Receiver’s Fourth Report

18 Mar

The Receiver has filed his fourth report to the Court summarizing the Receiver’s efforts to marshal and collect assets, administer the receivership estate and otherwise perform the duties mandated by the Court.

Fourth Receiver Report

Advertisements

9 Responses to “Receiver’s Fourth Report”

  1. Upset March 18, 2014 at 11:45 am #

    OMG … OMG there will be NO money left for us… this is SO unfair.
    I am definitely going to this trail, if it EVER happens.

  2. vladybrit March 19, 2014 at 7:44 am #

    We need a private law suit after Mr. Mason’s trial. He is a felon tthat was given papers to say he was authentic enough to ask for our money and receive it. What happened to the State of North Carolina who certified him, the bank who kept the money and consumer protection who is to look out for people instead of allowing them to become victims. We need to stick together until Mr. Mason is found guilty and then go after all the people who were willing to help him which includes his family. His family knew he was a felon!

  3. Charlie March 19, 2014 at 5:23 pm #

    I totally agree on the last comments. We are being done to the same way by the system and how can they feel like this is fair and just. Fokes have faith in God and pray!!!!

  4. Richard Smith March 20, 2014 at 9:25 am #

    I have concerns of the following 4 points which I explain one by one with the respective paragraph number in the report;

    2. Continued Investigation of Assets
    I’ll repeat my previous comments I posted in the Receiver’s 3rd Report, although the working time has decreased the receiver still spent time on bank records review / analysis etc, which basically should not be appeared in the activities log.
    My previous comment
    “3rd Report paragraphs of 2. Continued Investigation of assets, 5. Discovery & 6. Determination of Amount Invested by Each Customer / Customer Claim – basically the same explanations & activities continued as your 2nd report. Let me reiterate my last comments on 5 Dec ’13 in Welcome section:
    – Just keep spending time for identifying / discovering assets including each customer’s final account balance determination has no longer been justified because Zeek’s receiver basically completed these tasks within several months after the appointment under the far more complicated operation with over 100 times in alleged $ amount and over 1,000 times for involved participants compared with our case.” Given the massive working hours your staffs devoted to these specific tasks over the last 9 months, we assume you already have fully explored, examined & finalized all 2, 5 & 6 items otherwise your efficiency will be challenged & thoroughly investigated. Unless you happen to obtain positive news such as hidden assets passively, there would be no reasons for you to work on these subjects with your own initiative.
    To be straight forward, any further activities such as review & analyze financial information etc. related with 2., 5. & 6 section in your third report should no longer be appeared to in your activities records to justify your fee before official customer claims starts. Just trying to make sure we will avoid unnecessary dispute on these topics in the future.”

    3. Sale of Assets
    I’m not in the position to make any negative comment on Lien issue by US Attorney’s DSC due to my limited knowledge about its process & its particular background. However, what makes me wonder is why the receiver couldn’t identify such simple fact (it had filed in Sept ’13) until late Jan ’14 when the sale was about to complete. The receiver spent many hours for this issue, I’m not sure if some of these works could have avoided should the receiver had been aware of the lien in the first place though, this whole process doesn’t impress me.

  5. Richard Smith March 20, 2014 at 9:27 am #

    6. Determination of Amount Invested By Each Customer / Customer Claims
    Firstly, “the Receiver published via the Website, the Preliminary Claims Report”, which the receiver kept doing it by neglecting my opinion & request which I believe constructive & fair. I lost my faith in the receiver, please see https://masonreceivership.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/welcome/#comments for my detail comments about it.

    Secondary, “The receiver is coordinating CFTC on an efficient means of contacting these customers to resolve claims that the receivership estate may have against such customers“, apparently this implies clawback activity which I have provided clear rationale why the clawback doesn’t work in our case so many times.
    If you aim to make settlement through negotiation, then we already knew that it never works proven by the fact of Zeek – pls see my comments here:
    https://masonreceivership.wordpress.com/2013/12/05/receivers-third-report/#comments
    In case, the receiver has such bold idea as clawback litigation under our extremely limited size of $4.7 million Ponzi, the receiver should provide numerical net recovery scenario (estimated gross recovery – all projected fee & expenses) that can convince us. We believe it extremely difficult for the receiver to establish such projection because it’s almost impossible for the receiver to gauge the risk involved in the collection process such as insolvency / concealment etc. means estimated gross recovery has no way to be projected based on the solid ground.
    This is my guesswork though the total net winning amount of our case could be less than Zeek single winner’s net profit at top ranks (several people won over $1 million) who the Zeek receiver started suing together with other 9,000 net winners in a single lawsuit for $300 million recovery. There are yet several specialists who cast huge doubt on its final legitimacy and most importantly effectiveness of final net recovery even under such efficient lawsuit, then how can our receiver justify any lawsuit for probably 1/300th amount at stake with a lot of uncertainties?
    Given the condition, we would object any clawback litigation our receiver suggests in the future because any past empirical study suggests our size can’t afford to take risks involved.

  6. Richard Smith March 20, 2014 at 9:29 am #

    BTW, the Zeek’s receiver is planning to make another single lawsuit targeting 6,000 net-winners outside US, by making the best use of Hague Convention. When it comes to this international clawback, most of the specialists don’t believe it works but consider it the last tactics to urge settlement.
    Let me quote R.J. Zayed’s (as a Cook / Kiley Beckman Receivership of over $139 million Ponzi in Minnesota) answer to the question of “Why don’t you / FBI pursue the net winners outside of the United States?
    “We cannot impose American laws on foreign countries. Each country is a sovereign nation and has its own laws and procedures. There is no court, governmental agency or law enforcement agency in the United States that has any jurisdiction in a foreign country. There are a number of mutual assistance treaties in which one government can ask another government for help. But these are merely requests and cannot be mandated. In addition, these requests take years and perseverance to yield results.
    We have asked for the assistance of foreign authorities but are at their mercy as to if, when, and how they will help and the extent of any help that they might offer. Our overseas lawyers are assisting our efforts in Panama, Canada, and Switzerland, but they cannot compel anyone to comply with our requests unless we have a good faith factual and legal basis to (1) invoke the mutual assistance treaties in place in their respective countries or (2) file a lawsuit under the laws of their respective countries as was done in Panama and Canada. If we were to hire overseas lawyers to follow-up on every possible lead, hunch, or speculative tip that we have received, we would very quickly deplete all the assets of the Receiver Estate. We have hired overseas lawyers only where we have identified specific and existing assets and where we believe we have a good chance of recovery, such as, in Panama, Canada, and Switzerland.”

    Please also refer to my post on 1st Nov ’13 https://masonreceivership.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/motion-to-authorize-sale-of-condominium-2227-hickory-run/#comments .

    Let me reiterate that the receiver’s mandate is to maximize the recovery for the victims and we have No Economy Of Scale that can justify So Much Uncertainties related with clawback, therefore pls don’t spend any of your or CFTC’s time that will be totally wasting our money & tax payer’s money.

    Richard

  7. Brandon Sikorski March 28, 2014 at 9:13 pm #

    I worked with Mr Mason and i have been in contact with the criminal investigators and they say they have recovered all assets and they will be used to pay his fines after judgement.

  8. s. smith April 8, 2014 at 1:06 pm #

    At this point, they have billed $208k. stop investigating and distribute what little that is left at this point.

  9. Upset May 12, 2014 at 6:31 pm #

    I just got a letter stating that I received a net gain from James Mason and OWE the receiver… I NEVER received any money… The only thing I did was invest (ha) if you can call it that at this point. I am SO upset I dont know what to do.

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: