Legal Financing
Find a lawyer or law firm who wants to represent you and talk to them.
Shanghai can not be the international financial center of China, or China's inbound/outbound trade, as long as it does not have rule of law.  Even Chinese corporates go to Hong Kong to sign contracts because the commercial legal system is efficient, fair, and predictable.  Shanghai is a city (and a great one, no doubt!) doing business in a restricted, capital-controlled currency, under a legal system which is corrupt and arbitrary.  You wouldn't want to get into a dispute there with, say, Bank of China.  When there is a trusted legal system in China then finance will follow.  Meanwhile, show me anyone who wants to sign an ISDA agreement under Chinese law, subject an international bond indenture to Chinese law (rather than New York or English law), or do a securitization using Chinese law or counterparties.  HK's biggest problem may be that the Mainland is imperiling rule of law in the SAR.  If that is lost, the city has no reason to exist. You might want to head on over to https://law.stackexchange.com/ and ask the same question.   However from a personal finance perspective this kind of drama is somewhat common when someone is deceased and financial expectations are not met by the heirs.  It sounds like the daughter was expecting a lot more in inheritance than was actually received.  There was probably an overestimation of dad's net worth and an underestimation of the cost of his care toward the end of his life. Its best not to participate in this drama, and I feel that you are correct that the daughter does not have a right to see the bank account statements prior to dad's passage.  The question is also if she has a right to see it now. Here in the US a joint account can be setup so the ownership transfers to other account holder(s) up death of an owner.  So in this case your mother would own the account.  If the account is setup as such, then the estate has no right to that money.  You may want to check with the bank for some free advice.  What is the classification of the account now that dad has passed?  When a person grants someone else the power of attorney they have the ability to act as if they were that person.  Most of the time POAs are limited in scope so If I give a person the POA to register a car in my name, they cannot apply for a credit card in my name (legally).  In this case, however, the POA was probably general so pretty much your mom could do whatever she pleased. So if your mom took good care of the dad and bought herself some nice jewelry that is perfectly allowable with a general POA. I strongly doubt this daughter has any rights to the past records and may not even have the rights to the joint bank account currently. "If you're really interested in the long-term success of your business, and you can get by in your personal finances without taking anything from the business for the time being, then don't.   There is no ""legal requirement"" to pay yourself a prevailing wage if doing so would put the company out of business.  it is common for a company's principals not to draw wages from the business until it is viable enough to sustain payroll.  I was in that situation when I first began my business, so the notion that somehow I'm violating a law by being fiscally responsible for my own company is nonsense. Be wise with your new business.  You didn't state why you feel the need to take some kind of payment out, but this can be a crucial mistake if it imperils your business or if that money could be better spent on marketing or some other areas which improve revenues. You can always create a salary deferral agreement between yourself and your own company which basically states that the company owes you wages but you are, for the time being, willing to defer accepting them until such time that the company has sufficient revenues to pay you.  That's one solution, but the simplest answer is, if you don't need the money you're thinking of paying yourself, don't do it.  Let that money work for you in the business so that it pays off better in the long run. Good luck!" "To be able to truly short something you technically need to be able to borrow the security so you can sell it.  There needs to be a system for borrowing in place to be able to do this which is very robust for large U.S. stocks but doesn't exist for CDOs mainly due to the complex legal structures around them.   However, the word ""short"" is commonly used in finance to mean profiting from a loss of value of something.  So the use in the movie title, though a bit confusing, was fine. Credit Default Swaps are not technically insurance as you don't need own the thing you are ""insuring"" (and for a few other reasons).  However, I agree with the movie that thinking of them as insurance is a pretty good way to understand them.  As you are playing a monthly premium to for a contract that pays out when something goes very wrong.   However, the movie was a little fast a loose as CDS of various types were regularly traded well before the bubble even started.  Though maybe not that particular type of CDS.  So while they may have been ""expensive"" it was the easiest route and reasonable idea." This situation is exactly why we have the concept of legal tender. Legal tender is a form of payment that must be accepted to settle a debt. Your friend is entitled to insist on paying the rent in cash — accepting any other form of payment is at the landlord’s discretion. "Umm, it depends on the transaction but a lot of transactions get done on a ""cash free / debt free"" basis.  Meaning, I'll pay you 5x EBITDA (or $500) and you deliver the company without any cash or debt subject to a ""standard"" amount of working capital.  Ultimately, you're confusing enterprise value and equity value.  The two companies may have different purchase prices (equity values) but they should have very similar enterprise values (given the hypothetical scenario you put together)." He did not go into specifics but he said that a usual case would probably be around $10 to $20 million. And that they make the deal in a matter of days. The deal usually closes after extensive due diligence between them and another law firm. Thanks for that, it did help.   I think my issue is I don't work in finance itself, I'm a lawyer, and 'capital' generally has a very specific meaning in English company law, where it refers exclusively to shareholder capital.   I realise capital in finance terms includes both debt and equity investment.