Monday, October 31, 2011

Je Ne Comprend Pas

I am not a lawyer, so I am not writing this from a legally informed point of view. Take it with a grain or pound of salt.

I am a psychologist, but I am not writing this from that point of view either.

I am writing this from the point of view of a confused and curious person.

Claw back. What exactly does that mean? If I am a jewelry store and innocently sell merchandise to a presumed "hi successful roller" who turns out to be a crook why am I responsible to give back all he or she paid me—especially when the bankruptcy attorneys sold the jewelry I sold in good faith to the crook?

Let's say a person of ill repute came to see me for help. I saw them  and billed them $10,000 for my services over many months of time. I was unaware that the money they paid me was illegally obtained. This hasn't happened, but it could have. Am I then responsible to refund what I earned  for my time and help? There is something wrong with this. I would be an innocent man!

Claw backs have many draw backs, not the least of which is penalizing the wrong people. There is a clear and clean line between innocent merchants or providers of service and crooks. I think those in charge of bankruptcy proceedings need to heed those lines.  Then again, what do I know?

 Bye For Now,

Bill

No comments:

Post a Comment