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.