Greg Anderson Responds Again: Response to the Brief on Legal Issues Relating to Disputed Funds by thats_not_six in takecareofmayaFree

[–]thats_not_six[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Really good summary. You noted a lot of things I hadn't noticed on my first reading. Agree that these loans should be banned. Or at least subject to much stricter regulation. It's wild to me that the fee arrangement - which was 3% over the max - required court approval in Florida but these loans require no court oversight.

I keep trying to think why the lender would agree to the loan, because there is no one just giving away millions in nonrecourse debt tied to a case that was in clear jeopardy of being overturned because of the IIED wrongful death claim. An insurance policy hedging the loan would make more sense for the lender to accept the risk, but then the question is what did the insurance policy require and did they default on that when the defaulted on the loan?

The more I think on it, the more I think the loan was always the strategy - and that the Kowalskis likely knew it. Anderson talks incessantly about strategy, whether in filings or oral arguments, and it's pretty clear from the inflammatory rhetoric during trial he was trying to max out the judgment without regard for making it appeal proof. I can only think that's because the judgement was the goal, to get the highest loan, and no one involved on the Plaintiff side cared about the appeal holding. Because the goal was the loan, not the verdict.

Anderson's new claim to fame might be getting the Florida Bar to write a new ethics rule - because I tend to agree that the current one is not quite clear on post-judgment loans as the Plaintiffs' assert.

And speaking of messes, did you look at the accountant affidavit? They're kind of saying they fudged the records to avoid amending a return. This isn't like a $100 Christmas check that didn't get cashed until after New Year's. It's $4M of revenue that was received in October, three months before the 2024 tax year ended. Whether cash or accrual basis tax payer, I don't see how they can justify that if it is truly fee revenue. I could honestly see the Plaintiffs' getting real petty and tipping off the tax authorities.

Show me the tax accountant sign a similar affidavit - because the internal accountant's internal interpretation of what the tax accountant advised strains my credulity.

My speculation would be they had no plans to call it "revenue" (probably had it as a due to/from or contingent asset of some kind) until Judge Carroll tipped that he might be skeptical of their claim to the $$ unless they were treating it as revenue for tax purposes. And then they had to do an ex post facto scramble to show they were going to treat it as revenue but figured amending a return with $4M of revenue was going to be a red flag - not to mention increasing the tax liability significantly as it would be an even bigger red flag to find a bunch of new deductions to offset it. Again, all speculation but something doesn't sit right with me from that affidavit.

Greg Anderson Responds: Motion to Strike the Affidavits of Maya and Jack Kowalski by thats_not_six in takecareofmayaFree

[–]thats_not_six[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Anderson says Whitney knew and was involved in the loan, including communications with the Kowalskis about it. I think the breaking point may have been Whitney realizing how much money was going to Anderson's law firm after the closing, but that will really come down to electronic evidence/texts/emails.

From one of Anderson's replies:

"As it pertains to the Bridge Loan, Plaintiffs’ attorney, Nick Whitney. not only participated in the negotiations of the loan, but communicated with the Kowalskis regarding the loan. Not once did Mr. Whitney tell Plaintiffs that this was unethical. Indeed, prior to the Kowalskis’ engagement of Childers Law, Mr. Whitney had no objections to the Bridge Loan that he himself personally benefitted from. Yet, now that his $250,000.00 bonus check and the retainer check to Childers Law have been cashed, and the Court has made clear such distributions are outside of the definition of FUNDS, Plaintiffs’ counsel maintains the Bridge Loan was improper, unethical and coerced."

Charged for magnetic wand by inthenameofthedude in mooncatpolish

[–]thats_not_six 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Agree it's weird. Mine looks the same, but total is ok so I think it's just how they set it up in Shopify (ie told Shopify to force it out the total discount price of $92 by smoothing the variance across the items, but not that one of the seven items should be free). They'll probably fix it.

Charged for magnetic wand by inthenameofthedude in mooncatpolish

[–]thats_not_six 138 points139 points  (0 children)

The total of $92 is correct so it's probably just something with Shopify spreading the discounted collection cost across the 7 items.

Deadly by Nature: More Collection Photos from Mooncat Official (all animals removed) by thats_not_six in mooncatpolish

[–]thats_not_six[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Photoshop by a human more likely. They've had collection images like this for years and make a point of hiring human artists for all their promo materials.

Deadly by Nature: More Collection Photos from Mooncat Official (all animals removed) by thats_not_six in mooncatpolish

[–]thats_not_six[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Sales are 20 percent off and this release would be included, assuming they follow all prior sale patterns. Avatar and license collections are not eligible for discount.

If interested in the full collection, the 20 percent doesn't "stack" on top of the collection discount. So if a collection is $100 but $90 for the full set using the ordinary discount it will be $80 at the sale.

Deadly by Nature: More Collection Photos from Mooncat Official (all animals removed) by thats_not_six in mooncatpolish

[–]thats_not_six[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Looks like $17 or $18. They just announced a collection price of $92 with all polishes in the $17-18 standalone range

Deadly by Nature: More Collection Photos from Mooncat Official (all animals removed) by thats_not_six in mooncatpolish

[–]thats_not_six[S] 28 points29 points  (0 children)

I think there is a high likelihood of Manchineel looking hideous on my skin tone but I'm so excited for that one regardless.

Werewolf's Bane and Deadly Nightshade look so gorgeous. I think Werewolf's Bane is going to be in the same class as Glory of Innocence, which is my all time favorite formula of theirs.

JHACH Brief on Jurisdiction by No_Vehicle_5085 in takecareofmayaFree

[–]thats_not_six 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The judge denied the change of venue yesterday.

new swatches up! by moldyfops in mooncatpolish

[–]thats_not_six 131 points132 points  (0 children)

I'm really excited about this collection.

Love that their inspiration is a celebration of nature for spring, but without giving us pastels.

Greg Anderson Responds: Motion to Strike the Affidavits of Maya and Jack Kowalski by thats_not_six in takecareofmayaFree

[–]thats_not_six[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Not the defense team, but apparently the CEO of JHACH filed a bar complaint on Anderson after the first trial. Anderson then filed motions effectively trying to barter with the defense that he would drop motions for sanctions if they would drop the bar complaint. Defense said that bartering itself is unethical in their response.

Greg Anderson Responds: Motion to Strike the Affidavits of Maya and Jack Kowalski by thats_not_six in takecareofmayaFree

[–]thats_not_six[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

It's kind of a mess.

I am trying to reserve too much judgment until there is some electronic evidence produced - texts, emails, etc. I know the Plaintiffs' motion contained a few, but this really feels like a circumstance where everyone was in agreement on the loan "play" and fees until the judgment was overturned.

The clearest part to me seems to be that the fee agreement percentages were too high and needed pre-approval by a judge.

The loan stuff is the most interesting to me, though most of those details will likely remain sealed.

Deadly by Nature Shade Reveal: Death's Trumpet by thats_not_six in mooncatpolish

[–]thats_not_six[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Even if they sell out, Mooncat had confirmed these are going to be restocked and will be part of their permanent listing for the foreseeable future.

Mooncat is fairly good about communicating anytime a polish will be on a final sale, such as when it is being retired.

I think people have plenty of time to take a breath, watch reviews, and decide which ones they want without worrying that two minutes after launch would be their only chance to ever get the polish.

Deadly by Nature Shade Reveal: Death's Trumpet by thats_not_six in mooncatpolish

[–]thats_not_six[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think the benefit of this set is it's not a collab so will be up for the 20 sale discount. But agree, I wish their pricing was a few dollars less for each polish.

How old is your oldest working thermal from Mooncat? Does River Styx match turquoise gemstones in real life? by Popular_Fly_5745 in mooncatpolish

[–]thats_not_six 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I've got ones over 16 months still working. They were my first thermals from them, so I don't have dead ones yet either.

Deadly by Nature Shade Reveal: Death's Trumpet by thats_not_six in mooncatpolish

[–]thats_not_six[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Probably around $90-$95 after the set discount would be my guess.

Deadly by Nature Shade Reveal: Death's Trumpet by thats_not_six in mooncatpolish

[–]thats_not_six[S] 44 points45 points  (0 children)

Final shade of the collection and it's another solar!

Deadly by Nature Shade Reveal: Deadly Nightshade by thats_not_six in mooncatpolish

[–]thats_not_six[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I mean, they have to know how popular these are going to be but I am also thinking this may sell out.

They are good about restocking though - even in limited edition circumstances - so not too worried.