#insurance law

[grimshawandco]

With the help of our knowledgeable negligence lawyers, protect your rights. Our area of expertise is offering individualized legal assistance in cases involving carelessness, guaranteeing justice and accountability. You may rely on our skilled staff to obtain just compensation and safeguard your interests, regardless of whether the negligence was personal or professional. Allow us to guide you through your case with assurance and consideration. Visit us now to know more about negligence lawyers.

[nationallawreview]

Massachusetts SJC Rules in Favor of Insureds for Ambiguous Insurance Policy Term

In Zurich American Insurance Company v. Medical Properties Trust, Inc. (and a consolidated case[1]) (Docket No. SJC-13535), the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled in favor of insureds in a dispute over an ambiguous term in two policies insuring Norwood Hospital in Norwood, Massachusetts. A severe storm with heavy rain caused damage to the hospital basement and to the hospital’s main…

[schleifmanlaw]

Navigating the Complexities of Insurance Law

Understanding Insurance Law

Insurance law is a specialized area of legal practice that focuses on the rules and regulations governing insurance policies and practices. This field encompasses a broad range of issues, from policy disputes and claims handling to regulatory compliance and litigation. As the insurance industry becomes increasingly complex, having a proficient insurance lawyer or insurance attorney becomes crucial for individuals and businesses alike.

The Role of an Insurance Lawyer

An insurance lawyer plays a pivotal role in navigating the intricate world of insurance law. Their expertise is essential in various scenarios, including policy interpretation, dispute resolution, and compliance issues. Here’s a closer look at what an insurance lawyer does:

1. Policy Interpretation

Insurance policies are often filled with complex jargon and legal terms. A knowledgeable insurance attorney can help interpret these terms to ensure clients understand their rights and obligations under the policy. This is particularly important when disputes arise over policy coverage or exclusions.

2. Claims Handling

When an insurance claim is denied or underpaid, an insurance law lawyer can advocate on behalf of the policyholder. They can assist with filing appeals, negotiating with insurance companies, and even taking legal action if necessary to ensure fair compensation.

3. Regulatory Compliance

Insurance companies must adhere to various state and federal regulations. An insurance law firm can provide guidance on compliance issues, helping insurers avoid penalties and ensuring that their practices align with legal requirements.

4. Litigation Support

In cases where insurance disputes escalate to litigation, having an experienced insurance attorney is crucial. They can represent clients in court, prepare legal documents, and present arguments to achieve favorable outcomes.

Choosing the Right Insurance Law Firm

Selecting the right insurance law firm can significantly impact the success of your case. Here are key factors to consider:

1. Specialization in Insurance Law

Ensure that the law firm specializes in insurance law. Firms with dedicated insurance law departments will have the specific expertise needed to handle complex insurance-related issues effectively.

2. Track Record of Success

A firm’s track record is an important indicator of its ability to handle insurance cases. Look for firms with a history of successful outcomes in similar cases. This demonstrates their capability and experience in navigating the intricacies of insurance law.

3. Client Reviews and Testimonials

Client feedback can provide valuable insights into the firm’s performance and client service. Review testimonials and ratings from previous clients to gauge the firm’s reputation and effectiveness.

4. Expertise of Attorneys

Assess the qualifications and experience of the attorneys within the firm. An insurance law lawyer with extensive experience in handling insurance disputes and regulatory issues will be better equipped to provide effective legal representation.

Common Issues Addressed by Insurance Lawyers

Insurance lawyers deal with a wide range of issues related to insurance law. Some common issues include:

1. Coverage Disputes

Disputes often arise over what is covered under an insurance policy. An insurance lawyer can help resolve these disputes by interpreting policy terms and advocating for the policyholder’s rights.

2. Claim Denials

When an insurance claim is denied, it can be frustrating and confusing. An insurance attorney can assist in appealing the denial and ensuring that all relevant information is presented to support the claim.

3. Fraud and Misrepresentation

Insurance fraud and misrepresentation can lead to legal consequences for both insurers and insured parties. A knowledgeable insurance law lawyer can provide guidance on how to handle allegations of fraud or misrepresentation.

4. Regulatory Issues

Insurance companies must comply with a myriad of regulations. An insurance law firm can help ensure that companies meet regulatory requirements and avoid legal pitfalls.

How to Prepare for a Consultation with an Insurance Lawyer

When preparing for a consultation with an insurance lawyer, consider the following steps to make the most of the meeting:

1. Gather Relevant Documents

Collect all relevant documents related to your insurance issue. This may include insurance policies, claim forms, correspondence with the insurer, and any other pertinent information.

2. Outline Your Concerns

Prepare a clear outline of your concerns and the specific issues you need assistance with. This will help the lawyer understand your situation quickly and provide targeted advice.

3. Prepare Questions

Develop a list of questions to ask the lawyer. This may include inquiries about their experience, the likely outcome of your case, and their approach to handling insurance disputes.

[typhlonectes]

[personal-injury-compensation-law]

 In the world of insurance and retirement savings, there is an important area to consider – Total and Permanent Disability (TPD) claims and superannuation rights. It’s crucial to understand these financial matters to secure your future. Expert advice can help you navigate this complex terrain and ensure your financial stability in tough times. This blog provides guidance on how to handle TPD claims and superannuation rights with confidence.

[badavakeel01]

Who Can Benefit from Corporate Law?

Corporate law is a multifaceted legal domain that governs the formation, operation, dissolution, and everything in between concerning corporations. It is a crucial aspect of the legal framework that shapes the conduct of businesses and protects the interests of various stakeholders. From entrepreneurs launching startups to multinational conglomerates navigating complex regulatory landscapes, corporate law impacts a wide array of entities and individuals. Let's delve into who can benefit from corporate law and how it intersects with other branches of law.

Entrepreneurs and Startups: Pioneering Ventures with Corporate Law

Entrepreneurs embarking on the journey of launching their own businesses often find themselves navigating the intricate terrain of corporate law. From choosing the appropriate legal structure—such as sole proprietorship, partnership, or corporation—to drafting articles of incorporation and bylaws, entrepreneurs rely on corporate law expertise to establish a solid foundation for their ventures. By understanding the nuances of corporate governance and compliance requirements, entrepreneurs can mitigate risks and ensure their businesses are set up for sustainable growth.

Family Businesses: Balancing Tradition and Progression with Corporate Law

Family businesses represent a unique blend of tradition, legacy, and entrepreneurship. In many cases, these enterprises span generations, passing down values and practices from one family member to another. Corporate law plays a pivotal role in preserving the continuity of family businesses by providing mechanisms for succession planning, resolving conflicts, and facilitating transitions between generations. Whether it's structuring a family-owned corporation or implementing governance mechanisms to accommodate diverging interests, corporate law offers invaluable support to family enterprises seeking to thrive in a dynamic business landscape.

Corporate Governance: Upholding Ethical Standards and Accountability

Effective corporate governance is essential for maintaining transparency, accountability, and ethical conduct within corporations. Corporate law establishes the framework for governance structures, delineating the roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders, including shareholders, directors, and officers. By enforcing compliance with regulatory requirements and promoting best practices in corporate governance, corporate law safeguards the interests of shareholders and stakeholders while fostering long-term value creation. Moreover, corporate governance mechanisms serve as safeguards against conflicts of interest, fraud, and misconduct, thereby enhancing investor confidence and market integrity.

Navigating Complex Transactions: Leveraging Corporate Law in Mergers and Acquisitions

Mergers, acquisitions, and other corporate transactions are intricate processes that require meticulous planning, negotiation, and execution. Corporate law provides the legal framework for structuring and executing these transactions, ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements and protecting the interests of all parties involved. Whether it's conducting due diligence, drafting transaction documents, or navigating regulatory approvals, corporate lawyers play a crucial role in facilitating seamless transactions and maximizing value for their clients. By leveraging their expertise in corporate law, businesses can pursue strategic growth opportunities and expand their market presence through mergers and acquisitions.

Corporate Compliance: Mitigating Risks and Ensuring Regulatory Adherence

In an increasingly complex regulatory landscape, corporate compliance has become a top priority for businesses across industries. Corporate law establishes the rules and standards governing corporate conduct, ranging from financial reporting and disclosure obligations to environmental compliance and consumer protection laws. By staying abreast of regulatory developments and implementing robust compliance programs, businesses can mitigate legal risks, uphold ethical standards, and safeguard their reputation. From small startups to multinational corporations, corporate compliance is essential for maintaining trust with stakeholders and fostering sustainable growth in today's interconnected world.

Corporate Litigation: Resolving Disputes through Legal Remedies

Despite best efforts to prevent conflicts and mitigate risks, disputes may still arise within corporations, leading to litigation and legal proceedings. Corporate law encompasses mechanisms for resolving disputes through negotiation, mediation, arbitration, or litigation, depending on the nature and severity of the conflict. Whether it's breach of contract, shareholder disputes, or allegations of corporate misconduct, corporate lawyers play a pivotal role in advocating for their clients' interests and seeking legal remedies. By leveraging their expertise in corporate law and litigation strategies, businesses can navigate complex legal proceedings and achieve favorable outcomes in disputes. Get in Touch  Website - badavakeel.com Mobile - 8181816266

[hannibal-against-guro]

All jokes aside, Wikipedia and Drugs.com are my favorite non-blogging Webbed Sites. Endless information vs. my Orochimaru Complex. You could Solzhenitsyn me into a jail or psych ward cell and I wouldn’t ever notice so long as I had a toilet, a minifridge (preferably with minibar), and a hard line to at least one massively oversized reference website. Ideal elder care plan under a capitalist economy, tbh. I’d pay extra LTC premiums for a half decent embedded WiFi package!

[inkskinned]

"don't make it political!" .... what proportion of death and suffering must occur before politics are involved. if this isn't political, what is even the point of any politics, ever. of democracy. the words are "by the people for the people." if i am going to be left alone by my elected representatives to "figure it out" - to undergo damage, hardship, fear. what the fuck did i elect them for. what was their job. the entire point is that they handle this shit. this is why we were supposed to be electing leaders.

poverty is political. misogyny is political. gun control is political. climate change is political. how much aid a community gets is political. what the fuck are you talking about. it's been political this whole fucking time.

[mysharona1987]

“So how many suspects we got?”

“100 million.”

“Man, this is gonna be a long week.”

[grimshawandco]

Dispute Resolution Lawyers in NZ Help in Commercial Conflicts

Business disagreements can quickly grow, putting at risk the business relationships and financial security. A dispute resolution lawyer in NZ gives important strategic advice, assisting organizations to understand complicated legal environments and settle conflicts effectively with professionalism.

Understanding Commercial Dispute Dynamics

A lawyer of dispute resolution in NZ provides broad skills in handling complex commercial conflicts. These law experts know the detailed dynamics of business dealings, suggesting strategic methods that value relationship maintaining and affordable solutions. Their profound understanding about New Zealand's commercial legal system allows them to create specific strategies for reducing conflict.

Mediation and Negotiation Strategies

Lawyers who are skilled in resolving disagreements professionally in NZ, they are very good at mediation methods that go further than the usual court disputes. They make a well-planned discussion setting and help conflicting parties to have useful conversations. These lawyers concentrate on shared concerns and possible agreement areas. This way, businesses can discover solutions together which lessens risks related to money or reputation.

Legal Framework and Regulatory Compliance

To go through New Zealand's complicated legal system, you need expert knowledge. A dispute resolution lawyer in NZ makes sure that methods of resolving conflict follow strict rules and regulations. They understand complex laws, give understandable advice on what could happen next, and create complete plans to safeguard their clients' benefits.

Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

Today's business disagreement solving goes more than just court trials. Lawyers with experience use other ways of resolving disputes like arbitration and mediation. These methods give more adaptable, private, and less expensive solutions compared to the usual court process.

Financial and Reputational Protection

Good dispute resolution is not only about managing conflict right away. Lawyers who are experts support companies in safeguarding their financial interests for the future and keeping their professional reputation intact. By creating strategic methods of resolving disputes, they can reduce possible monetary disturbances and keep important business relationships safe.

Technological Integration in Dispute Resolution

Nowadays, the methods of solving arguments are using more and more technological aids. There is increasing use of complex online platforms, services that mediate virtually and advanced systems for managing cases. These increase how well disputes can be resolved as they become faster to deal with and easier to understand.

Trade disputes are sure to occur in ever-changing business settings. Hiring a proficient conflict resolution attorney offers enterprises tactical benefits, converting possible complications into platforms for productive discussion and lasting remedies.

[political-us]

[hellothisisangle]

[isaacsapphire]

Seeing posts saying that insurance companies are inherently bad and adversarial, and I need to point out that insurance companies telling organizations and companies that they’re doing something stupid and at risk of hurting people or the environment and they need to stop or the insurance company will either charge them a lot of money or even stop covering them at all is often the only reason why any precautions are taken.

Torts are where the steel is legally on these types of things, but the insurance companies are how the implications of tort law is communicated.

Like, the church I grew up in only took any precautions against children being molested on site after the insurance company insisted. It’s a bit hard for me to see insurance collectively as all bad all the time after seeing that, when I can point on the doll to where I wasn’t harmed because of insurance.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

How to shatter the class solidarity of the ruling class

I'm touring my new, nationally bestselling novel The Bezzle! Catch me WEDNESDAY (Apr 11) at UCLA, then Chicago (Apr 17), Torino (Apr 21) Marin County (Apr 27), Winnipeg (May 2), Calgary (May 3), Vancouver (May 4), and beyond!

Audre Lorde counsels us that "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House," while MLK said "the law cannot make a man love me, but it can restrain him from lynching me." Somewhere between replacing the system and using the system lies a pragmatic – if easily derailed – course.

Lorde is telling us that a rotten system can't be redeemed by using its own chosen reform mechanisms. King's telling us that unless we live, we can't fight – so anything within the system that makes it easier for your comrades to fight on can hasten the end of the system.

Take the problems of journalism. One old model of journalism funding involved wealthy newspaper families profiting handsomely by selling local appliance store owners the right to reach the townspeople who wanted to read sports-scores. These families expressed their patrician love of their town by peeling off some of those profits to pay reporters to sit through municipal council meetings or even travel overseas and get shot at.

In retrospect, this wasn't ever going to be a stable arrangement. It relied on both the inconstant generosity of newspaper barons and the absence of a superior way to show washing-machine ads to people who might want to buy washing machines. Neither of these were good long-term bets. Not only were newspaper barons easily distracted from their sense of patrician duty (especially when their own power was called into question), but there were lots of better ways to connect buyers and sellers lurking in potentia.

All of this was grossly exacerbated by tech monopolies. Tech barons aren't smarter or more evil than newspaper barons, but they have better tools, and so now they take 51 cents out of every ad dollar and 30 cents out of ever subscriber dollar and they refuse to deliver the news to users who explicitly requested it, unless the news company pays them a bribe to "boost" their posts:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/saving-news-big-tech

The news is important, and people sign up to make, digest, and discuss the news for many non-economic reasons, which means that the news continues to struggle along, despite all the economic impediments and the vulture capitalists and tech monopolists who fight one another for which one will get to take the biggest bite out of the press. We've got outstanding nonprofit news outlets like Propublica, journalist-owned outlets like 404 Media, and crowdfunded reporters like Molly White (and winner-take-all outlets like the New York Times).

But as Hamilton Nolan points out, "that pot of money…is only large enough to produce a small fraction of the journalism that was being produced in past generations":

https://www.hamiltonnolan.com/p/what-will-replace-advertising-revenue

For Nolan, "public funding of journalism is the only way to fix this…If we accept that journalism is not just a business or a form of entertainment but a public good, then funding it with public money makes perfect sense":

https://www.hamiltonnolan.com/p/public-funding-of-journalism-is-the

Having grown up in Canada – under the CBC – and then lived for a quarter of my life in the UK – under the BBC – I am very enthusiastic about Nolan's solution. There are obvious problems with publicly funded journalism, like the politicization of news coverage:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jan/24/panel-approving-richard-sharp-as-bbc-chair-included-tory-party-donor

And the transformation of the funding into a cheap political football:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-defund-cbc-change-law-1.6810434

But the worst version of those problems is still better than the best version of the private-equity-funded model of news production.

But Nolan notes the emergence of a new form of hedge fund news, one that is awfully promising, and also terribly fraught: Hunterbrook Media, an investigative news outlet owned by short-sellers who pay journalists to research and publish damning reports on companies they hold a short position on:

https://hntrbrk.com/

For those of you who are blissfully distant from the machinations of the financial markets, "short selling" is a wager that a company's stock price will go down. A gambler who takes a short position on a company's stock can make a lot of money if the company stumbles or fails altogether (but if the company does well, the short can suffer literally unlimited losses).

Shorts have historically paid analysts to dig into companies and uncover the sins hidden on their balance-sheets, but as Matt Levine points out, journalists work for a fraction of the price of analysts and are at least as good at uncovering dirt as MBAs are:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-04-02/a-hedge-fund-that-s-also-a-newspaper

What's more, shorts who discover dirt on a company still need to convince journalists to publicize their findings and trigger the sell-off that makes their short position pay off. Shorts who own a muckraking journalistic operation can skip this step: they are the journalists.

There's a way in which this is sheer genius. Well-funded shorts who don't care about the news per se can still be motivated into funding freely available, high-quality investigative journalism about corporate malfeasance (notoriously, one of the least attractive forms of journalism for advertisers). They can pay journalists top dollar – even bid against each other for the most talented journalists – and supply them with all the tools they need to ply their trade. A short won't ever try the kind of bullshit the owners of Vice pulled, paying themselves millions while their journalists lose access to Lexisnexis or the PACER database:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/24/anti-posse/#when-you-absolutely-positively-dont-give-a-solitary-single-fuck

The shorts whose journalists are best equipped stand to make the most money. What's not to like?

Well, the issue here is whether the ruling class's sense of solidarity is stronger than its greed. The wealthy have historically oscillated between real solidarity (think of the ultrawealthy lobbying to support bipartisan votes for tax cuts and bailouts) and "war of all against all" (as when wealthy colonizers dragged their countries into WWI after the supply of countries to steal ran out).

After all, the reason companies engage in the scams that shorts reveal is that they are profitable. "Behind every great fortune is a great crime," and that's just great. You don't win the game when you get into heaven, you win it when you get into the Forbes Rich List.

Take monopolies: investors like the upside of backing an upstart company that gobbles up some staid industry's margins – Amazon vs publishing, say, or Uber vs taxis. But while there's a lot of upside in that move, there's also a lot of risk: most companies that set out to "disrupt" an industry sink, taking their investors' capital down with them.

Contrast that with monopolies: backing a company that merges with its rivals and buys every small company that might someday grow large is a sure thing. Shriven of "wasteful competition," a company can lower quality, raise prices, capture its regulators, screw its workers and suppliers and laugh all the way to Davos. A big enough company can ignore the complaints of those workers, customers and regulators. They're not just too big to fail. They're not just too big to jail. They're too big to care:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/04/teach-me-how-to-shruggie/#kagi

Would-be monopolists are stuck in a high-stakes Prisoner's Dilemma. If they cooperate, they can screw over everyone else and get unimaginably rich. But if one party defects, they can raid the monopolist's margins, short its stock, and snitch to its regulators.

It's true that there's a clear incentive for hedge-fund managers to fund investigative journalism into other hedge-fund managers' portfolio companies. But it would be even more profitable for both of those hedgies to join forces and collude to screw the rest of us over. So long as they mistrust each other, we might see some benefit from that adversarial relationship. But the point of the 0.1% is that there aren't very many of them. The Aspen Institute can rent a hall that will hold an appreciable fraction of that crowd. They buy their private jets and bespoke suits and powdered rhino horn from the same exclusive sellers. Their kids go to the same elite schools. They know each other, and they have every opportunity to get drunk together at a charity ball or a society wedding and cook up a plan to join forces.

This is the problem at the core of "mechanism design" grounded in "rational self-interest." If you try to create a system where people do the right thing because they're selfish assholes, you normalize being a selfish asshole. Eventually, the selfish assholes form a cozy little League of Selfish Assholes and turn on the rest of us.

Appeals to morality don't work on unethical people, but appeals to immorality crowds out ethics. Take the ancient split between "free software" (software that is designed to maximize the freedom of the people who use it) and "open source software" (identical to free software, but promoted as a better way to make robust code through transparency and peer review).

Over the years, open source – an appeal to your own selfish need for better code – triumphed over free software, and its appeal to the ethics of a world of "software freedom." But it turns out that while the difference between "open" and "free" was once mere semantics, it's fully possible to decouple the two. Today, we have lots of "open source": you can see the code that Google, Microsoft, Apple and Facebook uses, and even contribute your labor to it for free. But you can't actually decide how the software you write works, because it all takes a loop through Google, Microsoft, Apple or Facebook's servers, and only those trillion-dollar tech monopolists have the software freedom to determine how those servers work:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/05/04/which-side-are-you-on/#tivoization-and-beyond

That's ruling class solidarity. The Big Tech firms have hidden a myriad of sins beneath their bafflegab and balance-sheets. These (as yet) undiscovered scams constitute a "bezzle," which JK Galbraith defined as "the magic interval when a confidence trickster knows he has the money he has appropriated but the victim does not yet understand that he has lost it."

The purpose of Hunterbrook is to discover and destroy bezzles, hastening the moment of realization that the wealth we all feel in a world of seemingly orderly technology is really an illusion. Hunterbrook certainly has its pick of bezzles to choose from, because we are living in a Golden Age of the Bezzle.

Which is why I titled my new novel The Bezzle. It's a tale of high-tech finance scams, starring my two-fisted forensic accountant Marty Hench, and in this volume, Hench is called upon to unwind a predatory prison-tech scam that victimizes the most vulnerable people in America – our army of prisoners – and their families:

https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250865878/thebezzle

The scheme I fictionalize in The Bezzle is very real. Prison-tech monopolists like Securus and Viapath bribe prison officials to abolish calls, in-person visits, mail and parcels, then they supply prisoners with "free" tablets where they pay hugely inflated rates to receive mail, speak to their families, and access ebooks, distance education and other electronic media:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/02/captive-customers/#guillotine-watch

But a group of activists have cornered these high-tech predators, run them to ground and driven them to the brink of extinction, and they've done it using "the master's tools" – with appeals to regulators and the finance sector itself.

Writing for The Appeal, Dana Floberg and Morgan Duckett describe the campaign they waged with Worth Rises to bankrupt the prison-tech sector:

https://theappeal.org/securus-bankruptcy-prison-telecom-industry/

Here's the headline figure: Securus is $1.8 billion in debt, and it has eight months to find a financier or it will go bust. What's more, all the creditors it might reasonably approach have rejected its overtures, and its bonds have been downrated to junk status. It's a dead duck.

Even better is how this happened. Securus's debt problems started with its acquisition, a leveraged buyout by Platinum Equity, who borrowed heavily against the firm and then looted it with bogus "management fees" that meant that the debt continued to grow, despite Securus's $700m in annual revenue from America's prisoners. Platinum was just the last in a long line of PE companies that loaded up Securus with debt and merged it with its competitors, who were also mortgaged to make profits for other private equity funds.

For years, Securus and Platinum were able to service their debt and roll it over when it came due. But after Worth Rises got NYC to pass a law making jail calls free, creditors started to back away from Securus. It's one thing for Securus to charge $18 for a local call from a prison when it's splitting the money with the city jail system. But when that $18 needs to be paid by the city, they're going to demand much lower prices. To make things worse for Securus, prison reformers got similar laws passed in San Francisco and in Connecticut.

Securus tried to outrun its problems by gobbling up one of its major rivals, Icsolutions, but Worth Rises and its coalition convinced regulators at the FCC to block the merger. Securus abandoned the deal:

https://worthrises.org/blogpost/securusmerger

Then, Worth Rises targeted Platinum Equity, going after the pension funds and other investors whose capital Platinum used to keep Securus going. The massive negative press campaign led to eight-figure disinvestments:

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-09-05/la-fi-tom-gores-securus-prison-phone-mass-incarceration

Now, Securus's debt became "distressed," trading at $0.47 on the dollar. A brief, covid-fueled reprieve gave Securus a temporary lifeline, as prisoners' families were barred from in-person visits and had to pay Securus's rates to talk to their incarcerated loved ones. But after lockdown, Securus's troubles picked up right where they left off.

They targeted Platinum's founder, Tom Gores, who papered over his bloody fortune by styling himself as a philanthropist and sports-team owner. After a campaign by Worth Rises and Color of Change, Gores was kicked off the Los Angeles County Museum of Art board. When Gores tried to flip Securus to a SPAC – the same scam Trump pulled with Truth Social – the negative publicity about Securus's unsound morals and financials killed the deal:

https://twitter.com/WorthRises/status/1578034977828384769

Meanwhile, more states and cities are making prisoners' communications free, further worsening Securus's finances:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/14/minnesota-nice/#shitty-technology-adoption-curve

Congress passed the Martha Wright-Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act, giving the FCC the power to regulate the price of federal prisoners' communications. Securus's debt prices tumbled further:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/s1541

Securus's debts were coming due: it owes $1.3b in 2024, and hundreds of millions more in 2025. Platinum has promised a $400m cash infusion, but that didn't sway S&P Global, a bond-rating agency that re-rated Securus's bonds as "CCC" (compare with "AAA"). Moody's concurred. Now, Securus is stuck selling junk-bonds:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/s1541

The company's creditors have given Securus an eight-month runway to find a new lender before they force it into bankruptcy. The company's debt is trading at $0.08 on the dollar.

Securus's major competitor is Viapath (prison tech is a duopoly). Viapath is also debt-burdened and desperate, thanks to a parallel campaign by Worth Rises, and has tried all of Securus's tricks, and failed:

https://pestakeholder.org/news/american-securities-fails-to-sell-prison-telecom-company-viapath/

Viapath's debts are due next year, and if Securus tanks, no one in their right mind will give Viapath a dime. They're the walking dead.

Worth Rise's brilliant guerrilla warfare against prison-tech and its private equity backers are a master class in using the master's tools to dismantle the master's house. The finance sector isn't a friend of justice or working people, but sometimes it can be used tactically against financialization itself. To paraphrase MLK, "finance can't make a corporation love you, but it can stop a corporation from destroying you."

Yes, the ruling class finds solidarity at the most unexpected moments, and yes, it's easy for appeals to greed to institutionalize greediness. But whether it's funding unbezzling journalism through short selling, or freeing prisons by brandishing their cooked balance-sheets in the faces of bond-rating agencies, there's a lot of good we can do on the way to dismantling the system.

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

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/08/money-talks/#bullshit-walks

Image: KMJ (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boerse_01_KMJ.jpg

CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

[felsicveins]

More than drinking buddies, less than husbands

[badninken]

Hair reveal!

Looking great buddy. Hang in there.