• New management for the bankrupt auto parts supplier is suing its founder, Patrick James.
• The suit claims James fraudulently secured billions in financing and then enriched himself.
• The suit references ‘exotic’ cars, a celebrity chef, and homes from New York to California.

Seventeen “exotic” cars. “Lavish” homes from New York to California. A private “celebrity chef.”

These are just some of the big spending allegations that have emerged in a lawsuit filed this week against Patrick James, the founder of auto parts supplier First Brands, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in September.

The lawsuit, filed by First Brands’ new management, said James “misrepresented First Brands’ financial position to secure billions in debt financing” over the years. The company’s founder then “secretly pilfered some of the company’s assets to fund his and his family’s lavish lifestyle,” said the lawsuit filed by Weil Goyshal lawyers in the southern district of Texas bankruptcy court.

First Brands’ bankruptcy filing last month followed the implosion of auto lender TriColor, prompting Wall Street titan Jamie Dimon to question what other corporate “cockroaches” lurk beneath the surface of an otherwise healthy economy.

A spokesman for James said he plans to challenge the allegations, which he denied. “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 spokesman said in an emailed statement.

The lawsuit said James used company funds “to pay for or otherwise maintain” his lavish lifestyle, including:

• Seven properties and “an extensive car collection, including at least seventeen exotic cars.”
• Some $3 million from First Brands accounts toward rent payments for James’s New York City townhouse between 2019 and 2024.
• Over $2 million from First Brands’ accounts in 2025 for payroll to James’s personal family office.
• Approximately $500,000 from First Brands accounts in 2024 “to Mr. James’ private celebrity chef.”
• $150,000 for a celebrity personal trainer through Battery Park Holdings LLC.

• $110,000 reimbursed by First Brands to Battery Park for a six-week Southampton hotel stay for two non-employees in August 2023.
• Millions to entities James controlled in the months leading up to his purchase of luxury homes in the Hamptons, NY, and Malibu, California.
• About $8 million from First Brands to James’ son-in-law’s “wellness” company, Archive Health LLC, between 2021 and 2025.

James’ spokesman said the money that went to Archive Health was for “legitimate expenses associated with the company’s role providing health clinic services to approximately 7,000 families of First Brands factory employees in both the US and Mexico.”

The lawsuit also said some $700 million was transferred from First Brands to Patrick James or entities he controlled between 2018 and 2025, including over $600 million to the Patrick James Trust “for no consideration and for no valid business purpose.”

The Rochester, Michigan-based company has asked the court to freeze James’ assets.

The new lawsuit also accused James of misrepresenting the company’s finances to secure debt financing. It said James caused First Brands to incur, “at least $2.3 billion in accounts receivable factoring liabilities based, at least in significant part, on non-existent or doctored invoices.”

It also said he allowed the company to double-pledge collateral tied to another $2.3 billion in financing involving a special purpose vehicle, the lawsuit said.

• Sydney Sweeney’s American Eagle ad sparked backlash from critics who called it a “eugenics dog whistle.”
• The ad led to increased publicity for American Eagle and a reaction from President Trump.
• Sweeney addressed the controversy for the first time to GQ, calling Trump’s reaction “surreal.”

Almost four months after her American Eagle ad campaign ignited controversy online, Sydney Sweeney is addressing the backlash.

In a new interview with GQ, the “Euphoria” and “Anyone But You” star was largely nonchalant about the “great genes” ads, which sparked debate online over the campaign’s perceived racial implications.

“I did a jean ad,” Sweeney said. “I mean, the reaction definitely was a surprise, but I love jeans. All I wear are jeans. I’m literally in jeans and a T-shirt every day of my life.”

That jean ad not only led to an impressive stock surge for American Eagle, but Vice President JD Vance mocked the backlash. Even President Trump gave his two cents.

“The jeans are ‘flying off the shelves.’ Go get ’em Sydney!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

So what did Sweeney think of Trump’s shoutout?

“It was surreal,” she told GQ.

Still, she admitted she didn’t pay too much attention to the controversy surrounding the ad in the summer because she was working.

“I kind of just put my phone away. I was filming every day. I’m filming ‘Euphoria,'” she said, referring to the upcoming third season of the HBO series. “So I’m working 16-hour days, and I don’t really bring my phone on set, so I work and then I go home and I go to sleep. So I didn’t really see a lot of it.”

Sweeney will next be seen in “Christy,” in which she plays former boxer Christy Martin. The movie is in theaters Friday.

• Perplexity says Amazon is “bullying” it over the agentic AI web browser Comet and its access to Amazon’s storefront.
• Amazon sent “an aggressive legal threat,” Perplexity wrote in a blog post on Tuesday.
• An Amazon spokesperson said AI tools that make purchases on other platforms should “respect service provider decisions whether or not to participate.”

A tech titan and a buzzy AI startup are fighting over exactly how much purchasing power an AI agent should have.

Perplexity, an $18 billion AI startup that makes the buzzy AI web browser Comet, published a blog post on Tuesday saying that it had received a legal threat from Amazon.

“This week, Perplexity received an aggressive legal threat from Amazon, demanding we prohibit Comet users from using their AI assistants on Amazon. This is Amazon’s first legal salvo against an AI company, and it is a threat to all internet users,” Perplexity wrote in a blog post titled “Bullying is Not Innovation.”

“Amazon wants to block you from using your own AI assistant to shop on their platform,” the AI startup wrote.

“Amazon should love this. Easier shopping means more transactions and happier customers. But Amazon doesn’t care. They’re more interested in serving you ads, sponsored results, and influencing your purchasing decisions with upsells and confusing offers,” the company added.

It’s the latest legal salvo launched against Perplexity and its CEO, Aravind Srinivas, who leads one of the highest-valued AI startups to emerge during the AI boom. While Perplexity’s AI search products have proven popular, they’ve also led to legal challenges over the startup’s data access and training practices.

Shares of Amazon were trading down around 1.7% as of 2:19 p.m. in New York.

Amazon posted a statement on its website Tuesday about the matter.

“We think it’s fairly straightforward that third-party applications that offer to make purchases on behalf of customers from other businesses should operate openly and respect service provider decisions whether or not to participate,” Amazon said.

“This helps ensure a positive customer experience and it is how others operate, including food delivery apps and the restaurants they take orders for, delivery service apps and the stores they shop from, and online travel agencies and the airlines they book tickets with for customers,” the statement continued. “Agentic third-party applications such as Perplexity’s Comet have the same obligations, and we’ve repeatedly requested that Perplexity remove Amazon from the Comet experience, particularly in light of the significantly degraded shopping and customer service experience it provides.”

Last month, Reddit sued Perplexity and other companies it called “data scrapers,” accusing them of stealing data from the social media platform. The suit said that Perplexity’s citations of Reddit increased “forty-fold” after the social media platform told Perplexity to stop accessing its data.

Perplexity has also faced suits from Encyclopedia Britannica and Merriam-Webster, as well as News Corp.’s New York Post and Dow Jones, which filed a complaint alleging copyright infringement. Last year, The New York Times sent a cease-and-desist letter to Perplexity, according to reports.

A spokesperson for Perplexity previously told Business Insider that the AI startup “will always fight vigorously for users’ rights to freely and fairly access public knowledge.”

• Robert E. Williams left AT&T to pursue a career in AI startups and venture capital.
• He says startup life is faster and more invigorating than Big Tech, but there are risks involved.
• Williams says making calculated career decisions helped him transition between careers smoothly.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Robert E. Williams, a 40-year-old VC board director and startup advisor based in Maryland. It’s been edited for length and clarity.

I spent the first 13 years of my career at AT&T, working my way up to an assistant VP-level position. Then, I remember asking myself a question that unlocked a complete shift in what I wanted: If all the money and safety were to blow up in Big Tech, what would I really want to do?

In 2021, I left AT&T and stepped down from my title to take a bet on myself. After a series of calculated career risks, I joined an AI startup, and now I work in venture capital as an advisor for startups I believe in.

The startup world has been invigorating and completely unlike the past predictability of Big Tech. If Big Tech is a luxury yacht, then startups are a speedboat.

I loved a lot of things about my time in Big Tech

In 2007, I came straight out of undergrad into an account executive role at AT&T, where I had a really supportive development system around me and was able to take on a lot of responsibility quickly. I met some great people and had mentors who really showed me the ropes. Plus, the money was safe, which meant a lot as a young twenty-something.

I worked my way up from sales manager to director and was eventually promoted to an assistant VP role in 2018. I had a lot of responsibility, but everything felt very structured.

From weekly meeting cadences to quarterly business reviews, I always knew the playbook we’d run for that day, week, and month.

During the pandemic, I had a lot more time to think about what was important to me

While I valued the stability of a big company, the relationships I built, and my time leading large teams, I wanted to expand my experiences into the growth areas of tech. In 2020, that was the cloud and the earlier days of AI and machine learning.

I wasn’t ready to make the startup leap yet, but I knew I needed to join an established company with a culture of innovation and disruption in emerging tech. When I left AT&T, I joined AWS as a sales leader. It was a calculated risk, but I was willing to bet on myself to prove that I could thrive in this new environment.

A year later, I took another calculated step down to a startup-style division of Palo Alto Networks, and then I felt ready to go all in on startups.

I found startup life invigorating

In 2023, I joined an AI and quantum startup as its head of global channels, and later its head of revenue and partnerships. We were building partnerships around the world, so I was probably on a plane at least every other week, getting in front of customers.

I worked most days from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., building the team, responding to customers, and negotiating contracts. My scope of work was much broader than it ever was in Big Tech, and it was invigorating. I’d quickly see the fruits of my labor as new customers, partnerships, and media came through.

The startup world is inherently unpredictable, and I had to wear a lot of hats

In one moment, you could be helping the team respond to a critical RFP response deadline, and then in another, you’d be briefing investors from a $100M VC fund.

The pay is high risk, high reward. It’s very common to forgo some of the typical Big Tech cash “on target earnings” for additional equity upside. I found it important to have a genuine conviction in both the market and the startup before making that tradeoff. It needs to fit into your lifestyle goals for three to five years until an exit event.

Now, as a VC, I have more time to focus on what matters to me

There wasn’t anything I disliked about startup life, but after a few years, I wanted to scale that impact across multiple companies.

In May, I stepped down to an advisor role at the startup, which allowed me to become a board of director for a VC, and an advisor for two other startups: one fintech company and one medical device startup in Africa.

Even though I’m covering more ground in terms of companies, I’ve gotten so much time back, not having to be on a plane every week. I’ve been spending more quality time with family and reconnecting with old friends that I haven’t seen in some time.

I’ve also had time to double down on mentorship and advisory work with startup founders and students from historically underrepresented groups.

The most important thing to do in your career is find out what you’re functionally good at

At a startup, you can have a lot of individual impact. You can take the risk of getting equity and stock options, but you have to remember that most startups fail. That being said, when you consider reduced job security and the AI boom, Big Tech isn’t the safe option it used to be.

Beyond anything else, it’s important to find out what you’re functionally good at. I’m great at go-to-market business development and strategic partnerships, and that’s been my anchor throughout my career.

If you can narrow in on what you’re good at, you’ll be incredibly valuable in Big Tech or startups.

Do you have a story to share about quitting Big Tech? If so, please contact the reporter at tmartinelli@businessinsider.com.

• Hooters is undergoing a “re-Hooterization” with its original founders in charge.
• The new management is making changes to employee uniforms as well as the menu.
• Hooters of America filed for bankruptcy in March.

Changes are likely coming to a Hooters restaurant near you as the chain puts bankruptcy behind it.

Hooters Inc. said Monday that it had finalized its acquisition of Hooters of America. The transaction closed on Friday, the companies said — roughly seven months after Hooters of America filed for bankruptcy.

Hooters Inc., which also calls itself “Original Hooters,” now owns about 140 Hooters locations around the US. With another 60 international locations, the new network will have about $700 million in systemwide sales, according to the company.

The men at the helm of Hooters Inc. aren’t strangers to the chain — they founded its first location in Florida in 1983.

“We’re not just acquiring restaurants — we’re taking back the Hooters name to show the world who we really are,” Hooters Inc. CEO Neil Kiefer said in a statement.

Kiefer and the other founders are making changes right away as part of what the company calls a “re-Hooterization.” Among their first actions: Revamping servers’ uniforms to “return the original look” of Hooters’ waitstaff.

The chain said it will also debut a “simplified” menu with salad dressings made fresh at individual restaurants and handbreaded chicken wings, it said in its statement.

“Post acquisition, Original Hooters is focused on restaurant upgrades, exceptional service, equipment enhancements, and a streamlined menu built around better, higher-quality ingredients,” the company said in a statement.

Wrestler Hulk Hogan‘s beer brand, Real American Beer, also organized a bid for Hooters, Business Insider reported earlier this year. Hogan died in July.

Do you have a story to share about Hooters? Contact this reporter at abitter@businessinsider.com.

• Prenuptial agreements are the cornerstone of protecting family wealth.
• Even without a prenup, however, the structure of an estate plan can help keep wealth in the family.
• This article is part of “The Great Transfer,” a series that highlights the mechanics of wealth transfer and the human priorities behind them.

There are two words that Mark Parthemer knows will make his job more complicated: “blended family.” Parthemer is a chief wealth strategist at the management firm Glenmede, where he guides estate planning.

Historically, inheritance has passed from parents to their offspring, and this setup often still guides estate planning today. Yet when families are blended — with multiple marriages, divorces, remarriages, and adult children from various relationships — that traditional framework becomes convoluted.

“There are dynamics there that really demand diplomacy, tact, sensitivity, and a holistic perspective,” Parthemer says.

Marriage, divorce, and remarriage — whether of the adult children or of the family matriarch or patriarch — should be considered in any estate planning.

“Most families avoid this topic because it feels uncomfortable or ‘unromantic,'” says Donna Cates, a certified divorce financial analyst and founder of Money Matters Wealth Solutions. “But the truth is, talking about the financial realities of marriage and divorce is one of the most loving things a family can do.”

Here’s how to get started, according to three financial experts we spoke to.

Begin with the end in mind

With the complications of a blended family, it’s even more important to center conversations about love and money around the legacy that you wish to leave, Parthemer suggests.

He refers to this as “beginning with the end in mind.” Consider what purpose you’ve chosen for your money. Then, reverse engineer an estate plan that delivers that.

For example, you might be happy for your widow(er) to remarry in the event of your death, but wouldn’t want their new spouse to have access to funds that might otherwise go to your children and grandchildren. In that case, you could leave a set amount of money to your widow(er), and also give inheritance to your children or grandchildren directly, or protect it in a trust for them, experts told Business Insider.

Ideally, start with a prenup

A prenuptial agreement — which outlines which assets in a marriage are shared, and which remain separate property — is the gold standard in being prepared for estate planning in a world where divorce is common, Parthemer says.

The specifics of a prenup are highly individual, but they can stipulate that inheritance not be considered a shared asset if a divorce happens.

If you don’t have a prenup, it’s easy for inheritance to become shared property with your spouse, which means that they’re entitled to a portion in the event of a divorce.

Cates worked with a family where the matriarch left a beach house to her daughter. The daughter and her husband at the time used the house personally and rented it out. When they divorced, the husband was entitled to partial ownership of the home, even though Cates says it was clear the mother intended the home to belong to her daughter.

Only about 15% of Americans who have been married have signed a prenup, according to a 2022 poll, but data show the agreements are becoming more common, and 42% of Americans say they support the use of prenups. Experts say that’s because people have seen firsthand the harm divorces can have on finances.

“Many of them have realized that a divorce or separation can unravel generations of wealth,” says Libby Leffler, founder and CEO of First, an online prenup platform.

Leffler regularly sees the older generation reaching out to First to get information on how their adult children can set up prenups. She also sees the younger generation encouraging their parents to sign a prenup before remarrying in their golden years. So, don’t be afraid to talk with your loved ones about the agreements.

Experts say there’s some taboo about prenups among the older generations, but millennials and Gen Z have few hangups about the agreements.

“We see the conversation around prenups as being totally mainstream,” she says. “It feels as if we’re in the midst of a generational shift in terms of how people are talking about money.”

Pause before using inheritance

If you don’t have a prenup in place, but receive an inheritance, Cates recommends pausing to talk to an attorney and a wealth advisor before using any of the money or assets.

“Ideally, you’ll put a postnup in place,” she says, referring to an agreement that, like a prenup, outlines how assets are to be handled in the event of divorce, in this case, the inheritance.

In most cases, inheritance is not automatically considered marital property, Cates explains. However, as soon as the funds are mingled with marital assets or used to support the family, your spouse may have a claim to them — like that beach house she mentioned earlier.

Consider a stealth prenup

The older generation ultimately can’t control whether their children and grandchildren get prenups. However, they can structure their estate plan “to minimize the need for the next generation to have a prenup,” Parthemer says.

He calls this the stealth prenup, but emphasizes that there’s nothing sneaky about it. In fact, the stealth prenup can be a gift to future generations because it “can ease the whole prenup conversation,” he says.

Setting up a stealth prenup is something to talk with your lawyer about, but here’s an overview of how it works: the cornerstone of these agreements is an irrevocable, fully discretionary trust, Parthemer says.

That means there are no automatic payments from the trust — how and when assets are distributed are entirely at the discretion of the trustee (a person, who can be a relative or a professional, who has been appointed to manage the trust). Since the beneficiary doesn’t have any entitlement to the funds in the trust, their creditors and/or spouse have no entitlement to the funds either.

“That creates an extra layer of protection from an ex-spouse trying to reach through and grab assets,” Parthemer says.