Motion to Authorize Sale of Condominium – 2222 Hickory Run

7 Jan

On January 7, 2014, Joseph W. Grier, III, Receiver, filed a motion to approve a sale of a condominium known as 2222 Hickory Run for a purchase price of $83,000 upon the terms and conditions more particularly described in the motion.

If you do not want the Court to approve this motion, or if you want the Court to consider your views, then on or before January 21, 2014, you or your attorney must do the following: (1) file a written response explaining your position with the Court; (2) mail, fax or email a copy of your response to the Receiver; and (3) attend a hearing on your response, if the Court schedules a hearing.

If you or your attorney do not take these steps, the Court may decide that you do not oppose the relief the Receiver requests and may enter an order approving the motion to approve the sale.

Motion to Authorize Sale of Condo – 2222 Hickory Run

Exhibit A – Motion to Authorize Sale of Condo – 2222 Hickory Run

Exhibit B – Motion to Authorize Sale of Condo – 2222 Hickory Run

Exhibit C – Motion to Authorize Sale of Condo – 2222 Hickory Run

Exhibit D – Motion to Authorize Sale of Condo – 2222 Hickory Run

Notice – Motion to Authorize Sale of Condo – 2222 Hickory Run

Advertisements

8 Responses to “Motion to Authorize Sale of Condominium – 2222 Hickory Run”

  1. Chris January 7, 2014 at 9:12 pm #

    Is the last to go .then need collect on loans all and make then pay up in full.that only fair.

  2. Richard Smith January 9, 2014 at 10:50 am #

    You regularly come back and repeat the same thing of collecting loans, but given the facts that this scheme revealed to be a scam and the receiver hasn’t included such asset in the recovery list, I understand such loan never existed.

    If you imply particular actions such as clawback to collect money from participated parties, then I would suggest you read my past posts why the clawback in this case will only end up decreasing the $ we can receive eventually.

    And if you still keep pushing such activities after reading all my rationales, you could be counted as criminal for pleasure who will harm all other victims unless you have potent better logic with supporting evidences to do so.

    My apologies for the acrid expression but it’s been high time to face the harsh reality of Ponzi scheme which I learnt and studied a bit from the past experiences, therefore I have been trying to share those knowledge & prediction with you.
    With all that said, allow me to paste my 4 posts in the Receiver’s 3rd Report section into Welcome section with little additional comments (please go to https://masonreceivership.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/welcome/#comments) for all the members’ convenience since I firmly believe our receiver should act in line with these comments as long as the receiver would like to maximize the payments to us victims.

    Everyone, please be convinced that the best thing for us is receiving the currently available recovered fund as quickly as possible before any depletion.

    You may be interested in the words of Steven Harr, the court-appointed receiver for $50 million Ponzi in Houston “I just closed another matter in which total payment was 2.7%,” “So even though 35% to 40% doesn’t sound very good, it is pretty dramatic for a situation where you had a Ponzi scheme.”.

    I have no idea how much % the recovered assets so far can cover our lost money under the situation even our claim process hasn’t started yet, but I have good confidence (almost sure) that our receiver’s any action outside of the scope of my comments will result in pretty miserable % given the limited $ amount at stake of our case.

    Richard

    • Pantherfan January 27, 2014 at 8:36 pm #

      Richard, the way that these lawyers are going thru what little $$ has been recovered, it will be pennies on the dollar that we will all receive. I know of a person in Texas who was paid over $300,000 to buy a house for CASH, it’s been a couple of years now. If Grier can just make this person pay it back, it will probably cover much of the attorney fee’s. So, should we just let this guy live in this free house without paying anything back? I don;t thin k so…..

  3. Charlie January 9, 2014 at 7:29 pm #

    I’m wondering what the definition of fair is in this case???

  4. Upset January 21, 2014 at 9:45 pm #

    ok, I know for a fact that James Mason is willing to plea bargain, and he has OUR money… what is holding this up!!!

  5. Richard Smith January 28, 2014 at 10:35 am #

    Pantherfan,

    I have no idea how you get that information.

    In any case, remember the receiver spent significant time & money to identify every member’s financial information by various means including subpoena to the concerned banks / payment processors etc. It took them over 9 months for just around 500 members while the Zeek receiver did it within several months for 2 million accounts.
    These facts suggest:
    – If such net winner exists I’m quite certain that the receiver already has his / her detail information. Therefore if you push the receiver to pursue him / her, then we / the court need to see the receiver’s Cost Reward rationale which indicates projected winning rate / final collection rate / total time & money (fee & expense) to finish the case etc. with at least 2 scenarios of Best & Worst in numbers before the receiver takes any action on that person. Simple qualitative comments such as “Reasonable confidence to recover money” or “Practical chance of recovery” can’t justify the receiver’s clawback action given the huge impact of their fee in our extremely limited entire recoverable fund. Without through quantitative risk analysis which all of us are convinced and approve, the receiver’s action is considered as Breach of Fiduciary Duty because the receiver is not properly protecting the victims’ assets by taking uncertain excessive risks.
    – We may cast certain doubt on the quantitative analysis even the receiver submits such numbers given our decreasing credibility on our receiver because of the certain inefficiency we have observed in comparison with the Zeek’s receiver.

    Never ever forget, if the receiver fails to achieve net recovery after lengthy legal battle & collection process, all of us victims suffer a lot.
    Once we approve the receiver’s action, the receiver is entitled to eat up our money legally, we can’t do anything unless we sue the receiver separately with our own cost.

    Again, I sympathize your anger against the net winners, and I am definitely in the same position.
    However don’t be emotional but please be practical, clawback is TOO RISKY for OUR CASE.

    Finally, I’ll copy my 1st November ’13 comment just to remind why clawback litigation generally doesn’t work, as below;

  6. Richard Smith January 28, 2014 at 10:37 am #

    My 1st Nov ’13 Comment

    When it comes to litigation, let me explain the reasons why our recovery will be so limited.

    We can think about 3 cases with different type of people.

    1. Can’t payback — usually many of Ponzi participants are vulnerable people like retired, unemployed or low-income who are attracted by high-yield return, and given the conditions of struggling to make ends meet they often used up all winning moneys by now thus simply can’t give it back. Even they can, they will make all efforts to resist it, so even after court judgement we still have to pay so much fee to debt collection lawyer / agent up until confiscating their asset & liquidating into cash, then I’m afraid all the recoverable money will not be left for us victims but will be distributed to the professional participants in this whole process.

    2. Fight back — on the other hand, there are handful of rich people or organizations who can fight back the allegation based on various reasons such as this rationale: http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/articles/note-turning-winners-into-losers-ponzi-scheme-avoidance-law-and-the-inequity-of-clawbacks/ , whatever the final judgement court makes, the litigation takes time and our final restitution amount will be diminished by the huge receiver’s fee.

    3. Won’t payback — finally, there are also a handful of smartass who already did everything to conceal the money. I heard a lot of stories that many Zeek winners transferred their money into overseas. Once it happens, the first biggest challenge for the receiver is finding out the location of the money that is very difficult if the winners use complicated offshore structures such as trust / IBC with nominee directors, so called shell companies. Even the receiver can locate it (it will have been spending so much up to this stage though), then the 2nd challenge is if the jurisdiction where the asset is stored will recognize US law system. Despite OECD pressure & latest G20 agreements, still many of offshore jurisdictions keep protective stance, and some jurisdictions do ignore even criminal judgement validity in other country means just civil judgement is extremely weak, and unfortunately they often don’t have good adherence to the rule of law and some have strong anti-duress law, means there will be little enforcement power of US domestic court order to seize the assets. The receiver should first hire local attorney and then go to local court to fight for his claim. The receiver must not have a clue how long & how much it does take to finish and most importantly no idea how much probability of win under unknown legal system. The sly winners may choose these jurisdictions to hide money and may split the money into several jurisdictions, then it’s a labyrinth, and it’s absolutely silly for the receiver to pursue these money because it’s almost impossible to estimate the possible recovery in this case – the sheer legal complexity and cost of such a long distance international collection effort can’t be justified (the receiver may even loose in local courts).

    It doesn’t work as you imagine.

    Richard

  7. Richard Smith January 28, 2014 at 2:41 pm #

    Again, some technical glitch seems to have happened.
    The below comment I posted 2 minutes before the above post has not been publisized, so I re-post it here since this is very important message;

    January 28, 2014 at 10:35 am #

    Pantherfan,

    I have no idea how you get that information.

    In any case, remember the receiver spent significant time & money to identify every member’s financial information by various means including subpoena to the concerned banks / payment processors etc. It took them over 9 months for just around 500 members while the Zeek receiver did it within several months for 2 million accounts.
    These facts suggest:
    – If such net winner exists I’m quite certain that the receiver already has his / her detail information. Therefore if you push the receiver to pursue him / her, then we / the court need to see the receiver’s Cost Reward rationale which indicates projected winning rate / final collection rate / total time & money (fee & expense) to finish the case etc. with at least 2 scenarios of Best & Worst in numbers before the receiver takes any action on that person. Simple qualitative comments such as “Reasonable confidence to recover money” or “Practical chance of recovery” can’t justify the receiver’s clawback action given the huge impact of their fee in our extremely limited entire recoverable fund. Without through quantitative risk analysis which all of us are convinced and approve, the receiver’s action is considered as Breach of Fiduciary Duty because the receiver is not properly protecting the victims’ assets by taking uncertain excessive risks.
    – We may cast certain doubt on the quantitative analysis even the receiver submits such numbers given our decreasing credibility on our receiver because of the certain inefficiency we have observed in comparison with the Zeek’s receiver.

    Never ever forget, if the receiver fails to achieve net recovery after lengthy legal battle & collection process, all of us victims suffer a lot.
    Once we approve the receiver’s action, the receiver is entitled to eat up our money legally, we can’t do anything unless we sue the receiver separately with our own cost.

    Again, I sympathize your anger against the net winners, and I am definitely in the same position.
    However don’t be emotional but please be practical, clawback is TOO RISKY for OUR CASE.

    Richard

    Finally, I’ll copy my 1st November ’13 comment just to remind why clawback litigation generally doesn’t work, as below;

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: