MF Global parent being sued on behalf of child (corporate personhood)

[Guinastasia]

@Giles

That could be better that some real-life foster parents

Well, now that Sandusky’s fired it is.

[rat_avatar]

“If corporations are persons, JP Morgan Chase and all other unsecured creditors of the parent will just have to get in line…the Child comes first.”

Here is a better link to this guys claim

http://www.paradisepundit.com/returning-100-of-mf-global-customer-funds-a-trans-parent-solution/

They are just fishing, trying everything to get priority status.

Or I bet at least that is what the judge thinks may be the case.

I’ll bet they will look at the costs to the parent companies investors if the Subsidiary fails vs it’s value as a functioning company and that parenthood as a person is tossed out.

[rat_avatar]

@rat_avatar

Here is a better link to this guys claim

http://www.paradisepundit.com/returning-100-of-mf-global-customer-funds-a-trans-parent-solution/

They are just fishing, trying everything to get priority status.

Or I bet at least that is what the judge thinks may be the case.

I’ll bet they will look at the costs to the parent companies investors if the Subsidiary fails vs it’s value as a functioning company and that parenthood as a person is tossed out.

Also note, this guy is not a lawyer, he was a futures trader who lost his shirt and started reading law.

So I took what many might think was radical action. I actually went and read the law for myself! Think of it…in this day and age, a regular citizen not relying on the expert lawyers, regulators, Congresspeople — those who should know — and reading the law for himself. The internet made that quite easy, of course. I read the pertinent parts of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), the Securities Exchange Act (SEA), the CFTC and SEC Rules, and almost the entire Bankruptcy Code. And what I found empowered me.

[Tom_Tildrum]

@rat_avatar

Also note, this guy is not a lawyer, he was a futures trader who lost his shirt and started reading law.

I suspect he’s representing himself, too.

It must be intended as humor. Why else would he have a picture of Will Ferrell on his website?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Linden_Arden

Is there a law?

I thought there was not. Personhood is merely a SCOTUS invention. I could well be mistaken.

SCOTUS inventions are law. There isn’t a statute, but corporate personhood is just as strongly enshrined in law as if Congress passed a bill declaring that corporate personhood exists. Anyway, SCOTUS didn’t invent the idea; it’s existed at common law in some form since the 13th century.

Incidentally, while I’m not a fan of the recent expansion of the concept, this lawsuit has about as much merit as the PETA whale slavery suit.

[RickJay]

@Linden_Arden

But the issue here is not the denial of personhood, but the acceptance of such so that a child/subsidiary is protected from outside claims by other parties.

No, the issue here is that Adam Furgatch doesn’t know what a “legal person” is.

Like fifty million people on the Internet, Furgatch thinks that the legal personage of a corporation is equivalent to status as a human being. It is not. It never has been. No court ruling has ever said that. It absolutely is NOT an invention of the USSC; it was invented centuries before George Washington was born. Corporations are legal persons but they are not natural persons, e.g. actual humans; that’s why they can’t vote or do a hundred other things real, living people can go.

Furgatch’s argument that child support laws apply to corporations is semantic idiocy. The right to parental support is intrinsic to a human being, not a legal person. It’s exactly equivalent to applying animal cruelty laws if you fail to maintain your Jaguar XF; just because the word “Jaguar” is used to describe both a creature and a machine does not make the machine and the creature the same thing.