RECEIVERS: WHY IS EVERYONE UNHAPPY? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

RECEIVERS: WHY IS EVERYONE UNHAPPY?

Description:

The Receiver in a Florida Ponzi scheme had to replaced when it was found that someone else in his law firm represented an affiliate and factoring client of one of the ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:114
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 22
Provided by: wkl19
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: RECEIVERS: WHY IS EVERYONE UNHAPPY?


1
RECEIVERS WHY IS EVERYONE UNHAPPY?
  • Wayne Klein
  • Lewis B. Freeman Partners, Inc.
  • August 15, 2009

2
Anatomy of a Ponzi
  • From 1997 to 2002, J.T. Wallenbrock raised 253
    million from investors.
  • Investor funds purchased accounts receivable from
    a Malaysian latex glove manufacturer.
  • Promissory notes said 15 profit in 90 days.
  • Investors were told there was no risk
  • 85 of contracted sales price was paid to the
    manufacturer only when gloves were shipped,
  • purchasers paid the investors full price for the
    gloves immediately upon arrival in the U.S.

3
What was the problem?
  • There were no latex gloves!!!
  • The SEC sued and a Receiver was appointed.
  • The Receiver found
  • 113.8 million was paid to investors as returns.
  • 11.1 million for office expenses and payroll.
  • 25.5 million in personal and business expenses,
    including 3 MM in cash, credit card payments.
  • 99.8 million funded 175 start-up companies.
  • 3 million in bank at the time of the asset
    freeze.

4
Disgorgement ordered
  • Defendants consented to an injunction and agreed
    to pay disgorgement.
  • Court ordered repayment of full 253 MM.
  • Defendants appealed, arguing
  • No duty to disgorge 36 MM in operating costs.
  • No duty to repay money loaned to venture capital
    investments.
  • Should not have to pay over to investors monies
    earned from outside business ventures.

5
Appeals court was unconvinced
  • All 253 million was unjust enrichment and must
    be repaid.
  • Defendants do not get an offset for entirely
    illegitimate expenses incurred to perpetrate an
    entirely fraudulent operation.
  • Unjust to permit the defendants to offset . .
    . the expenses of running the very business they
    created to defraud those investors . . . .
  • A defendant could not offset 1.2 million he lost
    against disgorgement he owed.

6
Hypothetical 1
  • Investor put 500,000 into Ponzi scheme six years
    before its collapse.
  • Investor was paid 100,000 distributions
    annually.
  • Most recent account statement from Ponzi operator
    shows 500,000 principal balance.
  • After this scheme collapses, how much can the
    investor claim from the Receiver?
  • Who will be happy? Who will be unhappy?

7
Hypothetical 2
  • Stu, a personal friend, loans 68,000 to Ponzi
    operator as scheme is collapsing.
  • After SEC sues and court freezes assets,
    fraudster contacts HH, a company that owes him
    money.
  • To satisfy the debt, HH transfers real property
    to Stu.
  • Ponzi operator has Stu borrow 63,000 from a
    hard-money lender, using property as collateral.
  • Receiver discovers property transfer.
  • What should Receiver do?
  • Who will be happy? Who will be unhappy?

8
Hypothetical 3
  • Receiver analyzes bank records and finds 5,000
    paid by fraudster to Mortimer.
  • Receiver asks why. Mortimer responds
  • He is high school teacher who sells his blood to
    supplement his income.
  • His LDS bishop visits him, saying he was
    embarrassed at how he supplements income, gives
    him 5,000 check from Ponzi company.
  • Should Receiver demand a return of funds?
  • Who will be happy? Who will be unhappy?

9
Hypothetical 4
  • Receiver takes inventory of assets, finds lake
    house under construction in resort area.
  • Each of two adjacent lots cost 800,000.
  • 1.6 million has been spent on construction to
    date home is 70 completed.
  • Potential buyer offers 1.4 million for home and
    both lots.
  • What factors should the Receiver consider?
  • Should the Receiver take the offer?
  • Who will be happy? Who will be unhappy?

10
Why does the SEC seek Receivers?
  • Theory it frees up SEC to bring other cases.
  • Reality the theory is true, but, it also results
    in someone else playing the bad guy.
  • Receiverships take enormous time and specialized
    expertise.
  • Asset freezes give a great advantage to the
    government defendants cannot use entity funds to
    pay their attorneys.
  • There are risks to the government too . . . .

11
Who controls the Receiver?
  • Once appointed, the Receiver is answerable only
    to the court.
  • Receivers are granted enormous discretion.
  • Stanford case exposes potential conflicts
  • Innocent investors hold proceeds from CD
    purchases in domestic brokerage accounts.
  • Court order freezes investor access to accounts.
  • Receiver sues investors, seeking these funds.
  • SEC files emergency motion to reclaim exclusive
    authority to pursue claims against investors.

12
Types of claims made by Receivers
  • Assets of Ponzi operator and family.
  • Balances in bank, brokerage accounts.
  • Charitable contributions.
  • Investments, joint ventures.
  • Payments made for debts of others.
  • Payments made for benefits of others.
  • Unconsummated transactions.
  • Overpaid investors.

13
Other targets of Receivers
  • Receivers bring claims against others who
    assisted or just ignored the fraud.
  • These include gatekeepers such as
  • Law firms
  • Banks
  • Accounting/auditing firms
  • Officers and directors
  • Receivers may fight among themselves
  • Liquidators from Antigua were awarded control of
    196 million in Stanford assets in the U.K.

14
The Receivers arsenal
  • Receiver is often exempt from unclean hands
    defense.
  • Fraudulent conveyance laws
  • Can recover funds paid by an insolvent entity.
  • Actual fraud vs. constructive fraud.
  • If actual fraud, all payments must be returned.
  • If constructive fraud, only net profits come
    back.
  • Badges of fraud can help prove fraud
  • Diverted funds, false statements, no profits.

15
Good faith defense
  • Good faith defense is an affirmative defense.
  • It is a high standard the investor had no
    knowledge of problems or suspicions about
    viability of the enterprise.
  • Good faith only protects principal.
  • Any net payments go back to the receiver for
    distribution to investors pro rata.
  • For an excellent discussion of these issues, see
    Donnell v. Kowell, 533 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 2008).

16
Who can Receivers trust?
  • Madoffs wife was accountant for Madoff, but
    claims she was innocent and had separate wealth
    for Manhattan apartment.
  • Some Ponzi operators claim they have assets
    overseas and offer to go get them.
  • Spouse could not explain why she signed note and
    personal guarantee for 40 loan.
  • Investors provide evidence of investments made,
    but understate size of withdrawals.

17
Learning the truth
  • Ponzi operators lie.
  • Fraudster had inadequate or no records.
  • False records
  • Fictitious account statements
  • Palmer financial statements on computer
  • Tax returns on computer showed 1 million payment
    of estimated taxes.
  • Possible solution limited immunity by prosecutor
    for assistance to Receiver?

18
Complaints about Receivers
  • Size of fees.
  • They seek clawbacks from investors.
  • Refuse to permit investor withdrawals.
  • Not honoring balances on account statements.
  • No recovery for indirect investors.
  • Should not target attorneys, banks, or CPAs.
  • Cooperation with the Receiver will result in the
    SEC learning information.
  • No ongoing living allowance.

19
More complaints
  • Deny funds for criminal, civil defense.
  • Receiver is perpetuating improper actions by the
    SEC in stopping a legitimate business enterprise
    and destroying its value.
  • Should not sell assets before case has been
    proven against the Ponzi operator.
  • Conflicts of interest.
  • Receiver is too aggressive.
  • Receiver is not sufficiently aggressive.

20
Targets of investor anger
  • A New York Times reporter offered up this defense
    of the Madoff receiver
  • But the essential unfairness is Mr. Madoffs
    fault, not Mr. Picards. He has been left with a
    series of unpalatable choices . . . .
  • Every time he decides not to claw back money
    from that cancer patient who cannot afford
    treatment, he is depriving some other Madoff
    investor of money that belongs to him.
  • No matter what he does, someone gets hurt.

21
  • LBF is a forensic accounting and litigation
    consulting firm that
  • Has principals that act as receivers and
    trustees,
  • Performs forensic accounting,
  • Conducts due diligence, internal investigations,
  • Provides professional advising on internal
    controls, SOX compliance,
  • Manages restructurings and business workouts,
  • Provides specialized subject-matter expertise in
    securities, commodities, banking, hotel, and real
    estate, and
  • Serves as expert witness.
  • Contact Information
  • Wayne Klein
  • Lewis B. Freeman Partners, Inc.
  • _____
  • 3225 Aviation Avenue, Suite 501
  • Miami, FL 33133
  • (305) 443-6622
  • www.lbfglobal.com
  • _____
  • 299 South Main, Suite 1300
  • Salt Lake City, UT 84111
  • (801) 534-4455
  • (801) 824-9616 (cell)
  • wklein_at_lbfglobal.com
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com