News   Nov 15, 2024
Development Opportunity Offers Pre-Approved High-Rise Potential in Downtown Hamilton
 389     0 
News   Nov 15, 2024
Crosstown Community Progressing at Don Mills and Eglinton
 820     0 
News   Nov 15, 2024
News Roundup for November 15, 2024
 408     0 

Rob Ford's Toronto

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hotmail lawyer seems to be revealing Ford's strategy. Gaze at this awesomness:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/rob-ford-wasn-t-smoking-crack-on-video-lawyer-says-1.2325017

"No one is going to approach the media with a video saying he's smoking tobacco or marijuana — it's not salacious enough," said Morris. "It's not going to sell newspapers, it's not going to make headlines all over the world...In my view the reporters from The Toronto Star have probably never smoked crack cocaine as [have] probably 99 per cent of our citizenry," said Morris. "For someone to approach them asking a large sum of money, would it make more sense to say 'I have a video of the mayor smoking crack cocaine, or have a video of the mayor smoking perhaps tobacco, or marijuana? Which one would you be interested in if you're going to buy a video?"
Click to expand...

Just what Fraud Nayshun wants to hear, I'm guessing.
 
Last edited:
Rob to rehab... The drug addiction will let him play the victim role it will explain and justify why he had to lie and why he was coaching football. Doug to go for Mayor.
 
guitarchitect said:
In terms of losing everything - sorry, but I doubt it. It's basic Business 101 that you create separate legal entities for your personal belongings and your business belongings. "Doug Ford the Person" is completely different than "Doug Ford, partner at Deco" - so while "Doug Ford the Person" can be sued and taken for all he's worth, "Doug Ford Inc" is untouched. This is what pretty much every architect who runs his/her own practice does, because if you get sued for something your office did you don't want your family and their assets to be at risk.
Click to expand...

You heart is in the right place, so to speak, but your analysis is slightly off. Try it this way:

Assume that Doug Ford owns the shares of a corporation call Doug Ford Inc. Absent extremely extraordinary facts (as in one-in-a-million-cases extraordinary), our courts will apply the doctrine that a corporation (in the example here, Doug Ford Inc.) is a person (a legal personality) distinct from the person (in the example here, a natural person, Doug Ford) who owns the shares of the corporation and that the corporation is not the agent of its shareholder and its shareholder is not the agent of the corporation. Therefore, the shareholder will not be liable for a judgment rendered against the corporation, nor will the corporation be liable for a judgment rendered against its shareholder.

In other words, the personal assets of the shareholder are not exposed if there is a judgment against the corporation, and the assets held in the corporation are not exposed if there is a judgment against the shareholder. However, there is an additional point that might be important: namely, the shares of the corporation owned by the shareholder (in our hypothetical, the shares of Doug Ford Inc. owned by Doug Ford) are part of his personal assets and so would be exposed if there were to be a judgment against him.

So, imagine that a judgment for defamation was rendered against Doug Ford Inc.; the personal assets of Doug Ford would not be exposed to that judgment. But, imagine instead that a judgment for defamation was rendered against Doug Ford; his personal assets would be exposed to that judgment, and (in the present example) his personal assets include the shares of Doug Ford Inc. Thus, if one hypothesized a sufficiently large judgment against Doug Ford, the value of Doug Ford Inc. could be taken away from him in order to satisfy the judgment.

That said, anyone with enough wealth at stake to take the trouble of getting competent professional advice on such matters as tax and estate planning will be advised not to use a simple corporation and shareholder structure such as in the example above. For example,
the person who otherwise would be the shareholder might be advised to have the shares of the main corporationowned instead by a second corporation (usually called a holding company) and to have the shares of that second corporation owned by the trustees of a trust of which he is only one of the beneficiaries and with entitlement as a beneficiary being discretionary. This can have a number of advantages: e.g., the shares of the holding company, which in turn owns the shares of the main corporation, would not pass through his estate on death, thus avoiding probate fees being charged to his estate on the value of those shares and so leaving more for his heirs; and, e.g., if he became subject to a large judgment, the trustees could decide to stop giving him anything from the trust (thus blocking the judgment creditor from getting at the value of the main corporation shares held via the holding company and the trust) and instead give it to some or all of the other beneficiaries (typically, family members).

(*Note that a classic partnership is a very different form of organization; every partner is an agent of the partnership, and a partner's personal assets are exposed to be being seized to pay a judgment rendered against the partnership if the assets held in the partnership are not enough to satisfy the judgment. In the example here, Doug Ford is the shareholder of Doug Ford Inc., not a partner of a classic partnership.)
 
animated said:
please let this be true!!!
Click to expand...

where you a rob for supporter or are you a doug ford supporter? Everyone I know who knows Doug says he doesnt have any substance abuse issues but he sure has no problem like Rob covering for anyone who might.
 
sixrings said:
Rob to rehab... The drug addiction will let him play the victim role it will explain and justify why he had to lie and why he was coaching football. Doug to go for Mayor.
Click to expand...

I thought Doug was not coming back to council... Never understood why it wasn't Doug running for mayor in the first place instead of Rob
 
Dubster said:
Then why didn't Ford just admit this back when the story first broke? Why would Lisi beat up people to get the video? Why was Ford taken to a known crack den to smoke weed? How dense do they think we are?
Click to expand...

They think we are all FordNation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top