If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Two months ago, NPR helped us set up a shell corporation. Now, what do we do with it? Hide all of our assets, of course   (npr.org) divider line 27
    More: Followup, shell companies  
•       •       •

3897 clicks; posted to Business » on 28 Sep 2012 at 12:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



27 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-09-28 01:05:30 PM
www.fun-at-work.org
 
2012-09-28 01:26:35 PM
Rich people protect their money from lawsuit trolls? Makes sense to me.
 
2012-09-28 01:54:39 PM
*Furiously scribbles notes*
 
2012-09-28 01:58:34 PM
25.media.tumblr.com

Have money maybe no find it to bad place? Me! I won't use it sue it there it will be for a good time but not what you think! There as, no vig. Take out day night anytime but we Advice. Thank you.

Thank you.
 
2012-09-28 01:59:23 PM

xtragrind: Rich people protect their money from lawsuit trolls? Makes sense to me.


I love that the article disputes that there are more frivolous lawsuits in the USA than justified litigation, more than a few companies have money set aside for bullshiat lawsuits. Its not called "account for bullshiat lawsuits" but they do exist.

A company I worked for got sued by a man who was at one of our switch sites and fell down breaking his leg. He sued and the lawyers said we had to settle as a prolonged suit will cost too much, it didn't matter that he ignored signs on the road leading to the site, had to climb two fences, and then had to break a lock on a gate to get up the platform. It would be easier to settle than to fight, and they did, ended up giving this douchebag something like $150k.

The system sucks.
 
2012-09-28 02:25:32 PM

Professor Horatio Hufnagel: Have money maybe no find it to bad place? Me! I won't use it sue it there it will be for a good time but not what you think! There as, no vig. Take out day night anytime but we Advice. Thank you.

Thank you.


Did you have a stroke or did I?
 
2012-09-28 02:53:56 PM
Of course no one would ever use this particular technique to hide their true assets because they're doing unlawful things like dodging taxes or attempting to pay what they actually owe on something. No one would be that dishonest.

abhorrent1: Professor Horatio Hufnagel: Have money maybe no find it to bad place? Me! I won't use it sue it there it will be for a good time but not what you think! There as, no vig. Take out day night anytime but we Advice. Thank you.

Thank you.

Did you have a stroke or did I?


A Chinese guy was too cheap to hire a translator and decided that babblefish was good enough. Though you might have also had a stroke. I'd get checked.
 
2012-09-28 02:57:05 PM
"The lawyer has to go get a court order to get the trust document, which is when he encounters the second layer of your financial fortress. The trust is owned not by you, but by some company in Delaware. That company also doesn't have your name attached to it."

so, say you know your landlord has this set up, can you stop paying rent and if he sues you or tries to evict you can you ask him to prove he owns it and has legal right to do so?
 
2012-09-28 03:11:16 PM
How Unbelizable!

/that's the name of one of the companies.
 
2012-09-28 03:28:40 PM
There was a short article in the Economist about shell companies. According to a new book, it's now easier to set up a shell company in the US than in the Cayman Islands.

Go USA! We're #1... at illegal corporate activity.
 
2012-09-28 03:32:57 PM

steamingpile: xtragrind: Rich people protect their money from lawsuit trolls? Makes sense to me.

I love that the article disputes that there are more frivolous lawsuits in the USA than justified litigation, more than a few companies have money set aside for bullshiat lawsuits. Its not called "account for bullshiat lawsuits" but they do exist.

A company I worked for got sued by a man who was at one of our switch sites and fell down breaking his leg. He sued and the lawyers said we had to settle as a prolonged suit will cost too much, it didn't matter that he ignored signs on the road leading to the site, had to climb two fences, and then had to break a lock on a gate to get up the platform. It would be easier to settle than to fight, and they did, ended up giving this douchebag something like $150k.

The system sucks.


No, your lawyers are lazy and THEY suck. If peoplestoppod settling BS lawsuits there would be a lot less of them. You know what would REALLY cut down on lawsuits in this country though? Universal healthcare. 90% of the time the biggest line item recovery in any lawsuit is current or furture medical bills. Take those out of the equation by giving everybody already-paid for medical care and the number of lawsuits filed in this country would plummet
 
2012-09-28 03:42:15 PM

Spanky_McFarksalot: so, say you know your landlord has this set up, can you stop paying rent and if he sues you or tries to evict you can you ask him to prove he owns it and has legal right to do so?


I guess you could but I don't think you thought your cunning plan all the way through: the guy that controls all those little nesting dolls doesn't have to jump through legal hoops to prove anything. He already has access to all that paperwork if he needs it just by picking up the phone.
 
2012-09-28 03:48:30 PM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-09-28 03:49:30 PM

Magorn: No, your lawyers are lazy and THEY suck. If peoplestoppod settling BS lawsuits there would be a lot less of them. You know what would REALLY cut down on lawsuits in this country though? Universal healthcare. 90% of the time the biggest line item recovery in any lawsuit is current or furture medical bills. Take those out of the equation by giving everybody already-paid for medical care and the number of lawsuits filed in this country would plummet


Every lawyer settles if they are suing under a specific amount no matter how wrong the accuser, the courts are littered daily with people suing to get paid and for nothing else.

Universal health care wont stop shiat, most people sue because they feel its the only way they can be rich, medical costs are the last thing on their mind in almost every case.
 
2012-09-28 04:09:19 PM

steamingpile: Magorn: No, your lawyers are lazy and THEY suck. If peoplestoppod settling BS lawsuits there would be a lot less of them. You know what would REALLY cut down on lawsuits in this country though? Universal healthcare. 90% of the time the biggest line item recovery in any lawsuit is current or furture medical bills. Take those out of the equation by giving everybody already-paid for medical care and the number of lawsuits filed in this country would plummet

Every lawyer settles if they are suing under a specific amount no matter how wrong the accuser, the courts are littered daily with people suing to get paid and for nothing else.

Universal health care wont stop shiat, most people sue because they feel its the only way they can be rich, medical costs are the last thing on their mind in almost every case.


Exactly, get rid of the medical bills excuse, and they'll come up with a new justification for the amount they're seeking. Pain and suffering, mental trauma, etc. etc. The problem is legal costs. They're so high that it makes financial sense to settle under a certain dollar amount, because paying for a lawyer's time is more expensive than the settlement amount. If you really want to get rid of frivolous lawsuits you need UNIVERSAL LEGAL CARE so that companies and individuals can pawn off the frivolous lawsuits on the publicly provided lawyers and mount the token defense needed to get the frivolous lawsuit thrown out.


/I'm only half kidding
 
2012-09-28 05:03:44 PM

abrannan: UNIVERSAL LEGAL CARE


I may be an ignoramus who knows nothing about the law, but this seems reasonable to me. Why haven't I heard of this before?
 
2012-09-28 05:42:44 PM

un4gvn666: abrannan: UNIVERSAL LEGAL CARE

I may be an ignoramus who knows nothing about the law, but this seems reasonable to me. Why haven't I heard of this before?


Because he just made it up.
 
2012-09-28 06:49:29 PM
I love the planet money people. They put out a great podcast with a sometimes cheeky delivery.
 
2012-09-28 07:16:22 PM

steamingpile: xtragrind: Rich people protect their money from lawsuit trolls? Makes sense to me.

I love that the article disputes that there are more frivolous lawsuits in the USA than justified litigation, more than a few companies have money set aside for bullshiat lawsuits. Its not called "account for bullshiat lawsuits" but they do exist.

A company I worked for got sued by a man who was at one of our switch sites and fell down breaking his leg. He sued and the lawyers said we had to settle as a prolonged suit will cost too much, it didn't matter that he ignored signs on the road leading to the site, had to climb two fences, and then had to break a lock on a gate to get up the platform. It would be easier to settle than to fight, and they did, ended up giving this douchebag something like $150k.

The system sucks.


It would save them money in the long term to fight. This guy will settle for $150k but it would cost $1m to fight him? Pay the one million and fight. Because if you settle then tomorrow there will be another guy who wants "only" $150k, and another one the day after that, and another...

Pay the $1m to fight it, and you might have to do it a few times, and word will get around that it's just not worth trying to shake you down.

The next guy that phones up a law firm for a no win no fee case will get "XYZ Corp? Sorry, not interested. Best luck"

Why are top managers, and/or their legal insurance company, too short sighted to see this? Or is the long term benefit not worth it to them because they know they'll have moved on to another firm by then?
 
2012-09-28 07:17:53 PM

Burr: [25.media.tumblr.com image 474x675]


What episode is this from? Off hand:

- Is that Mindy who's third in command?
- Comes after Frank Grimes death? Also obviously after Deep Space Homer?
 
2012-09-28 07:19:39 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Spanky_McFarksalot: so, say you know your landlord has this set up, can you stop paying rent and if he sues you or tries to evict you can you ask him to prove he owns it and has legal right to do so?

I guess you could but I don't think you thought your cunning plan all the way through: the guy that controls all those little nesting dolls doesn't have to jump through legal hoops to prove anything. He already has access to all that paperwork if he needs it just by picking up the phone.


Furthermore, it is often the case the ownership is not required for the lessor. The lessor warrants that he can lease to you. But, ownership is technically immaterial. All he has to prove is that you agreed to the contract and you failed to perform. You can argue any sort of shell game you want, but either you're in the contract and failed, or you don't have a contract and you're trespassing.
 
2012-09-28 10:29:43 PM

Flint Ironstag: It would save them money in the long term to fight. This guy will settle for $150k but it would cost $1m to fight him? Pay the one million and fight. Because if you settle then tomorrow there will be another guy who wants "only" $150k, and another one the day after that, and another...

Pay the $1m to fight it, and you might have to do it a few times, and word will get around that it's just not worth trying to shake you down.


I suppose you're just gonna give me this million, are you? Gratis? No Taxes?

No, it's not worth it to fight these jokers under the bad legal system we have now.

Back in the Norse countries, the laws for dueling were such that a skilled warrior (a berserk) could pretend to be insulted by merchants, challenge them to a duel, break their shields quickly, and be declared the legal winner of the suit and the merchant would have to pay him a large sum of money. Of course many honorless warriors did this and it prompted a change to the code of judicial duels to close the loophole.

We, on the other hand, are much dumber than vikings. Rather than close the loopholes that let people abuse lawsuits and criminal complaints to use them as tools of terror against innocent people, we encourage companies to settle and accused to plead guilty to save themselves the expense of a lawsuit.

I say nay. You shouldn't HAVE to fight lawsuits that are frivolous. People who file frivolous lawsuits, and their lawyers, should be BANNED from the courtroom and the practice of law save as defendants. You incurred $200k of debt going to law school? TOUGH COOKIES! You took a moron's case seriously. Now you're permabanned from legal and paralegal work. GOOD DAY, SIR! Give it a few years, a few scapegoats, problem solved.
 
2012-09-28 11:37:29 PM

Flint Ironstag: It would save them money in the long term to fight. This guy will settle for $150k but it would cost $1m to fight him? Pay the one million and fight. Because if you settle then tomorrow there will be another guy who wants "only" $150k, and another one the day after that, and another...


Yeah that would make sense if all these settlements didnt have a non-disclosure agreement built into them and like I said it depends on how much they ask for, they fought one but it cost them 10 times what they would have settled for, if its a clear cut case of someone being a moron then I wouldnt settle but companies do all the time.
 
2012-09-29 01:16:57 AM

MrEricSir: There was a short article in the Economist about shell companies. According to a new book, it's now easier to set up a shell company in the US than in the Cayman Islands.

Go USA! We're #1... at illegal corporate activity.


Cheyenne, WY is becoming the next Delaware, Cayman Islands
 
2012-09-29 01:39:48 AM

steamingpile: Flint Ironstag: It would save them money in the long term to fight. This guy will settle for $150k but it would cost $1m to fight him? Pay the one million and fight. Because if you settle then tomorrow there will be another guy who wants "only" $150k, and another one the day after that, and another...

Yeah that would make sense if all these settlements didnt have a non-disclosure agreement built into them and like I said it depends on how much they ask for, they fought one but it cost them 10 times what they would have settled for, if its a clear cut case of someone being a moron then I wouldnt settle but companies do all the time.


For one NDAs are in a settlement usually to keep the amount paid a secret, they are demanded by the corporation who is doing the paying. If the corporation won and the person trying to sue them had to settle for nothing then the corporation would refuse to agree to a NDA.

And if you fight it in court and win then it is public record.

Plus even with NDAs word would get around within the lawyer circles.
 
2012-09-29 01:44:53 AM

doglover: Flint Ironstag: It would save them money in the long term to fight. This guy will settle for $150k but it would cost $1m to fight him? Pay the one million and fight. Because if you settle then tomorrow there will be another guy who wants "only" $150k, and another one the day after that, and another...

Pay the $1m to fight it, and you might have to do it a few times, and word will get around that it's just not worth trying to shake you down.

I suppose you're just gonna give me this million, are you? Gratis? No Taxes?

No, it's not worth it to fight these jokers under the bad legal system we have now.

Back in the Norse countries, the laws for dueling were such that a skilled warrior (a berserk) could pretend to be insulted by merchants, challenge them to a duel, break their shields quickly, and be declared the legal winner of the suit and the merchant would have to pay him a large sum of money. Of course many honorless warriors did this and it prompted a change to the code of judicial duels to close the loophole.

We, on the other hand, are much dumber than vikings. Rather than close the loopholes that let people abuse lawsuits and criminal complaints to use them as tools of terror against innocent people, we encourage companies to settle and accused to plead guilty to save themselves the expense of a lawsuit.

I say nay. You shouldn't HAVE to fight lawsuits that are frivolous. People who file frivolous lawsuits, and their lawyers, should be BANNED from the courtroom and the practice of law save as defendants. You incurred $200k of debt going to law school? TOUGH COOKIES! You took a moron's case seriously. Now you're permabanned from legal and paralegal work. GOOD DAY, SIR! Give it a few years, a few scapegoats, problem solved.


And who gets to decide if a suit is frivolous or not?

This is no different from being bullied at school for your lunch money. Hand it over the first day and you will be handing it over every day until you graduate. Refuse the first day, even if you get beaten up a bit, and stick with it and you'll never have to give up your cash ever again.

"I suppose you're just gonna give me this million, are you? Gratis? No Taxes?"

No, if you're the one trying to sue me I will pay that to my lawyers rather than settle for $100k. I'll lose money on this case. And maybe the next few cases. But from then on I will have far far fewer such people trying it on. If they know I will fight they will move on and try it on someone else.
 
2012-09-29 03:25:51 AM

Flint Ironstag: No, if you're the one trying to sue me I will pay that to my lawyers rather than settle for $100k. I'll lose money on this case. And maybe the next few cases. But from then on I will have far far fewer such people trying it on


You have a beautiful imagination. Not so much gonna work in the real world though. Resources are limited.

Pyrrhic Victory

We don't all have the money to drop a mil fighting lawsuit after lawsuit just to get the word out (to whom is question 2) that we're a tough cookie. That's WHY people settle.

My solution could be implemented by a 12 person jury and would protect the innocent for free. Plus we could prune the people who lawyer for likes of the RIAA off one by one as well. Each verdict of "frivolous" would result in one less lawyer in the system. It would save, not cost money.
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report