Connect with us

Business

First Brands founder accused of looting company

Published

on



At first, the sales invoice said $179.84. Later, the bill said $9,271.25 – 50 times more.

It was one more trick in a series of alleged ruses – from fudged numbers and questionable collateral, to off-balance-sheet financing and a company slush fund — at First Brands Group, company advisers now claim.

Directing it all, First Brands’ bankruptcy lawyers alleged Monday, was founder Patrick James. The Malaysian-born businessman persuaded prominent Wall Street firms to lend vast sums to his auto-parts company and then misappropriated millions, if not billions, of that money, their lawsuit claims.

Seventeen “exotic cars.” “Lavish” homes in Malibu and the Hamptons. Six-figure bills for a “celebrity” chef and a personal trainer. Those are just some of the allegations involving James’ supposed big-spending lifestyle.

The September collapse of First Brands, a midsize manufacturer that normally wouldn’t draw much attention on Wall Street, has exposed cracks in today’s turbo-charged credit market.

But Monday’s civil lawsuit, which cited the allegedly doctored invoice and dozens of others like it, adds new layers to the financial drama. It also tells a darker story – one of high living financed by years of outright fraud.

The suit claims James siphoned hundreds of millions of dollars from First Brands, all while the company doctored its accounts and promised the same collateral to different lenders to secure private loans and off-balance sheet financing.

James “misrepresented First Brands’ financial position to secure billions in debt financing,” the suit claims. James then “secretly pilfered some of the company’s assets to fund his and his family’s lavish lifestyle.”

A spokesman for James vigorously denied creditors’ allegations Tuesday, characterizing the suit as “baseless” and “speculative.”

“Mr. James has always conducted himself ethically and is committed to doing everything he can to support First Brands’ stakeholders during the restructuring process,” the spokesperson said in a statement to Bloomberg News.

James’ lawyers said in court papers filed late Tuesday that claims about funds being transferred out of First Brands are not supported by evidence or documented asset tracing and instead, “appear to be based entirely on the unsupported mental leap that, if funds were transferred within time frame roughly close to personal expenditures by Mr. James, such funds must have been used for that personal expenditure.” 

Celebrity Chef

Among the most surprising allegations in the lawsuit is the claim that James directed First Brands to raise funds by selling non-existent or doctored invoices to so-called factoring firms, which provide immediate cash to businesses by purchasing their receivables. First Brands is also accusing James of commingling corporate and personal accounts and draining more than $700 million from the business. According to James’ lawyers, this allegation lacks accounting and other documentary evidence. 

By the time it filed for Chapter 11 on Sept. 28, First Brands had just $12 million in the bank, according to court papers.

Among the allegations in Monday’s lawsuit, James was said to have used money from First Brands accounts to pay $500,000 for a private “celebrity chef” this year and at least $3 million for rent on a New York City townhouse. (The name of the chef wasn’t disclosed.) 

James is also accused of directing others to submit invoices that were reimbursed by Battery Park Holdings LLC, an entity he owns. First Brands transferred more than $10 million to Battery Park between 2018 and 2025 to pay for his and his family’s personal expenses, according to court papers. 

One invoice Battery Park submitted to First Brands in 2023 sought reimbursement for more than $110,000 for a six-week stay at a “Southampton hotel” with two individuals not affiliated with First Brands, the lawsuit said.

Over the years, according to the suit, First Brands made other substantial transfers to entities controlled by James, transactions that occurred “in close proximity to his acquisition of various real estate properties and cars.” It included disbursements from First Brands prior to James purchasing a home in Malibu in 2019 and the Hamptons in August 2021, the lawsuit said.

In addition to the fleet of exotic cars, the suit claims James owns at least seven properties.

Asset Freeze

The situation is now so urgent that First Brands advisers have asked a Texas bankruptcy judge to freeze James’ bank accounts.

Charles Moore, First Brands’ interim CEO, said in a court filing that the company is concerned James, a resident of Ohio, could flee the U.S., calling him a “Malaysian national” with “hundreds of millions of dollars at his disposal.” Federal prosecutors are investigating First Brands, Bloomberg News reported in October.

“Mr. James is an American citizen with deep business and financial roots in the United States,” James’ spokesperson said in the statement Tuesday. “He also has not been a Malaysian citizen since 1988. The notion that he is a potential flight risk is patently absurd.”

The civil suit indicates that alleged wrongdoing at First Brands was more widespread than previously alleged and comes days after certain lenders accused the company of “widespread fraud.” First Brands is next scheduled to appear in Texas bankruptcy court on Thursday.

The $179.84 invoice from May 9 was packaged with thousands of others and later sold to Katsumi Global, a joint venture between Norinchukin Bank and Japanese trading house Mitsui & Co. Other invoices Katsumi purchased were also inflated, some by as much as $12,000 or $15,000, according to the lawsuit.

In all, the package of invoices was so inflated, Moore alleged in a court filing Monday, that Katsumi spent about $11 million to purchase First Brands invoices that were only worth about $2.3 million. A lawyer for Katsumi has said the venture has $1.75 billion of exposure to bankrupt auto-parts supplier.

James’ lawyers said on Tuesday that First Brands advisers are attempting to “smear” the company founder in order to obtain an order freezing his assets. The auto-parts supplier’s advisers have provided a one-sided account of the transactions and ignore large sums that James put into the business before it filed Chapter 11, including roughly $40 million over the summer, his lawyers said.

Creditor Disputes

The lawsuit also provides greater insight into a potential dispute between lenders that own roughly $6 billion in senior company debt and firms that had deals with the off-balance sheet First Brands special purpose vehicles.

Moore said the SPVs didn’t maintain adequate books and records and that an independent board investigation into the collapse is ongoing. However, he said it appears that the same inventory First Brands purportedly transferred to its SPVs instead remained in the borrowing base of the company’s asset-based loan and other credit facilities. 

The alleged double-pledging of collateral could set up a creditor fight in bankruptcy court. First Brands is next scheduled to appear in bankruptcy court in Texas on Thursday.

In the meantime, lenders in a Wednesday court filing called First Brands’ $1.1 billion in Chapter 11 financing, which it lined up to fund a potential restructuring of the business, “arguably among the riskiest in recent history.” 

“There are now documented allegations of rampant fraud against the debtors’ owner and CEO, Patrick James, and ongoing criminal investigations,” the lenders said, “which imperil the very fate of this company.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Jensen Huang says AI bubble fears are dwarfed by ‘largest infrastructure buildout in human history’

Published

on



Pushing back against growing skepticism regarding the sustainability of artificial intelligence spending, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang argued against the mountain backdrop of Davos, Switzerland, that high capital expenditures are not a sign of a financial bubble, but rather evidence of “the largest infrastructure buildout in human history.”

Speaking in conversation with BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, the interim co-chair of the World Economic Forum, Huang detailed an industrial transformation that extends far beyond software code, reshaping global labor markets and driving unprecedented demand for skilled tradespeople. While much of the public debate focuses on the potential for AI to replace white-collar jobs, Huang pointed to an immediate boom in blue-collar employment required to physically construct the new computing economy.

“It’s wonderful that the jobs are related to tradecraft, and we’re going to have plumbers and electricians and construction and steel workers,” Huang said. He noted the urgency to erect “AI factories,” chip plants, and data centers has radically altered the wage landscape for manual labor. “Salaries have gone up, nearly doubled, and so we’re talking about six-figure salaries for people who are building chip factories or computer factories,” Huang said, emphasizing the industry is currently facing a “great shortage” of these workers.

Ford CEO Jim Farley has been warning for months about the labor shortage in what he calls the “essential economy,” exactly the type of jobs mentioned by Huang in Davos. Earlier this month, Farley told Fortune these 95 million jobs are the “backbone of our country,” and he was partnering with local retailer Carhartt to boost workforce development, community building, and “the tools required by the men and women who keep the American Dream alive.” 

It’s time we all reinvest in the people who make our world work with their hands,” Farley said.

In October, at Ford’s Pro Accelerate conference, Farley shared that his own son was wrestling with whether to go to college or pursue a career in the trades. The Ford CEO has estimated the shortage at 600,000 in factories and nearly the same in construction.

Huang dismisses bubble fears

Fink brought up the bubble talk for a good reason: Fear of a popping bubble gripped markets for much of the back half of 2025, with luminaries such as Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon, and, just the previous day in Davos, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, warning about the potential for pain. Much of this originated in the underwhelming release of OpenAI’s GPT-5 in August, but also the MIT study that found 95% of generative AI pilots were failing to generate a return on investment. “Permabears” such as Albert Edwards, global strategist at Société Générale, have talked about how there’s likely a bubble brewing—but then again, they always think that.

Huang, whose company became the face of the AI revolution when it blew past $4 trillion in market capitalization (a bar recently reached by Alphabet on the positive release of its Gemini update), tackled these fears in conversation with Fink, arguing the term misdiagnoses the situation. Critics often point to the massive sums being spent by hyperscalers and corporations as unsustainable, but Huang countered the appearance of a bubble happens because “the investments are large … and the investments are large because we have to build the infrastructure necessary for all of the layers of AI above it.”

Huang went deeper on his food metaphor, describing the AI industry as a “five-layer cake” requiring total industrial reinvention, with Nvidia’s chips a particularly crunchy part of the recipe. The bottom layer is energy, followed by chips, cloud infrastructure, and models, with applications sitting at the top. The current wave of spending is focused on the foundational layers—energy and chips—which creates tangible assets rather than speculative vapor. Far from a bubble, he described a new industry being built from the ground up.

“There are trillions of dollars of infrastructure that needs to be built out,” Huang said, noting that the world is currently only “a few 100 billion dollars into it.”

To prove the market is driven by real demand rather than speculation, Huang offered a practical “test” for the bubble theory: the rental price of computing power as seen in the price of Nvidia’s GPU chips.

“If you try to rent an Nvidia GPU these days, it’s so incredibly hard, and the spot price of GPU rentals is going up, not just the latest generation, but two-generation-old GPUs,” he said. This scarcity indicates established companies are shifting their research and development budgets—such as pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly moving funds from wet labs to AI supercomputing—rather than simply burning venture capital.

Beyond construction and infrastructure, Huang addressed the broader anxiety regarding AI’s impact on human employment. He argued AI ultimately changes the “task” of a job rather than eliminating the “purpose” of the job. Citing radiology as an example, he noted that despite AI diffusing into every aspect of the field over the last decade, the number of radiologists has actually increased. Because AI handles the task of studying scans infinitely faster, doctors can focus on their core purpose: patient diagnosis and care, leading to higher hospital throughput and increased hiring.

Fink reframed the issue, based on Huang’s pushback. “So what I’m hearing is, we’re far from an AI bubble. The question is, are we investing enough?” Fink asked, positing that current spending levels might actually be insufficient to broaden the global economy.

Huang appeared to say: not really. “I think the the opportunity is really quite extraordinary, and everybody ought to get involved. Everybody ought to get engaged. We need more energy,” he said, adding the industry needs more land, power, trade, scale and workers. Huang said the U.S. has lost its workforce population in many ways over the last 20-30 years, “but it’s still incredibly strong,” and in Europe, pointing around him in Switzerland, he saw “an extraordinary opportunity to take advantage of.” He noted 2025 was the largest investment year in venture capital history, with $100 billion invested around the world, mostly on AI natives.”

Huang concluded by emphasizing this infrastructure buildout is global, urging developing nations and Europe to engage in “sovereign AI” by building their own domestic infrastructure. For Europe specifically, he highlighted a “once-in-a-generation opportunity” to leverage its strong industrial base to lead in “physical AI” and robotics, effectively merging the new digital intelligence with traditional manufacturing. Far from a bubble, he seemed to be saying, this is just the beginning.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Nearly 400 millionaires and billionaires are demanding Davos leaders to tax them more: ‘Tax us. Tax the super rich.’

Published

on



While the wealthiest business leaders from U.S. president Donald Trump to Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang touch down in the Swiss town of Davos to discuss the state of the world, a cohort of the ultra-rich are already sounding the alarm. Hundreds of millionaires and billionaires released an open letter in time for the World Economic Forum, calling on leaders attending the conference to fight raging wealth inequality with taxes. 

“Millionaires like us refuse to be silent. It is time to be counted. Tax us and make sure the next fifty years meet the promise of progress for everyone,” the letter stated

“Extreme wealth has led to extreme control for those who gamble with our safe future for their obscene gains. Now is the time to end that control and win back our future.”

So far, nearly 400 millionaires and billionaires across 24 countries have signed the letter condemning extreme wealth, including the likes of Hollywood actor Mark Ruffalo, Disney heirs Abby and Tim Disney, and real estate developer Jeffrey Gural.

The open letter is part of a “Time to Win” campaign, led by wealth redistribution organizations including Patriotic Millionaires, Millionaires for Humanity, and Oxfam. It criticized global oligarchs with riches who have “bought up” democracies, exacerbated poverty, stifled tech innovation, dampened press freedom, and overall, “accelerated the breakdown of our planet.” After all, 77% of millionaires from G20 nations think extremely wealthy individuals buy political influence, and 71% believe those with riches can significantly influence elections, according to a poll conducted for Patriotic Millionaires.

The Time to Win wealthy signatories offer a simple solution: “Tax us. Tax the super rich.”

“As millionaires who stand shoulder to shoulder with all people, we demand it,” the open letter continued. “And as our elected representatives—whether it’s those of you at Davos, local councillors, city mayors, or regional leaders—it’s your duty to deliver it.

Stars and billionaires are calling out the super-rich for being ungenerous 

As the world mints hundreds of thousands of millionaires yearly and billionaire wealth soars to record highs, some leaders can’t stand to stay quiet. Celebrities and the ultra-rich haven’t just sent a message to money-hoarders with the Time to Win letter—some have even called out billionaires in person, questioning their existence. 

“If you’re a billionaire, why are you a billionaire? No hate, but yeah, give your money away, shorties,” Eilish said onstage last year at the WSJ Magazine Innovator Awards with Meta mogul Mark Zuckerberg, worth $214 billion, in attendance. 

Even the most philanthropic members of the ultra-rich club are wary of their peers’ lack of charity. Billionaires have started their own initiatives like Warren Buffett, Melinda French Gates, and Bill Gates’ The Giving Pledge, which attracted more than 250 billionaires who pledged to donate at least half of their wealth during their lifetimes, or in their wills. But efforts have largely fallen short. Last year, French Gates admitted that the signatories haven’t given enough; And in a letter to shareholders, Buffett fessed up to the fact that billionaires aren’t following through. 

“Early on, I contemplated various grand philanthropic plans. Though I was stubborn, these did not prove feasible,” Buffett wrote. “During my many years, I’ve also watched ill-conceived wealth transfers by political hacks, dynastic choices, and, yes, inept or quirky philanthropists.”

Billionaire and millionaire wealth is on the rise 

There’s more people rolling in riches than ever before, and it’s fueling an equity crisis at the bottom of the economic ladder. 

In 2024 alone, the U.S. minted 379,000 new millionaires—over 1,000 millionaires every day—as the proportion of Americans in the ultrawealthy club swelled by 1.5%, according to a 2025 report from investment bank UBS. This cohort held about $107 trillion in total wealth at the end of that year: more than four times the amount they owned at the turn of the millennium. 

In 2000, there were only 13.27 million everyday millionaires, but by the end of 2024, the group swelled to 52 million people worldwide. 

While it might appear that eye-watering riches are spreading out to a larger number of individuals, it’s mainly concentrating at the top. America’s top 20% household earners—averaging a net worth of $4.3 million—accounted for about 71% of the U.S.’s total wealth at the end of 2024, according to 2025 data from the Federal Reserve. 

Meanwhile, the bottom half of American households, averaging about $60,000 in wealth, owned just 2.5% of the country’s wealth. For the vast majority of U.S. citizens, joining the millionaire club—and even more so, the billionaire club—is a total pipe dream.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Trump fast tracks ‘three-week’ nuclear approval for big tech to fuel AI race

Published

on



President Donald Trump offered Silicon Valley an extraordinary deal on Wednesday: Build your own nuclear power plants to fuel AI, and his administration will approve them in just three weeks.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Trump addressed a room of tech executives struggling with an aging U.S. electrical grid.

“I came up with the idea,” Trump said. “You people are brilliant. You have a lot of money. You can build your own electric generating plants.”

Trump talked for about 10 minutes about energy in his speech, making it clear Trump views a straining electric grid as a central economic risk of 2026. As artificial intelligence pushes electricity demand to record highs, the administration is framing power shortages as an existential threat to growth and national security. Slashing approval timelines, Trump argued, is a necessary response to an energy system he said he believes is fundamentally unprepared for the AI era.

“We needed more than double the energy currently in the country just to take care of the AI plants,” Trump said. 

The proposal marks a radical departure from the traditional Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) process, which historically requires four to five years for environmental and design approvals as well as rigorous site selection. Trump claimed that while tech leaders initially “didn’t believe him,” he assured them the government would deliver approvals for oil and gas plants in just two weeks, with nuclear projects following in three.

Trump said he wasn’t “a big fan” of nuclear power before, but now sees it as a newly viable solution due to safety improvements. 

“The progress they’ve made with nuclear is unbelievable,” he said. “We’re very much into the world of nuclear energy, and we can have it now at good prices and very, very safe.” 

While the potential upcoming wave of small modular nuclear reactors (SMR) could receive regulatory approvals in less than two years, there is little basis for going through an approval process with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in closer to three weeks, and such an expedited process would trigger widespread concerns about safety and environmental risks.

Trump also touted a new energy alliance with Venezuela, noting the U.S. secured 50 million barrels of oil last week following the “end of an attack” on the nation that led to the deposition of President Nicolás Maduro. He said the new cooperation between the two nations would make Venezuela “fantastically well” while driving U.S. gasoline prices toward $2.00 a gallon.

Gasoline prices are the main inflationary measure by which costs have fallen during the first year of the new Trump administration. But they’re nowhere close to $2.00 per gallon. The national average for a gallon of regular unleaded is $2.76 per gallon this week, down 32 cents from a year ago, primarily because of rising OPEC oil production.

But Trump drew a sharp contrast with Europe’s energy landscape. Trump mocked the “Green New Scam,” citing a 64% spike in German electricity prices and the “catastrophic” decline of energy production in the United Kingdom. He targeted the North Sea and the proliferation of wind farms, which he labeled “losers” that “kill the birds.”

“Stupid people buy” wind farms, Trump laughed.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.