Assets > liabilities = bankrupt

/makes sense to me

Once again, the hungry investor wins with the sandwich heavy portfolio!

whither_apophis: Assets > liabilities = bankrupt

/makes sense to me

If you are insolvent you can be forced into bankruptcy even if your net worth is greater than your debts.

JasonOfOrillia: whither_apophis: Assets > liabilities = bankrupt

/makes sense to me

If you are insolvent you can be forced into bankruptcy even if your net worth is greater than your debts.

Yep. And CH 13 usually only results in restructuring the creditors still get paid, albeit not as much, if there are assets they can be liquidated to pay off debt as well.

And once again a big LMFAO at the partisan trolls who think there is a difference in the political parties.

Link (new window)

Hundredaire

You ain't seen nothing like the deadbeat Quinn.

Trance750: coco ebert: Don't let a certain someone ruin the thread. Focus on what was done in one.

Well I am not a fan of banks, but do believe in paying what is owed

Why? It ain't like the banks would pay YOU if the shoe were on the other foot.

Former billionaire declares personal bankruptcy

Excellent. One of the one-percenters now joins the ninety-nine percenters. This somehow should help me, I'm told.

If he has to file in Ireland, he's pretty much screwed. He needs 3/5 of his creditors to approve of the filing. His only listed creditors are not supporting it. He's been paying taxes and running his business from the UK, but the Irish bank is saying they won't permit him to file from there. I would think it is up to the UK courts to decide whether he can file through them rather than the banks. It looks like in the UK the courts don't need creditors to sign off on the decision to enter bankruptcy. I'm not sure how international bankruptcies work... he may simply never be able to hold assets in Ireland again if he goes through the UK court system.

relcec: Weaver95: And for the record, watching the historical revisionism over GWB and TARP take place is downright bizarre. it's like talking to a mentally ill person who's gone off their meds. you can show them the physical evidence and prove that they're wrong and they just look at you and ignore reality.

pot, meet kettle.
you're engaged in the exact same distortion they are. you're purposefully ignoring the fact that democrats in both houses of the legislature voted for tarp in far greater numbers than even the republicans. you're trying to disingenuously trying to get people that a completely bipartisan bill was executed by the president alone because he was a republican. you never have no credibility.

You're ignoring that Paulson pulled a bait-and-switch with TARP. It was for purchasing toxic assets, period. He declared that completely unworkable the following business day and decided for himself how to spend the money. How he was not arrested for fraud I don't know.

Oh yeah I do know. This was during the Bush Administration, ran according to the Cheney Doctrine of unilateral executive privilege, immune to Congress and the judiciary. Farking Nixonian ideologues.

jjorsett: Former billionaire declares personal bankruptcy

Excellent. One of the one-percenters now joins the ninety-nine percenters. This somehow should help me, I'm told.

My understanding of the OWS philosophy--which is admittedly my little own view--is that it isn't the 1%ers' existence that's the problem, but their attitude. The 99%ers may be jealous of simple wealth, true, but mainly they seem resentful of the fact that the rules are different for the wealthy.

Put it this way: suppose you're playing your favourite sport and there's this one dude who, every time he screws up, pays the ref to rule favourably and let him keep going/make that shot count even though it missed the goal/penalize you for getting in the way of his fist. It wouldn't be the jerkish behaviour per se that's the issue, but the fact the asshole keeps getting away with it whereas you get heavily penalized if you do the same things.

/my two cents