t keep her eyes off the blonde and fell in love with him at every glance. jj was the first to kiss her while they were out drunk and skinny dipping. he always makes sure she gets whatever she wants because she will definitely throw a tantrum over it but he knows how to shut that down real quick if it gets to be too much.

she is very book smart but acts dumb to make her look innocent and naive, which she uses that as an advantage to manipulate people to get what she wants.

princess has a slight kleptomania problem, stealing whatever she can’t afford. it’s where most of her wardrobe came from. she’s not afraid to take what she wants and it has definitely got her in some situations.

her wardrobe consists of pink, white, and basically anything that she finds ‘sexy’ and ‘slutty’. she’s not afraid to show off her body at all. on her relaxing days, she’s usually in a juicy couture tracksuit with a tight fitting tank top on. her shoes of choice are heels to make her seem taller and more intimidating since she’s only five foot four.

#rafe cameron smut #rafe cameron x reader #rafe cameron imagine #rafe obx #outerbanks rafe #rafe cameron #rafe imagine #jj maybank smut #jj maybank x reader #jj maybank #pope heyward smut #pope heyward x reader #pope heyward #john b routledge #john b smut #john b x reader #outerbanks fic #outerbanks

143 notes · View notes

mostlysignssomeportents · 1 year ago

Text

The Sacklers woulda gotten away with it if it wasn't for those darned meddling feds

The saga of the Sacklers, a multigenerational billionaire crime family of mass-murdering dope-peddlers, is an enraging parable about how the wealthy, the courts, and sadistic high-powered lawyers collude to destroy the lives of millions, profit handsomely, and evade justice.

But there's an unexpected twist to this tale. After the Sacklers procured a sham bankruptcy that denied their victims the right to sue while leaving their fortune largely intact, the Supreme Court – yes, this Supreme Court – saw through the scam and froze the process, pending a full hearing:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/supreme-court-purdue-pharma-opioid-settlement.html

The Sacklers basically invented modern, legal dope peddling. Arthur Sackler, the family's original crime-boss, revived the practice of direct-to-consumer drug marketing, dormant since the death of the medicine show, to peddle Valium. An aggressive and shrewd lobbyist, Arthur built the family fortune and, more importantly, its connections:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-the-sackler-family-built-a-pharma-dynasty-and-fueled-an-american-calamity/

A generation later, the family's business company created Oxycontin, and procured misleading and false research about the drug's safety kickstarting the opioid epidemic, whose American body-count is closing in on a million dead. Armed with inflated claims about opioid safety, the Sacklers' pharma reps bribed, cajoled and tricked doctors into writing millions of prescriptions for oxy.

This scam had a natural best-before date. As ODs flooded America's ERs and bodies piled up in America's morgues, it became increasingly clear that something was rotten. The Sacklers pursued a multipronged campaign to keep the truth from coming to light, and to keep the billions flowing.

On the one hand, they hired McKinsey to find novel ways to encourage doctors to keep writing prescriptions and to convince pharmacists to turn a blind eye to abuse. McKinsey had all kinds of great ideas here, including paying pharma distributors cash bonuses for every overdose death in their territory:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/business/mckinsey-opioids-settlement.html

When the issue of these deaths came up in public, the Sacklers blamed "criminal addicts" for their own misery, stigmatizing both people who desperately needed pain relief and the people who'd been deliberately hooked on the Sacklers' products. The legacy of this smear campaign is still with us, both in the contempt for people struggling with addiction and in the cruel barriers placed between people in unbearable agony and medical relief.

But mostly, the Sacklers kept their names out of it. They laundered their reputations by donating a homeopathic fraction of their vast drug fortune to art galleries and museums in a bid to make their names synonymous with good deeds.

The Sacklers didn't invent this trick. Think of the way that history's great monsters – Carnegie, Mellon, Rockefeller, Ford – are remembered today for the foundations and charities that bear their names, not for the untold misery they inflicted on their workers, their crimes against their customers, and the corruption of governments.

But the Sacklers made those Gilded Age barons seem like amateurs. They invented a modern elite philanthropy playbook that Anand Giridharadas documents in his must-read Winners Take All, about the charity-industrial complex that washes away an ocean of blood with a trickle of money:

https://memex.craphound.com/2018/11/10/winners-take-all-modern-philanthropy-means-that-giving-some-away-is-more-important-than-how-you-got-it/

As part of this PR exercise, the individual Sacklers kept their names and images out of the public eye. For years, there were virtually no news-service photos of individual Sacklers. When journalists dared to criticize the family, they used vicious attack-lawyers to intimidate them into retractions and silence (I was threatened by the Sacklers' lawyers).

They also worked their media mogul pals, like Mike Bloomberg, who added their names to the "Friends of Mike" list that Bloomberg reporters were required to consult before writing negative coverage:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/02/29/friends-of-mike-enemies-of-the-people/#sacklerbergs

But Stein's Law says that "anything that can't go on forever will eventually stop." As lawsuits mounted, the Sacklers found themselves increasingly synonymous with death, not charitable works. But like any canny criminal, the Sacklers had a getaway plan.

First, they extracted vast sums from Purdue and shifted it into offshore financial secrecy havens:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-purduepharma-bankruptcy/sacklers-reaped-up-to-13-billion-from-oxycontin-maker-u-s-states-say-idUSKBN1WJ19V

Even as this money was disappearing into legal black holes, the Sacklers demanded – and received – extraordinary protection from the courts, who aggressively sealed testimony and materials presented through discovery:

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-courts-secrecy-judges/

When this gambit finally failed, the Sacklers insisted that were down to their last $4 billion, and, with trillions in claims pending against them, they declared bankruptcy.

When a normal person declares bankruptcy, they are required to divest themselves of nearly everything of value they possess, and then still find themselves hounded by cruel arm-breakers who deluge them with threatening calls and letters:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/05/19/zombie-debt/#damnation

But for the richest people in America, bankruptcy is merely a way to cleanse one's balance sheet of liabilities for any atrocity you may have committed on the way, without giving up your fortune.

The Sacklers are a case-study in how a corrupt bankruptcy can be conducted.

Purdue Pharma presents a maddening case-study in the corrupt benefits of bankruptcy. When it was announced in March, many were outraged to learn that the Sacklers were going to walk away with billions, while their victims got stiffed.

First, they converted their victims' right to compensation into "property" that the Sacklers themselves owned. This transferred jurisdiction over these claims from the regular court system to the bankruptcy court. A bankruptcy judge – not a jury – would decide how much each of these claims was worth, and then what how much of that worth these victims (now recast as creditors) would be entitled to through the bankruptcy.

Thus tens of thousands of claims were nonconsensually settled without a trial, by an administrative judge with no criminal jurisdiction, not a federal judge who'd undergone Senate confirmation:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/03/31/vaccine-for-the-global-south/#claims-extinguished

These "coercive restructuring techniques" are not available to everyday people who are drowning in student debt or credit-card bills – these are the exclusive purview of the wealthiest Americans, who enjoy a completely different bankruptcy system that is rigged in their favor.

Three judges – David Jones and Marvin Isgur of Houston and Bob Drain of New York – hear 96% of the country's large corporate bankruptcies:

https://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/2021/05/judge-shopping-in-bankruptcy.html

These judges are unbelievably horny for corporations, embracing a legal theory "that casts the invention of the limited liability corporation alongside that of the steam engine as a paradigmatic development in the pursuit of prosperity":

https://prospect.org/justice/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-the-sacklers-purdue-pharma-bankruptcy/

Now there are more than three bankruptcy judges in America, so how do the nation's biggest companies get their cases heard by these three enthusiastic Renfields for corporate vampirism?

They cheat.

For example: when GM was facing bankruptcy, it argued that it was a New York company on the basis that it owned a single Chevy dealership in Harlem, and got in front of Judge Drain.

The Sacklers were – characteristically – even more brazen. They really wanted to get their case in front of Judge Drain, the nation's most enthusiastic supporter of "third party releases," through which bankrupt billionaires can wipe the slate clean, securing dismissals of all claims by the people they wronged.

Drain is also uniquely hostile to independent examiners, "an independent third-party appointed by the court to investigate 'fraud, dishonesty, incompetence, misconduct, mismanagement, or irregularity…by current or former management of the debtor."

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3851339

If you're the Sacklers, hoping to keep two thirds of your billions and extinguish all claims by your victims, there is no better helpmeet than Judge Robert Drain of the Southern District of New York.

So, 192 days before filing for bankruptcy, the Sacklers opened an office in White Plains, New York (a company may claim jurisdiction in a specific court once they've operated a business there for 180 days).

Then they filed a bankruptcy in which they altered the metadata on their casefile, inserting the code for a Westchester county hearing into the machine-readable, human-invisible parts of the documents they uploaded to the federal Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system (they also captioned the case with "RDD, for "Robert D Drain").

They chose their judge, and the judge obliged. UCLA Law's Lynn LoPucki is one of the leading scholars of these bankruptcy "megacases," and has written extensively on why these three judges are so deferential to corporate criminals seeking to flense themselves of culpability. She sees judges like Drain motivated by "personal aggrandizement and celebrity and ability to indirectly channel to the local bankruptcy bar. The judge is the star and the ringmaster of a megacase – very appealing to certain personalities."

Thus, these judges are "willing and eager to cater to debtors to attract business…[an] assurance to debtors that…these judges will not transfer out cases with improper venue or rule against the debtor…"

https://www.fulcrum.org/concern/monographs/02870w66d

This kind of judge-shopping goes beyond the Sacklers; the cases that Drain and co preside over make a mockery of the idea of America as a land of equal justice. "Prepack" and "drive-through" bankruptcies are reliable get-out-of-jail-free cards for capitalism's worst monsters: private equity firms.

Whether PE murdered your grandmother by buying her care-home and putting each worker in charge of 30 seniors:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/portopiccolo-nursing-homes-maryland/2020/12/21/a1ffb2a6-292b-11eb-9b14-ad872157ebc9_story.html

or poisoned your kids by filling your neighborhood with carcinogens:

https://www.webmd.com/special-reports/ethylene-oxide/20190719/residents-unaware-of-cancer-causing-toxin-in-air

limited liability wipes the slate clean.

30% of America's bankruptcies are private equity companies using the bankruptcy system to wipe away claims for their misdeeds, while keeping a fortune, thanks to the shield of limited liability.

Take Millennium Health, JamesS lattery's fake drug-testing company, which promised to help nursing homes figure out whether seniors were abusing (or selling) their meds by testing their piss for angel dust and other drugs. Slattery defrauded Medicare and Medicaid for millions, borrowed $1.8 billion (Slattery got $1.3 billion of that). He eventually walked away from this fraud after paying a mere $256m to settle all claims, and kept a fortune in assets, including the 40 vintage planes his private company ("Pissed Away LLC" – I am not making this up) owned:

https://prospect.org/justice/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-the-sacklers-purdue-pharma-bankruptcy/

For the wealthy, bankruptcy is the sport of kings, a way to skip out on consequences. For the poor, bankruptcy is an anchor – or a noose. This is by design: judges who preside over elite bankruptcies speak of their protagonists as heroic "risk takers" and tiptoe around any consequences, lest these titans be chained to a mortal's fate, costing us all the benefits of their entrepreneurial genius.

PE companies helped the Sacklers design their own bankruptcy strategy, and it was a standout, even by the standards of Bob Drain and his kangaroo bankruptcy court. But now, the Supreme Court has pumped the brakes on the whole enterprise.

The judges ruled that the exceptions the Sacklers took advantage of were intended for bankrupts in "financial distress" – not billionaires with vast fortunes hidden overseas. In so doing, the court threatens all manner of corrupt arrangements, from "the Boy Scouts, wildfires and allegations of sexual abuse in the church diocese — where third parties get a benefit from a bankruptcy they themselves aren’t going through.”

The case was brought by the DoJ's US Trustee Program, which lost in the Second Circuit when it tried to halt the Purdue bankruptcy and argued that the Sacklers themselves had to declare bankruptcy to discharge the claims against them.

Now the Supremes have hit pause on the bankruptcy the Second Circuit approved, and will hear the case themselves. It's only one step on a long road, but it's an unprecedented one. Some of the country's filthiest fortunes are riding on the outcome.

Going to Defcon this weekend? I’m giving a keynote, “An Audacious Plan to Halt the Internet’s Enshittification and Throw it Into Reverse,” tomorrow (Aug 12) at 12:30pm, followed by a book signing at the No Starch Press booth at 2:30pm!

https://info.defcon.org/event/?id=50826

I’m kickstarting the audiobook for “The Internet Con: How To Seize the Means of Computation,” a Big Tech disassembly manual to disenshittify the web and bring back the old, good internet. It’s a DRM-free book, which means Audible won’t carry it, so this crowdfunder is essential. Back now to get the audio, Verso hardcover and ebook:

http://seizethemeansofcomputation.org

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/11/justice-delayed/#justice-redeemed

Image: Edwardx (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Serpentine_Sackler_Gallery,_June_2016_05.jpg

CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

171 notes · View notes

niuniente · 7 months ago

Text

I have multiple favorite characters. They're all equally beloved. I don't get to choose which one of them is on the spotlight - they come and go on their own.

Because of this, I have assigned a personal meaning to each character: this character means have more fun; this character means that keep your eyes on the price; this character means a time of transition; this character asks to rest more. Always works!

A month ago, Dragunov from Tekken appeared on the spotlight (this didn't happen with Tekken 7 so we can't blame the new Tekken being out).

Now, the first time he was on a spotlight was 15 years ago. I was in a horrible place back then. There was a legal mess which, if the shit hit the fan, would ruin the rest of my life. Literally. I wouldn't be able to get a rental apartment, make any new contracts like electricity, phone, internet, buy anything with monthly payments, get subscription services, I would lose part of my income. I was THIS CLOSE to lose it all and the worst thing was that there was nothing I could. I hadn't caused the mess but I had no way out of it either. I even went to a lawyer to ask for a legal help but he couldn't help.

I feared for my life and future, hoping it would turn out OK. What kept me sane was playing Tekken 6. I played it hours every day and always as Dragunov. I even did my art school final thesis of fan culture and Dragunov (I had much fun with a Russian fan who drew really pretty pics of Dragunov and gave me an access to her screencapture collection of Tekken 6 for my thesis)

Then, one day I figured what was Dragunov's assigned meaning; you will survive. No matter what the odds, even if it was the 3rd world war, you will survive and come out alive without any harm.

That's exactly what happened. Took 2 more years but I got out alive, unharmed. It was horrible time. I'm glad it's over.

So, when Dragunov NOW suddenly appeared on the spotlight after 15 years, my initial thought was "WHAT WHAT, WHAT'S THE BAD NEWS??? WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN?? WHAT DO YOU MEAN THE ODDS ARE HORRIBLE BUT I'LL SURVIVE????! "

Two weeks later, in a span of a week, without any prior warnings:

I got laid off because the company bankruptcy and fell on a social welfare

this happened while the current right-wing government made big cuts to social welfare and housing benefits (so I don't know if I can keep my current home)

while at the same time prices keep getting higher due to inflation

The IUD for anemia treatment came out on its own

Because of that I'm without any help to my iron anemia and the only solution will be hysterectomy in my case; doctors aren't giving those easily (even when needed)

I lost my workplace healthcare which would have been the easiest and the best way to get to hysterectomy

the sudden removal of IUD is causing me horrible withdrawal symptoms

my Japanese friend told me that she's unable to come to Finland this year and has to postpone her trip till 2025 :(((

(which also means I won't get my favorite cigarettes I smoke for fancy treats a few times a year because I can only get it from Japan - ordering tobacco online is illegal here)

noticed that wasps had made a nest to my balcony (that's being taken care off)

couldn't attend a free(!) ice-cream tasting for a feedback and for a free 15€ gift card because of the IUD withdrawal symptoms

found out that trains aren't operating normally and my home station is under construction and causes some issues

So yeah. He wasn't lying. It's been so bad that the first thing this morning when waking up was to take stomach medicine and have a smoke. And I'm not a smoker.

Horrible times are up ahead but I trust that I'll survive out of this phase just like I did 15 year ago.

(:::з」∠)

#sergei gimme strength to get through all this bullshit #niu's life

40 notes · View notes

zvaigzdelasas · 1 year ago

Text

Hui ‘underestimated Xi Jinping’s determination’ to deflate China’s property bubble regardless of the impact on the private sector

Another entrepreneur posted a video to social media on Monday accusing the Evergrande chief of being ‘an enemy of the Chinese people’[...]

[Analysts] pointed out that Chinese authorities had not hesitated to move against the businessman – currently under “mandatory measures”, which means detention – regardless of the potential hit to private sector confidence.[...]

Evergrande [...] filed for bankruptcy protection in the United States.

Although many lawyers and debt-restructuring accountants believe the bankruptcy protection application is procedural and signals the restructuring negotiations are near their conclusion, critics in mainland China have accused Hui of trying to hide his wealth overseas and avoid paying creditors in the country.

One of the most vocal critics was Wong Hongsheng, founder of the television manufacturer Skyworth, who posted a video on the social media platform WeChat on Monday accusing Hui of avoiding his responsibilities.

"It is despicable that Hui has chosen to be the enemy of the Chinese people … by applying for the bankruptcy protection in the US so he can leverage the confrontation between China and the US and hide his wealth,” he said.[...] “All of us entrepreneurs should take this as a warning. When we face difficulties, we should try our best to resolve them on our own. You can’t play a deceptive game to protect your wealth, and let the country and the people suffer,” Wong said.

Yeah this sounds exactly like 2007/08! [3 Oct 23]

58 notes · View notes

carosellaassociates · 1 year ago

Text

youtube

Bankruptcy Scenarios: Options to Consider

Learn about common financial struggles and how a bankruptcy lawyer can help if you’re facing overwhelming debt.

Focusing links- https://carosella.com/blog/among-the-scenarios-in-which-a-bankruptcy-lawyer-can-help/ https://carosella.com/contracts-lawyers/ https://carosella.com/blog/bankruptcy-for-married-couples-do-both-spouses-need-to-file/

#west chester bankruptcy lawyers #contract attorneys #best bankruptcy lawyers #Youtube

0 notes

vintagegeekculture · 1 year ago

Note

There is another section from the song "Gamers", and I'm curious if it refers to a specific incident.

I'm a live-roleplayin' gamer, I used to play out in the woods. Twilight 2000, Shadowrun, I'd play whenever I could. I'd put on my costume, shoot tin cans, and make firecrackers fly. Then my front door got kicked down again -- This time it was the FBI.

They stole my guns, my video tapes, every book I’d ever read, And a couple of bags of fertilizer out of the garden shed! They told the press I was a terrorist, who planned to blow up half the town. They called me a right-wing militia nut, and a neo-nazi clown.

The details are not the same, but I think this is a reference to a well known incident in 1990, where Steve Jackson Games, best known these days as the maker of the Munchkin card game, were raided by the Secret Service under suspicion that their game product, Cyberpunk, a roleplaying game, was actually a manual for computer crime. Agents literally walked out of the building holding the game company's computers.

Because this story is so well known to gamers, and spread at a time when word of mouth was so potent, there are many details that are altered by the telephone game. Many say it was the FBI instead of the Secret Service, for instance, or it was Cyberpunk 2020 that was raided (which was put out by R. Talsorian Games, not Steve Jackson).

To quote Steve Jackson:

In the course of that visit, it became clear that the investigating agents considered GURPS Cyberpunk to be "a handbook for computer crime." They seemed to make no distinction between a discussion of futuristic credit fraud, using equipment that doesn't exist, and modern real-life credit card abuse. A repeated comment by the agents was "This is real."

"Careless, illegal, and completely unjustified," the raid happened because author Loyd Blankenship ran an irreverent, anti-authority computer USENET BBS dedicated to computers and yes, hacking, and Steve Jackson was struck through guilt by association. It's exactly the kind of overreach that happens when the malevolent Eye of Sauron that is federal law enforcement fixes itself on you. In the course of investigation, the Secret Service justified its own warrant by saying that they would find evidence to justify the warrant, which is circular reasoning.

Due to the raid, Steve Jackson Games had to lay off half the staff and was close to bankruptcy fighting the charges. However, for once, they were able to countersue the Secret Service, because several committed technology lawyers, partially in response, formed the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

This is not the first time this happened. In 1980, a decade earlier, TSR was raided because of the spy game, Top Secret, due to suspicion of aiding international terrorism in Lebanon (!)

#cyberpunk #tabletop rpgs

146 notes · View notes

hhslawyers · 6 months ago

Text

#lawyers in dubai #dubai lawyers #law firms in dubai #best bankruptcy lawyers #new bankruptcy law #bankruptcy lawyers #bankruptcy

1 note · View note

delicatefury · 2 months ago

Text

I’m pissed. I am so pissed right now. (Super long, very personal rant below)

I’m an attorney. A lawyer. My job is to advise my clients to the best of my ability of what legal options they have and which acts may be in their best interest. That’s why one of the other names for my job is counselor.

It is not to get more clients. It is not to file more bankruptcies. My job, my ethical obligation, is to provide my professional expertise to clients in relation to pursuing a bankruptcy.

Which means sometimes my ethical duty is to advise clients that filing a bankruptcy is the worse option for their situation and other steps would serve them better to reach their goals.

So when a client who makes less than the median income (which is fairly low, especially with inflation) comes in owning their house in full (meaning lots of value in the house to pay off debts), it is my job, my ethical obligation, to warn her that filing bankruptcy will mean she has to pay every single cent of her debts back. That she will be handing over almost half of her pay every month to the bankruptcy court to pay back her creditors. Or else the bankruptcy trustee has the right to sell her house.

And after discussing her situation with the senior attorney, turns out that it’s actually a better option for her to take out a small home equity loan and negotiate for lower debt payoffs for her credit cards and personal loans. It’s a lower interest rate, she gets a lot more leeway before her house is at risk, it’s quicker, and it will preserve her credit score. In every conceivable way it’s a better option for her.

So I call her to discuss that there are other options for her before I sink hours into preparing her case.

This woman freaks the fuck out. She’s convinced the loan will lead to her losing her house. She demands to know why I would even suggest it. She implies I have no clue what I’m doing and am just trying to take advantage (which is… no? I’m telling you that you’d be better off not using our services). I try to calm her down and ask for a few days to put together the numbers to show her what her options will look like. She agrees to a phone call in two days.

Two days later, she sends me a basic email saying she no longer wants to go forward with the bankruptcy. Silly me thinks that means she’s given thought and realized that a 3.5-5% small loan and negotiating payoffs is better than 5 years at 8-18% interest plus attorney fees.

Wrong! She also emails one of the partners and writes a nasty message about me and how “incompetent” I am! Because I suggested a home equity loan! Because I did my ethical duty! And I found this out because I went to add a note to her file about giving her a refund and found a note from the partner about her complaints about me.

And I do not trust the partners to take my side. I did the right thing. I took the right actions. I know I did. And the Senior attorney will back me up! We literally just had a discussion that legal ethics requires that at times we have to advise clients not to file bankruptcy, even if that means we lose their business.

But I cannot believe that the partners will stand behind my actions. I can’t. Not after the last year. Too many times have they assured me that they have my back only to throw me under the bus the moment they actually have to prove it.

A client is rude and combative to me and my paralegal? Makes me deeply uncomfortable and keeps on insisting on coming into the office so he can attempt to railroad me by physical intimidation into doing what he wants instead of the actual correct legal actions? Partners says he understands and that he’s okay if we turn this client away. Then he calls the client, tells them I’m also on the line, and immediately rolls over because the asshole isn’t rude to him. And I have another month of near constant harassment and arguments and passive aggressive insults.

A client gives off creepy vibes? Again insists on coming into the office for every little thing? Has a criminal record for domestic issues and an active criminal case open against him for pedophilia? Oh well. He paid a lot up front so guess I have no choice but to keep representing him. For the next 5 years.

Client starts being threatening and aggressive to our paralegal before we even meet with him? Demands to be seen and threatens to come into our office even though we are booked all afternoon? Gives the former criminal prosecutor senior attorney bad vibes before she’s even seen him? Meet with him anyway! Oh he just lost his job because he threatened his HR? Has been arrested for domestic violence? Just attempted to physically intimidate his now former boss and had the cops called him? That’s fine! We have security concerns? Oh well, they’ll think about it during the partners meeting next month.

I’d like to take the time to learn how to do post filing work or how to file bankruptcies in the neighboring district that I actually live in? Tough. More front end work for a court that’s literally on the other side of the state! And if that doesn’t keep me occupied, they’ll send me front end stuff from the other side of the country!

So I really don’t trust that when I tell them I was doing my ethical obligation and making my client aware that there are better options that they will take my word over hers. I can’t. They’ve shown me that’s not how they think. It’s being a business first, with being a law practice a distant second, and mentoring new attorneys a far away third. Caring for our staff is barely a blip on the horizon for them.

But I know I did the right thing. And if that client wants to go to another firm and pay most of her paycheck to the trustee every month, fine by me. And if they try to lecture me about how I “handled it poorly” and should have just filed it without saying anything, I can’t guarantee I won’t just walk out.

I’ve got contract work. I’ve been approached by headhunters. One literally emailed me this morning. I like this work, but for once I’m not scared to walk away.

#fury's life #fury’s a lawyer #and I will always be a lawyer before I am a businesswoman #I couldn’t live with myself otherwise #personal #fuck this firm #I thought I was just getting burnt out #and a week off would allow me to come back in better spirits #but this week has sucked #and it’s not burnout that’s making work harder than it has to be #it’s like they’re trying to ruin me for anything but being a replaceable cog in their fast law machine #so I can’t leave #fuck. that.

5 notes · View notes

tototavros · 1 year ago

Note

Are you... a lawyer? A legal historian? An amateur enthusiast?

You seem to know a lot about law and think a lot about law.

I wish I understood law, like, at least in some general sense. It would be cool to be able to read about important court cases and so on and be like "oh, these are the implications of this", as you seem to do.

Do you have recommendations for how a person such as myself with a passing interest in this but not a whole lot of time to dedicate to it (it seems very time consuming a subject to learn) can learn more about it?

An amateur historian at most, law is just something I'm currently learning about and one of the best ways for me to learn about things is to talk about but it, trying to reason through it etc., so I'm naturally in my 'annoying amateur' hour on this. I did similarly for Haskell and want to thank everyone who stuck around through that, as my position naturally receded from "omg best thing ever" to "real neat".

Mostly it came about as I was trying to find podcasts that weren't annoying talk-radio-replacements as most politics podcasts end up becoming, and I found National Security Law which did a good job of "discussing the controversy" on various things (surveillance, int'l drone strikes, etc.) and even deeply discussing individual cases in their Deep Dive series (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer aka the Steel Seizures Case is my favorite of them, if you want a place to start). I mentioned this show at a party to @xhxhxhx and he told me about a show I've come to like even more, called Divided Argument, which got me to start listening to the actual Supreme Court arguments (Oyez does the Lord's work in packaging them as podcasts).

After that, I picked up some casebooks for cheap to read, got about halfway through each and ended up bored, although I cannot recommend that enough as a way of understanding accepted modes of legal reasoning.

I don't really track legal academic work very much, but Will Baude (co-host of Divided Argument) has smashed it this year with fascinating papers covering the ineligibility of Trump for President under the 14th Amendment and the scope of the Privileges or Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment, both from an originalist perspective.

The Federalist Society has a YouTube channel where they put up a bunch of different videos each week from various chapters of the Society, which I find to be often quite informative, although these days, more and more, I use it for understanding the bases of legal-political positions I strongly disagree with, but occasionally they have some neat deep-dives into e.g. the developments in bankruptcy law which have led to the recent controversy over the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy and opioid litigation.

#i could be better at displaying my complete lack of qualifications but its time consuming & annoying to hedge in such a way #im hoping i can go to law school if software doesnt heat up in the next year

19 notes · View notes