View Single Post
Old 10-06-2012, 11:32   #91
DanaT's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CO & Baden –Württemberg
Posts: 15,837
Blog Entries: 1
Originally Posted by CAcop View Post

Like I said above in red I would be okay with the city going bankrupt because the courts have the wisdom to see bull****, unlike you.
Dont be so sure. A company I worked for a while ago filed bankruptcy and the sale of assets was completed on Monday (this week). When I worked there 5 years ago, we saw the financial problems. The only surprises is it took them 5 years to fail and then the owners came out of the bankruptcy so well.

I will show you an example of the "wisdom of the court" in this court filing (I have taken out names)

27. XXXX is the Chief Executive Officer, Manager, and Founder of the Debtor, and is intimately involved in all strategic decisions and the day-to-day operations of the business. Mr. XXXXX has historically been paid a “Guaranteed Payment” from the Debtor in exchange for his services. Most currently, the amount of the “Guaranteed Payment” to Mr. XXXX has been $23,334 per month. This Guaranteed Payment is a gross amount without tax withholdings, and Mr. XXXXX is required to pay self-employment taxes. This is similar to the way that most lawyers who are members or partners in modern law firms are paid.

28. Before the Petition Date, SA XXX obtained a joint and several judgment against the Debtor, Mr. XXXX and others for over $5 million in litigation styled XXX vs. XXX, L.L.C. et al., Case No. XXXX(the “XXXLitigation”), pending in the District Court for Denver County, Colorado (the “Colorado State Court”). Collection of the judgment against the Debtor was stayed by the Colorado State Court after the Debtor posted a bond, but collection of the judgment has not been stayed against Mr. XXXXX.

29. XXXX, however, has aggressively sought to collect the judgment from Mr. XXXX and has obtained a charging order in the XXXX Litigation against Mr. XXXX membership interest in the Debtor. The Colorado State Court has interpreted the applicable statutes and rules such that the Guaranteed Payment received from Mr. XXXX in exchange for his services is a “distribution” and not “salary”, and therefore that the entire Guaranteed Paymentis subject to garnishment.

30. As a result of the Debtor’s severe illiquidity, the Debtor has not paid Mr. XXXX any Guaranteed Payments since May 1, 2012. Accordingly, Mr. XXX is owed $64,932.39 by
the Debtor as of the Petition Date on account of these foregone Guaranteed Payments.

31. Mr. XXXXcan no longer devote his time to the Debtor for no compensation. Therefore, the Debtor seeks authority to, as of the Petition Date, begin paying Mr. XXXX in the
same manner as all other employees, i.e. a normal salary payment every 14 days with various taxes withheld. Neurelec would presumably be able to garnish this salary to the fullest extent permissible by Colorado law, or approximately 25-30%.

dana comment here - This is a pay increase because the company now picks up 7% of the payroll tax that he would have previously been paying as self employment tax

32. In the absence of this relief, it is doubtful that Mr. XXXX could continue todevote any time to the proposed sale of assets and the Debtor’s efforts to restructure its obligations and repay its creditors.

What was the wisdom of the court in this ????

5. In exchange for the performance of his normal and customary duties for the Debtor, the Debtor shall be authorized to compensate XXXX in the same manner, timing
and method as all other employees of the Debtor, with Mr. Bedoya to receive a salary of $23,334 per month for his services, with all state, federal and local withholding taxes to be deducted in accordance with applicable law.

So the wisdom of the court is ANOTHER court finds you liable in a civil case (it was an industrial espionage / illegal trade practices case) and now assets of said company owner are being seized by the winning plaintiff. What does a WISE court decide in bankruptcy? Give him a pay increase and help him hide income that another courts have already ruled are owed to someone else.

So, please tell me how the courts see through BS. BTW. I have only scratched the surface of what happened.
Twice a week? 14 times a month?
2x4=8, not 14.
Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.
DanaT is offline   Reply With Quote