5 ms·

A Judge Made Houston the Top Bankruptcy Court and Helped His Girlfriend Cash In

41 points by malshe 2y ago

malshe 2y ago
https://archive.ph/iVOYm https://archive.ph/iVOYm Gift link: https://www.wsj.com/finance/bankruptcy-court-houston-jones-freeman-dbba77e9?st=hti0sed1iggrjbu&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink https://www.wsj.com/finance/bankruptcy-court-houston-jones-f...
wheelerwj 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
e40 2y ago
Conflict of interest is one of the most pernicious problems in our society. When I talk to people about it I get this blank stare, which really confuses me.
- DoubleDerper 2y ago
  it's not a conflict, it's a feature /s
  - mathgladiator 2y ago
    It kind of is a feature. I had a boss once that owned the building to the business and charged rent to ensure zero profit. It's like life is a realtime monopoly game I'm learning tactics all the time.
    - newsclues 2y ago
      A bug for society is a feature for the elites that control it.
    - resoluteteeth 2y ago
      > I had a boss once that owned the building to the business and charged rent to ensure zero profit. To be clear, I assume the company wasn't wholly owned by him, correct? Because if it was, it wouldn't be a conflict of interest.
      - cjbgkagh 2y ago
        It's not breaking fiduciary duty to the company if the company is wholly owned and in the interest of the owner. Or the transaction is in the interest of all the owners. It comes under transfer mispricing (transfer pricing manipulation) where transactions are not at arms length which it would not be if the same owner wholly owned both. It's not a highly policed area so it's legal insofar as people do usually get away with it. I think there will be crackdowns on it eventually, courts are more apt to pierce the corporate veil for solo-owned companies. I think there are many changes coming down the pipeline as governments start running out of money. Capital gains tax normalization, capital gains tax treated as income every year instead of at a 'event' when you sell. An effective wealth tax by taxing a percentage of property value. Once those are in place I think they'll crack down on the creative use of corporations to minimize tax.
    - brvsft 2y ago
      Not exactly unscrupulous if he wasn't charging insane rents to himself. His business would have to pay rent or mortgage for office space in any case. And the income his other business would get from the rent is taxable as well. At a certain point, he either has to break a law in an egregious manner and hope he does not get caught, or he has to pay taxes. That's the system we put in place when we start setting up income and corporate taxes to prop up a massive federal government.
    - nox101 2y ago
      How did that work? So the "company" pays the "landlord" so it shows zero profit but now the landlord has a profit right?
      - jononor 2y ago
        The landlord will use it to pay down loans, improve the property, and maybe invest in new property.
      - blackhawkC17 2y ago
        The OP likely isn't telling the full story or maybe doesn't understand what actually happened, like most people who talk about taxes online.
    - cjbgkagh 2y ago
      Society only functions so long as most people don't know these 'exploits'. Short of a rather intrusive totalitarian state I'm not sure how it would be possible to effectively police against such exploits. What's new is sharing information on exploits is much easier than it used to be and people feel less moral aversion to using them.
    - spicybbq 2y ago
      > I had a boss once that owned the building to the business and charged rent to ensure zero profit. This is common and legal structure designed to, among other things, reduce taxes owed. It only becomes a problem if the business has shareholders who are not participating in the scheme to shift money to the land company.
    - FireBeyond 2y ago
      Not for the same motivations, but a lot of legal cannabis businesses do (or did) something nearly similar to get around not being able to use the banking system: Buy the building or even lease it with a sublet clause using a separate entity, and then lease/sublease the space to the cannabis business with the lease fee being, for example, "90% of gross revenue". I'm not sure on the details of how operating funds were pushed back in.
    - rvba 2y ago
      Sounds like a "sale and lease back"
- LegitShady 2y ago
  Its just good old corruption.
  - e40 2y ago
    I guess I agree, but people seem to understand that corruption is bad. Many people don't seem concerned with conflict of interest. It's baffling to me. I remember having discussions with people as long ago as the early 2000's about it. I don't remember the specific instance, but I remember thinking "am I the only one who cares about this??"
api 2y ago
Doesn't Texas also have the big patent troll magnet district? Seems like there's an issue down there with courts operating as entrepreneurial ventures.
- freejazz 2y ago
  That's not a fair characterization of the Western or Eastern districts. Those districts actually hold claim construction hearings before a motion to dismiss. Whereas other courts will dismiss a patent for being non-patentable without having ever construed its terms, which is nonsensical. Yes, trolls go there because they will get a judge that wants to litigate a patent case, versus about any other district where there is a good likelihood you get a judge that will do anything to not have to deal with the substance of a patent case.
  - freejazz 2y ago
    People will downvote this but not respond to the substance, of course.
    - FireBeyond 2y ago
      Perhaps because there have been dozens of articles discussing this, the US federal court system has intervened, even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court investigated and agreed that what was happening there was improper, and not just "judge who actually wants to do work, not avoid responsibility" like you claim without any particular substantiation.
      - freejazz 2y ago
        Whether or not they fairly distribute cases within the district has no bearing on the district's rules as to how patent cases proceeds, so I don't think you are really responding to the point I've made, and in not doing so, you are evidencing the kind of reflexive downvoting I'm talking about. "I read there are problems with the courts" Okay? It doesn't seem like you actually read my post given your response. >and not just "judge who actually wants to do work, not avoid responsibility" like you claim without any particular substantiation. Are you a patent litigator? It's not a secret in the patent litigation field that many judges are acrimonious to patent cases. I'm not sure what you want me to provide for you as evidence aside from my own personal experience. Also, this is easily inferred by the fact that many litigants, including defendants, are happy to stay in those two districts. I've seen it myself. Generally in my experience, the defendants that want to leave those districts are usually the largest tech companies who seek to move the case to their more-friendly local districts, which is just another form of judge shopping. I'm not sure why that form of judge shopping is comforting to you. Sometimes these defendants win their transfer motions, sometimes they lose. Certainly US federal patent jurisdiction laws/rules and jurisdiction laws/rules in general are made to avoid the need to bring a case against a defendant in front of their friendly local judge. Once again, I would appreciate a substantive reply to these points. Anyway, here's an article about why patent owners aren't litigating their cases when district court judges are holding motions to dismiss before markman hearings, and that many judges are acrimonious to patent cases: https://ipwatchdog.com/2021/11/04/patent-litigation-in-the-united-states-1980-to-2020/id=139510/ https://ipwatchdog.com/2021/11/04/patent-litigation-in-the-u... Do you have any argument as to why a motion to dismiss should be heard before a markman hearing occurs? That'd be substantive. It's certainly fallacious to say that all the cases brought in those districts are by trolls. The districts are friendly to patent litigation in general, that's why the trolls go there. What rules or conduct do you suppose specifically make the districts friendly to trolls in particular? This should be easy for you to answer given the numerous articles you've read about the "interventions" made.
dmix 2y ago
> Van Deelen tried to submit the letter to court in his effort to disqualify Jones from the bankruptcy case involving his lost investment. In a court hearing, a Kirkland partner argued that the letter was unsubstantiated and moved to exclude it as evidence. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Marvin Isgur, Jones’s former law partner and a court colleague, sided with Kirkland. He denied Van Deelen’s request. Jones later signed an order to permanently seal the letter from public view. Amazing when the person who is supposed to help and be impartial to deal with matters involving another judge turns out to be a former partner and also involved in the grift and then silenced him. Always works out that way in these stories.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

41 points by malshe 2y ago

https://archive.ph/iVOYm https://archive.ph/iVOYm Gift link: https://www.wsj.com/finance/bankruptcy-court-houston-jones-freeman-dbba77e9?st=hti0sed1iggrjbu&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink https://www.wsj.com/finance/bankruptcy-court-houston-jones-f...

wheelerwj 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

e40 2y ago

Conflict of interest is one of the most pernicious problems in our society. When I talk to people about it I get this blank stare, which really confuses me.

DoubleDerper 2y ago
it's not a conflict, it's a feature /s
- mathgladiator 2y ago
  It kind of is a feature. I had a boss once that owned the building to the business and charged rent to ensure zero profit. It's like life is a realtime monopoly game I'm learning tactics all the time.
  - newsclues 2y ago
    A bug for society is a feature for the elites that control it.
  - resoluteteeth 2y ago
    > I had a boss once that owned the building to the business and charged rent to ensure zero profit. To be clear, I assume the company wasn't wholly owned by him, correct? Because if it was, it wouldn't be a conflict of interest.
    - cjbgkagh 2y ago
      It's not breaking fiduciary duty to the company if the company is wholly owned and in the interest of the owner. Or the transaction is in the interest of all the owners. It comes under transfer mispricing (transfer pricing manipulation) where transactions are not at arms length which it would not be if the same owner wholly owned both. It's not a highly policed area so it's legal insofar as people do usually get away with it. I think there will be crackdowns on it eventually, courts are more apt to pierce the corporate veil for solo-owned companies. I think there are many changes coming down the pipeline as governments start running out of money. Capital gains tax normalization, capital gains tax treated as income every year instead of at a 'event' when you sell. An effective wealth tax by taxing a percentage of property value. Once those are in place I think they'll crack down on the creative use of corporations to minimize tax.
  - brvsft 2y ago
    Not exactly unscrupulous if he wasn't charging insane rents to himself. His business would have to pay rent or mortgage for office space in any case. And the income his other business would get from the rent is taxable as well. At a certain point, he either has to break a law in an egregious manner and hope he does not get caught, or he has to pay taxes. That's the system we put in place when we start setting up income and corporate taxes to prop up a massive federal government.
  - nox101 2y ago
    How did that work? So the "company" pays the "landlord" so it shows zero profit but now the landlord has a profit right?
    - jononor 2y ago
      The landlord will use it to pay down loans, improve the property, and maybe invest in new property.
    - blackhawkC17 2y ago
      The OP likely isn't telling the full story or maybe doesn't understand what actually happened, like most people who talk about taxes online.
  - cjbgkagh 2y ago
    Society only functions so long as most people don't know these 'exploits'. Short of a rather intrusive totalitarian state I'm not sure how it would be possible to effectively police against such exploits. What's new is sharing information on exploits is much easier than it used to be and people feel less moral aversion to using them.
  - spicybbq 2y ago
    > I had a boss once that owned the building to the business and charged rent to ensure zero profit. This is common and legal structure designed to, among other things, reduce taxes owed. It only becomes a problem if the business has shareholders who are not participating in the scheme to shift money to the land company.
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    Not for the same motivations, but a lot of legal cannabis businesses do (or did) something nearly similar to get around not being able to use the banking system: Buy the building or even lease it with a sublet clause using a separate entity, and then lease/sublease the space to the cannabis business with the lease fee being, for example, "90% of gross revenue". I'm not sure on the details of how operating funds were pushed back in.
  - rvba 2y ago
    Sounds like a "sale and lease back"
LegitShady 2y ago
Its just good old corruption.
- e40 2y ago
  I guess I agree, but people seem to understand that corruption is bad. Many people don't seem concerned with conflict of interest. It's baffling to me. I remember having discussions with people as long ago as the early 2000's about it. I don't remember the specific instance, but I remember thinking "am I the only one who cares about this??"

api 2y ago

Doesn't Texas also have the big patent troll magnet district? Seems like there's an issue down there with courts operating as entrepreneurial ventures.

freejazz 2y ago
That's not a fair characterization of the Western or Eastern districts. Those districts actually hold claim construction hearings before a motion to dismiss. Whereas other courts will dismiss a patent for being non-patentable without having ever construed its terms, which is nonsensical. Yes, trolls go there because they will get a judge that wants to litigate a patent case, versus about any other district where there is a good likelihood you get a judge that will do anything to not have to deal with the substance of a patent case.
- freejazz 2y ago
  People will downvote this but not respond to the substance, of course.
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    Perhaps because there have been dozens of articles discussing this, the US federal court system has intervened, even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court investigated and agreed that what was happening there was improper, and not just "judge who actually wants to do work, not avoid responsibility" like you claim without any particular substantiation.
    - freejazz 2y ago
      Whether or not they fairly distribute cases within the district has no bearing on the district's rules as to how patent cases proceeds, so I don't think you are really responding to the point I've made, and in not doing so, you are evidencing the kind of reflexive downvoting I'm talking about. "I read there are problems with the courts" Okay? It doesn't seem like you actually read my post given your response. >and not just "judge who actually wants to do work, not avoid responsibility" like you claim without any particular substantiation. Are you a patent litigator? It's not a secret in the patent litigation field that many judges are acrimonious to patent cases. I'm not sure what you want me to provide for you as evidence aside from my own personal experience. Also, this is easily inferred by the fact that many litigants, including defendants, are happy to stay in those two districts. I've seen it myself. Generally in my experience, the defendants that want to leave those districts are usually the largest tech companies who seek to move the case to their more-friendly local districts, which is just another form of judge shopping. I'm not sure why that form of judge shopping is comforting to you. Sometimes these defendants win their transfer motions, sometimes they lose. Certainly US federal patent jurisdiction laws/rules and jurisdiction laws/rules in general are made to avoid the need to bring a case against a defendant in front of their friendly local judge. Once again, I would appreciate a substantive reply to these points. Anyway, here's an article about why patent owners aren't litigating their cases when district court judges are holding motions to dismiss before markman hearings, and that many judges are acrimonious to patent cases: https://ipwatchdog.com/2021/11/04/patent-litigation-in-the-united-states-1980-to-2020/id=139510/ https://ipwatchdog.com/2021/11/04/patent-litigation-in-the-u... Do you have any argument as to why a motion to dismiss should be heard before a markman hearing occurs? That'd be substantive. It's certainly fallacious to say that all the cases brought in those districts are by trolls. The districts are friendly to patent litigation in general, that's why the trolls go there. What rules or conduct do you suppose specifically make the districts friendly to trolls in particular? This should be easy for you to answer given the numerous articles you've read about the "interventions" made.

dmix 2y ago

> Van Deelen tried to submit the letter to court in his effort to disqualify Jones from the bankruptcy case involving his lost investment. In a court hearing, a Kirkland partner argued that the letter was unsubstantiated and moved to exclude it as evidence. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Marvin Isgur, Jones’s former law partner and a court colleague, sided with Kirkland. He denied Van Deelen’s request. Jones later signed an order to permanently seal the letter from public view. Amazing when the person who is supposed to help and be impartial to deal with matters involving another judge turns out to be a former partner and also involved in the grift and then silenced him. Always works out that way in these stories.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]