Gawker Can’t Shield Founder From Hulk Hogan Sex-Tape Verdict - Polidicks

[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-19/gawker-can-t-shield-founder-from-hulk-hogan-sex-tape-verdict[/url] [QUOTE]Gawker Media, which went into Chapter 11 to avoid paying a $140 million invasion-of-privacy verdict to Hulk Hogan, can’t extend the bankruptcy court’s protection to its founder, Nick Denton, likely triggering his own personal bankruptcy. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Stuart Bernstein Tuesday denied the request after a hearing in Manhattan. Denton, who started the online news and gossip company in his apartment in 2002, testified about how important he is to the health of the business. He also described the threat he perceives from Peter Thiel, the tech mogul who bankrolled Hogan’s case. “As has been reported, the Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel has been funding a series of lawsuits against the company intended to deter critical coverage,” Denton testified. “It’s been a drain on the company’s energy and financial resources.” Denton told the judge he would file for personal bankruptcy if he didn’t get the protection, and that he expected such a proceeding would be expensive given how other cases against Gawker have gone. The media company has already spent $13 million defending the Hogan suit, Denton said. “I expect my own personal bankruptcy will be anything but straightforward,” he told the judge.[/QUOTE]

piece of shit goes broke, nothing of value was lost.

he deserves it

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;50743218]piece of shit goes broke, nothing of value was lost.[/QUOTE] There's a very good chance that a sizable portion of his assets have been tied up in ways that make them noncollectable. Asset protection is one of the first things financial advisors take care of once you reach a certain critical mass of wealth, and piercing that protection takes years of effort.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50743252]There's a very good chance that a sizable portion of his assets have been tied up in ways that make them noncollectable. Asset protection is one of the first things financial advisors take care of once you reach a certain critical mass of wealth, and piercing that protection takes years of effort.[/QUOTE] Fuck, I didn't think of this, but he's still likely going to take a hard hit regardless hopefully.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;50743218]piece of shit goes broke, nothing of value was lost.[/QUOTE] unfortunatly there are some good news sites under the gawker brand that will probably also close as a result i dont really like what this whole thing has represented, a rich billionare with a grudge taking out a news agency through funding a lawsuit that probably wouldnt have been nearly as bad otherwise

[QUOTE=Sableye;50743343]unfortunatly there are some good news sites under the gawker brand that will probably also close as a result i dont really like what this whole thing has represented, a rich billionare with a grudge taking out a news agency through funding a lawsuit that probably wouldnt have been nearly as bad otherwise[/QUOTE] Go look up George Soros

He's no doubt put all his money away prior to the verdict, he declares bankruptcy for the payout and then grabs his assets back later on.

[QUOTE=Vasili;50743674]He's no doubt put all his money away prior to the verdict, he declares bankruptcy for the payout and then grabs his assets back later on.[/QUOTE] Won't they just seize all his assets?

[QUOTE=Source;50743875]Won't they just seize all his assets?[/QUOTE] What they do to get around it is give away all their assets to someone trusted. Then after the bankruptcy is finished, have that trusted person transfer it back. The creditors can't go after those assets because they're technically in someone else's name during the bankruptcy. Though judges do take a very dim view to those who do this (i.e., they deny the bankruptcy). But the judge would have to be aware of it. This happened to the banker from Ireland, David Drumm, who attempted to declare bankruptcy in the US. He transferred everything to his wife. The judge learned of this and denied the bankruptcy.

[QUOTE=Source;50743875]Won't they just seize all his assets?[/QUOTE] if hes smart (and he is) hes probably put it in some kind of tax haven where its not actually 'his' money but a trusts money, hidden away like that they probably cant touch it plus there are other things bankruptcy cant touch

[QUOTE=Sableye;50743343]i dont really like what this whole thing has represented, a rich billionare with a grudge taking out a news agency through funding a lawsuit that probably wouldnt have been nearly as bad otherwise[/QUOTE] What's worth more concern is that the outcome of suing companies for invasion of privacy depends on whether there are rich people supporting you or not.

[QUOTE=Kigen;50743890]What they do to get around it is give away all their assets to someone trusted. Then after the bankruptcy is finished, have that trusted person transfer it back. The creditors can't go after those assets because they're technically in someone else's name during the bankruptcy. Though judges do take a very dim view to those who do this (i.e., they deny the bankruptcy). But the judge would have to be aware of it. This happened to the banker from Ireland, David Drumm, who attempted to declare bankruptcy in the US. He transferred everything to his wife. The judge learned of this and denied the bankruptcy.[/QUOTE] You're legally obliged to disclose if you give anyone more than $500 dollars within 1-2 years of filing bankruptcy. So if it's found out that you hid money like that and got it back, that would be a pretty hefty fraud charge. I'd imagine people have found out loopholes to it by now though

[quote]bankruptcy stuff[/quote] The thing most of you aren't getting about asset protection is that it's a proactive game. Most things have very clearly legally defined statutes of limitations. A judge or lawyer can be aware of a trust, but unable to legally touch it if it's existed for quite a while. Let me give you an example. It's quite common for people with decent assets to wrap them up into some form of trust during retirement. Then they pass on that trust to their children. The trust contains assets (like their house), as well as stock portfolios and other things. Once that's done, and the trust has existed for a while, it can no longer be undone. The parents can continue to live off of the trust as beneficiaries, but if their expenses go through the roof, say for medical reasons, they don't technically have any 'assets' to seize. The state can't take the house, or the other assets, because they don't belong to the beneficiaries anymore. Whatever is in the estate can be seized to pay off debts, but the debts don't get passed on. If they put stuff into a trust and die shortly thereafter, the state can undo the trust because it's viewed as evading taxes/debts. But the statute of limitations prevents them from going back more than 5-10 years in most cases. Once that time has passed, any challenge to validity of the trust is going to be trivially smashed by even a halfway competent attorney. You can blow tens of millions challenging a trust for a few hundred thousand dollars, and it will cost the trust practically nothing.

[QUOTE]deter critical coverage [/QUOTE] Yes it's very critical to know what has been star is fucking something

all of this over a fucking hulk hogan sex tape lmao did this moron really think he can sell this off as a critical first amendment & journalistic integrity issue to anybody sane its a sex tape of a pro-wrestler, not a footage of the next watergate scandal

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50744765]The thing most of you aren't getting about asset protection is that it's a proactive game. Most things have very clearly legally defined statutes of limitations. A judge or lawyer can be aware of a trust, but unable to legally touch it if it's existed for quite a while. Let me give you an example. It's quite common for people with decent assets to wrap them up into some form of trust during retirement. Then they pass on that trust to their children. The trust contains assets (like their house), as well as stock portfolios and other things. Once that's done, and the trust has existed for a while, it can no longer be undone. The parents can continue to live off of the trust as beneficiaries, but if their expenses go through the roof, say for medical reasons, they don't technically have any 'assets' to seize. The state can't take the house, or the other assets, because they don't belong to the beneficiaries anymore. Whatever is in the estate can be seized to pay off debts, but the debts don't get passed on.[/QUOTE] I'd say it's surprising we have such massive loopholes like this, but then I realize it's not at all surprising because the primary beneficiaries of these loopholes are either making our laws, or buying the people who make our laws.

[QUOTE=Sableye;50743343]unfortunatly there are some good news sites under the gawker brand that will probably also close as a result[/QUOTE] Just follow the writers you liked as they've probably moved onto other writing jobs.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50745677]I'd say it's surprising we have such massive loopholes like this, but then I realize it's not at all surprising because the primary beneficiaries of these loopholes are either making our laws, or buying the people who make our laws.[/QUOTE] The problem is that there's very legitimate uses for financial constructs like that, and there's no good way to curtail the abusive uses.

[QUOTE=Sableye;50743343]unfortunatly there are some good news sites under the gawker brand that will probably also close as a result i dont really like what this whole thing has represented, a rich billionare with a grudge taking out a news agency through funding a lawsuit that probably wouldnt have been nearly as bad otherwise[/QUOTE]While Peter Thiel [I]is[/I] a son of a bitch, Gawker has plenty of bad sites under it's big umbrella that I can stand losing those good ones. That said the one restriction of free speech that I fully agree on, a person's right to privacy, is more important to me than Gawker's "news" ever will be. I just don't consider combative gossip rags part of the the fourth estate, I don't think anyone will really convince me they're actual journalism.