Company wants to hold funds for customers Are there any licensing or special bank account requirements for our company to hold funds for a customer and later deliver those funds back to the same customer? Similar to a savings account but for a consumer customer. Is this highly regulated in the U.S and if so what is necessary to accomplish this? Also, I am thinking that an escrow type of account might handle this. Can we borrow against that escrow account or pledge it as collateral?
It is sometimes necessary or desirable to hold customer money in a separate account because it is their property. For lawyers, this kind of account is highly regulated. For most other kinds of businesses, this kind if account is not highly regulated. If you were required to have an account of this time, you could not borrow against it or pledge it as collateral. The whole point of having a separate account is to hold the property in trust for the benefit of the customers separate from your own funds and not subject to your creditors. Sometimes a separate account of this type is set up to fund an employee retirement fund that does not qualify for the tax treatment of a 401(k) or IRA or similar account. An account set up for this purpose is called a "Rabbi Trust" (political correctness was not a big thing when this kind of trust was given its name, and the name has unfortunately stuck). But, in those circumstances the exposure to the firm's creditors is intended from the outset for tax purposes and to give the beneficiaries an incentive not to screw up the company, rather than being problematic.
united-states Are customers who withdraw their profits and lending earnings from FTX during its last days before its bankruptcy liable to clawback from creditors? It seems that some companies and investors, such as Binance, are liable to pay creditors through clawback for FTX collapse as a result of fraud. If the right conditions are met the amounts paid can be clawed back. There are a lot of special rules that apply but the most general is that if you receive money or property to pay an amount owed on a debt within 90 days of the bankruptcy petition being filed without providing substantially contemporaneous and equivalent value at the time that you receive the money, and the amount received is more than you would have received in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, then the amount received may be clawed back into the bankruptcy estate. Usually, in financial transactions, the dollar values in an account in your name are considered to be contractual debts owed by the financial institution to you, rather than &quot;your property&quot;. So paying amount the balance of an account (to the extent it has been at that level for at least 90 days before the filing of the bankruptcy petition) will usually be a preference and give rise to a clawback obligation if the bankruptcy estate choses to enforce that right (in a Chapter 7 that call is made by the bankruptcy trustee, in a Chapter 11 that call is made by the &quot;debtor-in-possession&quot;). If a clawback amount is not returned voluntarily, court action can be taken to recover it. This is what a court has ruled, for example, in one recent crypto bankruptcy case. The lookback period is 1 year rather than 90 days for &quot;insiders&quot;. If the debt is backed by new collateral in this time period, even if not paid, the agreement to provide new collateral can be invalidated (certain additional technical rules apply to this provision). Small amounts (up to $600 for consumer debtors and $5,000 for non-consumer debtors) are disregarded even if the payment would otherwise be a preference subject to being clawed back. To make sure I have fully answered the question: What about profitable customers? Suppose a customer made trading profits and earned interest from lending his cryptocurrencies on FTX. He managed to withdraw his funds just hours before FTX's collapse. Is he liable to for the clawback? Yes. If the conditions described above are met. The logic is that people who pull out money at the last minute due to luck or insider information should not be treated differently than those who do not do so. The relevant section of the bankruptcy code is 11 U.S. Code § 547 (Preferences). It states: (a)In this section— (1)“inventory” means personal property leased or furnished, held for sale or lease, or to be furnished under a contract for service, raw materials, work in process, or materials used or consumed in a business, including farm products such as crops or livestock, held for sale or lease; (2)“new value” means money or money’s worth in goods, services, or new credit, or release by a transferee of property previously transferred to such transferee in a transaction that is neither void nor voidable by the debtor or the trustee under any applicable law, including proceeds of such property, but does not include an obligation substituted for an existing obligation; (3)“receivable” means right to payment, whether or not such right has been earned by performance; and (4)a debt for a tax is incurred on the day when such tax is last payable without penalty, including any extension. (b)Except as provided in subsections (c), (i), and (j) of this section, the trustee may, based on reasonable due diligence in the circumstances of the case and taking into account a party’s known or reasonably knowable affirmative defenses under subsection (c), avoid any transfer of an interest of the debtor in property— (1)to or for the benefit of a creditor; (2)for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor before such transfer was made; (3)made while the debtor was insolvent; (4)made— (A)on or within 90 days before the date of the filing of the petition; or (B)between ninety days and one year before the date of the filing of the petition, if such creditor at the time of such transfer was an insider; and (5)that enables such creditor to receive more than such creditor would receive if— (A)the case were a case under chapter 7 of this title; (B)the transfer had not been made; and (C)such creditor received payment of such debt to the extent provided by the provisions of this title. (c)The trustee may not avoid under this section a transfer— (1)to the extent that such transfer was— (A)intended by the debtor and the creditor to or for whose benefit such transfer was made to be a contemporaneous exchange for new value given to the debtor; and (B)in fact a substantially contemporaneous exchange; (2)to the extent that such transfer was in payment of a debt incurred by the debtor in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the debtor and the transferee, and such transfer was— (A)made in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the debtor and the transferee; or (B)made according to ordinary business terms; (3)that creates a security interest in property acquired by the debtor— (A)to the extent such security interest secures new value that was— (i)given at or after the signing of a security agreement that contains a description of such property as collateral; (ii)given by or on behalf of the secured party under such agreement; (iii)given to enable the debtor to acquire such property; and (iv)in fact used by the debtor to acquire such property; and (B)that is perfected on or before 30 days after the debtor receives possession of such property; (4)to or for the benefit of a creditor, to the extent that, after such transfer, such creditor gave new value to or for the benefit of the debtor— (A)not secured by an otherwise unavoidable security interest; and (B)on account of which new value the debtor did not make an otherwise unavoidable transfer to or for the benefit of such creditor; (5)that creates a perfected security interest in inventory or a receivable or the proceeds of either, except to the extent that the aggregate of all such transfers to the transferee caused a reduction, as of the date of the filing of the petition and to the prejudice of other creditors holding unsecured claims, of any amount by which the debt secured by such security interest exceeded the value of all security interests for such debt on the later of— (A) (i)with respect to a transfer to which subsection (b)(4)(A) of this section applies, 90 days before the date of the filing of the petition; or (ii)with respect to a transfer to which subsection (b)(4)(B) of this section applies, one year before the date of the filing of the petition; or (B)the date on which new value was first given under the security agreement creating such security interest; (6)that is the fixing of a statutory lien that is not avoidable under section 545 of this title; (7)to the extent such transfer was a bona fide payment of a debt for a domestic support obligation; (8)if, in a case filed by an individual debtor whose debts are primarily consumer debts, the aggregate value of all property that constitutes or is affected by such transfer is less than $600; or (9)if, in a case filed by a debtor whose debts are not primarily consumer debts, the aggregate value of all property that constitutes or is affected by such transfer is less than $5,000.2 (d)The trustee may avoid a transfer of an interest in property of the debtor transferred to or for the benefit of a surety to secure reimbursement of such a surety that furnished a bond or other obligation to dissolve a judicial lien that would have been avoidable by the trustee under subsection (b) of this section. The liability of such surety under such bond or obligation shall be discharged to the extent of the value of such property recovered by the trustee or the amount paid to the trustee. (e)(1)For the purposes of this section— (A)a transfer of real property other than fixtures, but including the interest of a seller or purchaser under a contract for the sale of real property, is perfected when a bona fide purchaser of such property from the debtor against whom applicable law permits such transfer to be perfected cannot acquire an interest that is superior to the interest of the transferee; and (B)a transfer of a fixture or property other than real property is perfected when a creditor on a simple contract cannot acquire a judicial lien that is superior to the interest of the transferee. (2)For the purposes of this section, except as provided in paragraph (3) of this subsection, a transfer is made— (A)at the time such transfer takes effect between the transferor and the transferee, if such transfer is perfected at, or within 30 days after, such time, except as provided in subsection (c)(3)(B); (B)at the time such transfer is perfected, if such transfer is perfected after such 30 days; or (C)immediately before the date of the filing of the petition, if such transfer is not perfected at the later of— (i)the commencement of the case; or (ii)30 days after such transfer takes effect between the transferor and the transferee. (3)For the purposes of this section, a transfer is not made until the debtor has acquired rights in the property transferred. (f)For the purposes of this section, the debtor is presumed to have been insolvent on and during the 90 days immediately preceding the date of the filing of the petition. (g)For the purposes of this section, the trustee has the burden of proving the avoidability of a transfer under subsection (b) of this section, and the creditor or party in interest against whom recovery or avoidance is sought has the burden of proving the nonavoidability of a transfer under subsection (c) of this section. (h)The trustee may not avoid a transfer if such transfer was made as a part of an alternative repayment schedule between the debtor and any creditor of the debtor created by an approved nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency. (i)If the trustee avoids under subsection (b) a transfer made between 90 days and 1 year before the date of the filing of the petition, by the debtor to an entity that is not an insider for the benefit of a creditor that is an insider, such transfer shall be considered to be avoided under this section only with respect to the creditor that is an insider. (j) (1)In this subsection: (A)The term “covered payment of rental arrearages” means a payment of arrearages that— (i)is made in connection with an agreement or arrangement— (I)between the debtor and a lessor to defer or postpone the payment of rent and other periodic charges under a lease of nonresidential real property; and (II)made or entered into on or after March 13, 2020; (ii)does not exceed the amount of rental and other periodic charges agreed to under the lease of nonresidential real property described in clause (i)(I) before March 13, 2020; and (iii)does not include fees, penalties, or interest in an amount greater than the amount of fees, penalties, or interest— (I)scheduled to be paid under the lease of nonresidential real property described in clause (i)(I); or (II)that the debtor would owe if the debtor had made every payment due under the lease of nonresidential real property described in clause (i)(I) on time and in full before March 13, 2020. (B)The term “covered payment of supplier arrearages” means a payment of arrearages that— (i)is made in connection with an agreement or arrangement— (I)between the debtor and a supplier of goods or services to defer or postpone the payment of amounts due under an executory contract for goods or services; and (II)made or entered into on or after March 13, 2020; (ii)does not exceed the amount due under the executory contract described in clause (i)(I) before March 13, 2020; and (iii)does not include fees, penalties, or interest in an amount greater than the amount of fees, penalties, or interest— (I)scheduled to be paid under the executory contract described in clause (i)(I); or (II)that the debtor would owe if the debtor had made every payment due under the executory contract described in clause (i)(I) on time and in full before March 13, 2020. (2)The trustee may not avoid a transfer under this section for— (A)a covered payment of rental arrearages; or (B)a covered payment of supplier arrearages.
By &quot;unlicensed&quot; you mean that it doesn't state a license for use (MIT, GPL, etc.)? Those licenses are just a codified bundle of terms of use that cover many many edge cases. You have in place a much simpler agreement that covers the primary situation: you using/modifying the code for your own use. It's just like borrowing a car. You will ask a friend &quot;hey, could I borrow your car for a bit?&quot; &quot;sure!&quot;. You know there's a possibility that you'll get in an accident or something weird will happen, but you think the chances of that are minimal and you would be able to work it out. If you ask a car rental company, they'll give you a full contract covering every situation that may happen. Similarly, a large company would be hesitant to borrow a car for corporate use without a legal framework surrounding it. So you will likely be in the clear if you are just using it for a small project with minimal legal/financial implications. If you plan on turning your project into a multi-billion dollar empire, you should revisit your agreement.
Having done a bit of brief research, I find that "legit" is a synonym for "good". So, no. The header announcing a "principal amount" serves no purpose and could be misinterpreted as indicating that there is a loan. There is no reason to indicate the date twice, which gives rise to two different values of "date". The phrase "For value received" can be interpreted in at least two ways, one being "in exchange for some unspecified value to be received at some future date by Promisor", and "in exchange for a specific value already received by Promisor". Under the later interpretation, Promis(s)ee probably could not breach but under the former, Promis(s)ee could. So it makes a difference. You can just pay to the Promis(s)ee, and not imply that you are creating a pay-to-order instrument such as a check. That still leaves you the option to pay with a check. Or was the intent to say "pay on demand"? The expression "the sum of £500 shall the Promisor fail to meet his target" is not grammatical in US English, and I'll leave it to a UK speaker to judge if this is, over there. I assume that this is supposed to express conditionality, in which case "if" is a useful term. Then the meat of the contract, I guess, is that if the Promisor fails to meet somebody's target of 47.5 work hours per week, then Promisor has to pay Promissee £500 (and not otherwise). It's really not clear how anyone would know whether "meet a target of 47.5 work hours per week" has come to pass. Does that mean "work at least 47.5 hours per week"? Does that mean "for each of the three weeks within the time period" (or did you mean "work 47.5 hours within some one week, within the 3 week period"). Being explicit that the work obligation extends for 3 weeks would be legit (vide supra). Supposing that the second clause means "Promisor will pay £500 by 5:00pm 2 July 2016", you should put it that way. Or if you mean "Promisor will pay £500 by 5:00pm 3 July 2016", say that. Deadlines for performance should be stated very directly and clearly, and require no calculation and interpretation. And I'd suggest including a clause stating that "Promissor" and "Promisor" are used interchangeably in this contract. Or else be consistent in spelling. Note that almost any contract can be given some interpretation. From the perspective of creating a contract, the first concern should be over clearly expressing the intentions of the two parties in written form. After all, you don't have a contract if there is no meeting of the minds.
Why do you think Oracle have not been protecting their trade mark? Using a trade mark to describe the product (“Written in JavaScript”, “Seeking JavaScript developer”) is not an infringement and the trade mark owner is under no obligation to, indeed, cannot stop this. Where they are required to defend their trade mark is when it is being used in such a way that there is the risk of confusion that the goods or services could be confused with the trade mark owner’s goods or services. Further, they are not required to defend all breaches, only enough to show that they are actively doing so. Also it is not important that the trade mark be associated with the trade mark’s owner. Do you know who owns the trade mark “Ben &amp; Jerry’s”?
FDIC Regulation 500 prohibits discrimination in making loans on the basis of "National origin" but not on the basis of immigration status. This story from The Nation says that Bank of America is denying accounts to non-citizens, and arguing that it is legal because of increased risks, although there are current court challenges to this. Perez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A is a case now pending challenging loan denials based on immigration status. This has particularly come up in regard to DACA recipients, rather than people with LPR status. The US "public accommodation" laws probably do not apply, as a bank is not usually considered a place of public accommodation. Any specific state laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of immigration status might apply. In short, this is an issue still not clearly settled. There seems to be no law or regulation requiring banks to ask for citizenship information, much less to deny accounts based on it, and it would be well to seek a bank with a different policy if possible. The above is very US-specific. Many countries do limit banking access based on citizenship, i understand. I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Before challenging any bank action, you may well wish to seek advice from a lawyer.
I'm assuming you are talking about "warrants in debt" and not arrest warrants. A warrant in debt is that the creditor has filed with a court for the repayment of a debt. The court will then issue a judgement (in default if you do not appear) either for the creditor or the debtor. After that, the creditor can then (if they win) seek things such as garnishment to repay the debt. Now in the UK, they have accepted the "Electronic Communications Act of 2000" which means that a Qualified Electronic Signature (QES) is as legally binding as a "wet ink" signature. Non-QES signatures may also be binding, but that requires additional evidence. Let's take an example of a small personal loan. Let's say you apply electronically for a loan of X amount. The loan is approved and the money is transferred into your bank account electronically. You spend the money but make no attempt to repay the loan. First the bank will make attempts to collect the debt via normal means, then they may sell the debt to a debt collector. The debt collector will apply for a "warrant in debt" to take you to court for the amount (possibly with fees). If you do not appear, a default judgement will be applied to you. If you signed the loan application with a QES compliant system, that signature is all the debt collector will need to show that you accepted the debt and the repayment terms. If you did not sign with a QES system, they can still submit the application but they may have to prove other things, like: Your intent to obtain money for some purpose Your action in keeping/spending the money No action on your part to return or rectify the transfer Any payments you may have made towards the loan (shows that you acknowledge the loan and terms) So no, as of at least 2000 most countries accept some type of electronic signature to be legally binding. An entirely different topic would be if the debt is legal without the paperwork. Many debt collection agencies buy debt in bulk that may not be much more than an Excel sheet with the amounts and names/addresses and other personal information. A lot of times the entire debt "paper trail" is not transferred with these debt purchases so a debt collector may have purchased $10 million worth of debt for $50,000 that is nothing more than an Excel sheet. I believe in the US this has held up, but I'm not sure about the UK/rest of the world. What the YouTube people may be saying is that they don't have anything regarding the debt as far as binding paperwork goes. That may be something completely different.
You're misreading the law. You need to keep reading the section you referenced (emphasis added): The disclosure...shall be made in writing and delivered through the consumer’s account with the business, if the consumer maintains an account with the business, or by mail or electronically at the consumer’s option if the consumer does not maintain an account with the business Thus, the option to have the disclosure sent by mail only applies to consumers who do not have an account with the business. Since presumably a large number of sites only maintain personal information for users with accounts, such sites need not provide a mail option. Further, it doesn't say there needs to be a button: you just need the ability to say you'd like it mailed to you in the request somehow, and then they need to comply when you do.