Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
In the case of a fraudulent conveyance, yes. If it was a normal business partner (i.e. outside vendor), it may not even be a preferential treatment within the 90 day period.It can be extended if it was done to an insider such as a friend or business partner.The $727,190 is what he claimed as 2013 income on his statement of financial affairs in his filing.OK, so the $700K figure people are throwing around is just deposits into the business account for last year. But at some point the money had to come out and it should be fairly easy to track where it went to. Depending on where it went, the trustee can sue if he determines one creditor was given preferential treatment. Maybe even if the money did go to a software developer, which few people give any merit too. Things can really get hairy for Mike if he took out the money for personal reasons.$700,000 isn't the amount that was taken out; it's the amount that went in.Of course if no FBGer attends and represents the potential fraud of taking out $700,000 last year potentially was, the trustee may not go back that far and pursue it.
He listed $1,000,000 in gross receipts (estimated, pre-tax) for 2014.
Preferential treatment only applies to payments made in the last 90 days before filing - which are:
$20,000 to PayPal
$1,300 to American Express
$156,413 to Secure Bancard
I'm not sure about the American Express payment but PayPal and Secured Bancard payments may either be business expenses (which would probably put them ahead of the unsecured creditors [prize winners] anyway), or they could be prize payments made to baseball winners (in which case they could get clawed back into the bankruptcy (but not sure how they would go back and collect from numerous individual winners, assuming PayPal already distributed it out).
Last edited by a moderator: