[stingraycharles]

The judge ruled that the payment had to be made immediately; they could sue back, but they would have to pay first. In their words, it was a “BS ruling”, and they simply didn’t pay.

I’ll tell you that I didn’t know you could just say “no”, but they did. My lawyers were at the point that they would send a (legally backed) letter to all their customers, that their payments should be redirected to some court. It would have caused a massive hellfire, though.

I had the choice of going through with all this, but the outcome would still be uncertain, legal fees would increase, and take a long time regardless. It was a fully bootstrapped business, I was relatively young and in debt, and I decided to renegotiate.

In the end I got the money I needed to pay off my debts, legal fees + then some, a huge learning experience, and took a 1 year sabbatical. I just wanted this whole thing to be over.

[doikor]

Seems like a really complex system to get your money. Here in Finland you would just start bankruptcy procedures by filing a claim in the court and with the court order saying they owe you it would go through in a day or two giving the other party 2 weeks time to pay or the court would take over all their assets and get you your money (and sell those assets if they don’t have it in cash)

A single verified unpaid bill is grounds for starting the bankruptcy procedure here so it is actually good tool to force big companies to pay. Though you can say goodbye to any future business relations with them if you do that.

[mattbee]

It's the same in the UK:

https://www.gov.uk/wind-up-a-company-that-owes-you-money

"To wind up a company you must:

* be owed £750 or more * be able to prove that the company cannot pay you "

That's it.

[tuukkah]

How do you prove they cannot pay you - show an unpaid invoice?

[mattbee]

I only ever threatened it once so didn't go to the expense of filing.

In practice, yes an unpaid invoice, plus proof of delivery /service. Alternatively, a judgment from a court ordering them to pay.

[seanp2k2]

The trouble is the actual collection, which as far as I know is still left as an exercise for the person owed.

[mattbee]

Nope, when a company is struck off (directors given 2 months notice etc) its assets are frozen and passed to The Crown, who appoints an Official Receiver. They liquidate the assets, pay any creditors (pay themselves) and keep anything remaining.

So it's an absolutely nuclear debt collection option, and not fast. But the threat is real if the debtor can't argue the debt away.

[Iv]

Japan is similar. I keep marveling at the stories about the US system and wonder how it is supposed to be considered friendly for businesses...

[xwdv]

Does the example not make it obvious? Imagine your business doesn’t want to pay a bill from some douchebag business you hate.

[Archelaos]

I think the parent means that a system in which anyone can delay the payment of otherwise legitimate financial claims through an extremely protracted legal process is generally not very business-friendly. Of course, it is friendly to businesses that do not want to pay their liabilities, but on the cost of all the others. What good is a legal system if a company cannot enforce its rights in practice?

[mkr-hn]

The same way any human system works: people mostly want to do the right thing, so they do.

[simonh]

It’s not a case of a simple disagreement though. In this situation there’s a court order requiring you to pay the bill. Not wanting to doesn’t cut it.

[lazide]

You’d be amazed how long someone can go in open defiance of a court order before something concrete actually happens.

It usually requires going back to court for the concrete thing to actually happen too; and it’s rarely all that catastrophic.

Judges are surprisingly willing to give folks more rope to hang themselves with later.

[bjornsing]

In Sweden you can actually do that before you’ve won the court case. If a lower court rules that you have a legal right to payment, then you can collect on that even if the other party appeals to a higher court. (They can then of course do the same to you if they win the appeal.)

But this is taking it a bit far IMHO. It’s confusing to me at least that a court order is not final (“has not yet won legal power” as we say in Sweden), but can still be used to force payment through the authorities (Kronofogdemyndigheten).

[lazide]

Getting though it however, and actually getting paid is a long and arduous process. That’s what the poster was up against.

It’s not THAT uncommon for some folks to just say ‘oh yeah, make me’, and while there are (usually) methods of doing it without their co-operation, it’s never easy.

[doikor]

If you are the only debtor and they have the money (no need to sell anything) then it is actually really fast. The court just takes over the bank accounts and sends you the money.

The real slowness of the process kicks in when there are multiple parties claiming their money and there isn’t enough assets to pay everyone.

[lazide]

By ‘really fast’, I’d wager 6 months to a year, no?

You’d have to show all that was the case for instance, which if they ignored you and generally were unco-operative would take awhile.

[doikor]

Took me 17 days last time. A couple days for the claim to go trough the court and 14 days of time for them to pay. After that as they did not during the next bank day the court took control of their bank account and wired me the money. This was for unpaid wages but the same applies to any unpaid bill.

As I said it really only gets slow if the party does not have the money (as in they are bankrupt for real instead of just refusing to pay) and there are multiple parties claiming it. At that point it slows down to figure out how to split the assets.

There really isn’t any way to avoid this outside shutting down the company and moving the money out of the accounts but that will just dig the hole deeper as now they are not only contempt of court (not paying as ordered to when they are capable of) but they are also actively stealing/hiding someone else’s money.

[lazide]

Which jurisdiction?

Unpaid wages are usually treated very different from most claims, at least here, and do get handled in a very expeditious manner (labor commissioner in some places with literally raid workplaces sometimes).

Secured debt (pay me or I get this property - in the contract), can often get similar expedited treatment here in CA.

unpaid improvements (mechanics liens) on real or personal can get handled in a month or two here, but actually getting liquidated damages out of it can take a long time.

Other claims (general vendor bills, liquidated settlements), often meh.

[Forgeties79]

Stories like this remind me why I hate seeing advice on forums that often boil down to…”and if that doesn’t work, just sue them.“ It’s a massive, risky, expensive, physically and emotionally draining experience.

[afrcnc]

So, basically, if you rich enough in the US, you can simply ignore the courts?

[harambae]

At least for a long time, yes. The example that comes to mind...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/01/08/califor...

[paulcole]

Yes and it doesn’t have to do with rich/poor. Until someone either takes an action on your behalf or physically forces you to take an action you can ignore their requests all you want.

[csomar]

> I had the choice of going through with all this, but the outcome would still be uncertain, legal fees would increase, and take a long time regardless.

So it’s just you deciding not to go with this… for some reason.

I’m pretty sure if you enforced the ruling, you’d have gotten a quick response from them. It might seem like a dick move but they moved first.

At $44bn, I highly doubt the dudes of Twitter will take the same stance you took.

[naikrovek]

> I’m pretty sure if you enforced the ruling, you’d have gotten a quick response from them.

don't tell someone that you know more about a situation that they were in and you were not. A) it's freaking rude as hell, and B) you absolutely DO NOT have more awareness about this situation than the person who lived it.

[stingraycharles]

Thank you for saying this. While I do agree with the parent that in the the end it was my decision to go this route, the situation was much more complicated, and I absolutely wouldn’t get a quick response from them.

Having said that, I wasn’t insulted by the parent, and they made a good point: my decision was based on pragmatism, and in the case of Twitter, this was much less likely to be the case. Since I decided to share my story in light of this whole Twitter debacle, the parent was right to point out that the comparison isn’t entirely correct, even more so when it’s about dozens of billions. The rules of the games are different there.

[multjoy]

Commercial litigation is entirely about pragmatism.

If twitter won and was in the position to compel performance, is that even in the best interest of the company? To force it upon an unwilling owner would be the best way to destroy it in very short order as they desperately attempt to recoup their costs.

Far more sensible, with an enforceable order in hand, to come up with a negotiated settlement. Far easier, as well, with a nuclear option.

[Volundr]

It doesn't need to be in the best interests of the company, it needs to be in n the best interests of the shareholders. If the company dies once Elon owns it, it sucks for the employees and Elon, but not the all important shareholders.

[ModernMech]

Indeed, if the point of the sale was to put Twitter in hands capable of steering the ship, they wouldn’t have sold to Musk in the first place.

[miohtama]

In this point, it is the interest of the CEO, board and shareholders to collect a fat check and let Mr Musk burn down with Twitter. It’s Musk’s problem what to do with an unwilling owner issues.

[jimmydorry]

What fat check is the CEO and board getting? They own virtually no shares, so it wouldn't be from Musk. And if a reluctant owner takes charge, they aren't writing a fat check or shaking on a golden parachute. The lot of them can only expect to be immediately terminated, but knowing Musk, he would likely take legal action against them and do his best to make them unhirable... so they would likely bail during legal proceedings.

[armada651]

I don't get this mentality. I don't get why people think living through an experience makes them such an expert that any outside opinion is immediately offensive.

An outsider can always offer a new perspective and they could be more knowledgeable than the person who went through the experience.

[Applejinx]

It's a Chesterton's Fence situation.

An outsider is just as likely to be an arrogant fool, and an arrogant fool is more likely to find skepticism offensive than a normal person. There are plenty of people, even on Hacker News, who assume that they are by default more knowledgeable than anybody else, and therefore are obliged to look at any given situation, opine, and set the record straight. Other people don't matter, and certainly their 'experiences' won't count. So, it's not surprising or offensive to run into the 'water squirt bottle of correction', where kitty gets unexpectedly hit with the message 'opining on experience you've never experienced disqualifies you as a first class advice giver'.

Chesterton's Fence is of course the idea that, if you encounter a fence and you don't know what it's for, you don't take it down until you do know what the fence was for. People tend to get worked up about the things they see that, to them, seem to be there for no reason, and advocate all the more vigorously for removing such things when to them, the existence of the thing is obvious nonsense with no possible justification… they would rather think that a thing was done by a total fool who's so inferior to them as to be hopelessly incapable, than consider the idea that their superiority might be questionable.

[omegabravo]

It's nice to learn there is a name for something that took me a few years to discover. If something doesn't make sense to me, it's probably because I'm not realising the whole scenario.

I've learnt not to critique other peoples designs without a full understanding. The designer probably would have changed a few things if they had a second attempt. Unknown and usually silly requirements can play a big part in design that you as an outsider are unaware of. I've learnt to assume competence rather than incompetence. At the time, there was likely a very good reason for such a decision.

[seanp2k2]

And sometimes the requirements that a thing was built on aren’t meant to make the best possible product, e.g. budget, repairability / maintainability, compromise due to integration with other systems, etc etc

In the same vein as “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”, “never attribute to engineering that which is adequately explained by finance” :)

[feteru]

Great comment, feel like this puts into words what I see in interactions on here sometimes that puts me off. I might say that especially on Hacker News there are people who assume they're by default more knowledgeable than others.

[couchand]

Well this isn't exactly a currently-standing fence, so the metaphor falls down.

It's more like someone coming upon their neighbor complaining about a mutual neighbor and their fence and offering them advice for the next confrontation with the neighbor.

[TillE]

It's a really simple allegory that warns about the dangers of approaching a situation from a position of ignorance.

[WastingMyTime89]

It’s not offensive. It just makes the replier looks like an idiot.

Who do you think had the best perspective on the situation? The person who went through the litigation, had lawyers, knew all the details of the case and made the decision of the poster sending a canned five lines reply based on a paragraph?

It does take much awareness to realise that sending an abrasive reply when you are in no position to do so might be ill received by the community (well at least the quickly diminishing part who wants to have an interesting discussion).

[stingraycharles]

It wasn’t my intention to claim to be an expert on the situation, as much as it was mostly to share a story and point out that there’s a large grey area here.

The parent definitely was factual and correct, but the tone made it sound a bit as if they thought my reasons for doing so were incorrect. That would be a bit of a stretch, and I think that’s what was bothering @naikrovek

[armada651]

Didn't mean to imply that was how you felt. My response was aimed at the mentality @naikrovek was stating, which is definitely a wider held belief in some communities.

[fenomas]

> An outsider ... could be more knowledgeable than the person who went through the experience

If the outsider is making general claims about similar sorts of situations, then sure. If they're predicting the behavior of someone unknown to them, but well known to the OP, then not so much.

[aantix]

So doctors know less about a situation than the patient experiencing the pain?

A good coach has zero impact on their players that actually experience the game?

[Kaze404]

A doctor certainly knows less about what the patient is feeling than the patient themselves. It's a known phenomenon with women's health, where we have medical professionals literally gaslighting us about our own physical and mental health.

[lazide]

I have a friend who got screwed by a major (top 5) US bank, won the court case against them, and they then refused to pay the settlement.

He went through the paperwork, and 6 months later they wrote him a cashiers check right then and there when he showed up with the Sheriff to take possession of one of their prized historic artifacts from the lobby of their corporate headquarters during business hours.

Not very many people are able and willing to deal with the shittiness of all the paperwork required, and a lot of bad actors count on that.

[Kinrany]

Should have taken the artifact. Magic items are always better

[pas]

wtf. which jurisdiction is this? so strange you can't take the final ruling and go to a collections agency and get your money :o

[Inhibit]

You can. But the story would imply that all that money is in receivables; it's hard to seize a big pile of debt, I assume even in Europe.

[pas]

not really as far as I know.

either the company pays up (in whole or in installments, etc) or the enter into bankruptcy proceedings and the courts appoint someone. if the company is profitable, then as above it'll eventually pay up, if not, then it'll be sold off and the liabilities will be covered up to by the income of the sale.

[v0x]

You can. In my very very limited experience you can sell it to collections for something like 80% of the value in a case where they have a perfected security interest. They will send a UCC letter to payors, who are legally obligated (from what my attorney tells me) to pay the creditor, absent some proof that they don't need to.

[joshspankit]

Do some thought experiments in your head, and you can see how quickly things break down.

Like: The courts say pay, and the company says no. So you...

- ...send police (not really the jurisdiction of the police, but let’s pretend they go). The police show up and say “Give us the money you owe” and the business says no. Now what? They can’t go on to private property without permission or warrant. Dead end.

- ... become your own collections company. You call them as much as you are legally allowed, and ask them for the money. Each time they say no. You call their family (you might not be allowed to do this) and they say “not my problem” so they are dead ends. You call their vendors and clients but all you are doing is informing them that company X owes you money. They don’t have any obligation to give you that money.

- ... sell the debt to a collections company. That company gives you pennies on the dollar (20% if you’re lucky).

- ... work through the courts to garnish wages. You have no idea what this company pays their staff for wages, nor who to target (the exec who said no?), but you push forward anyway and end up getting that garnishment. You now get 30% of everything that person makes. Let’s call that 30k/yr at the time of the garnishment. Then, that person quits or takes a “lower-paying job” and you’re down to 10k/yr. It will take decades to get what’s owed to you and in the mean time this person is actively battling you in court because they hate losing 30% of what they make every month.

- ... pursue action that gives you a percentage of the company’s net revenue. If you get it, you can only celebrate for what feels like a moment because they could have a “sudden increase in expenses” or choose to close the business and start a new one with a different name. You can try to get the agreement shifted to that new company, but that’s a whole new challenge and the whole time the founders are saying “No.” “Not our responsibility.” and so on.

It’s really very hard to get cash in hand from anyone, whether there is a court ruling or not.

[pas]

it's not that hard here (Hungary)

yes using a collections company is the fastest way, but here the cost is less than 10%.

and it's not that hard in case of mortgage defaults in the US either (foreclosure is completely routine). oh and there was a story of a dude who won some claims against some bank, the branch was either clueless or forgot to pay, so eventually the dude went to the branch office and packed up some of their furniture. (which is of course less routine)

the way it works here is that if the company doesn't pay upon the court order they automatically enter into bankruptcy and the court appoints someone to manage the company during. so they can't just suddenly "increase expenses"

[bryanrasmussen]

I'm betting that for the money Musk is in for they will go with that option though, and considering all the side effects that would probably happen if Musk just said 'No' - he would have to be a level of stubborn that borders on mental instability.