Claims and Distribution Procedures Motion

5 Aug

On August 5, 2014, Joseph W. Grier, III, Receiver, filed a motion to approve various procedures for finalizing the amount of any and all claims against the Mason Receivership Estate and for distributing assets of the Mason Receivership Estate to those customers having allowed claims, as is set forth more particularly 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 August 20, 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 claims procedures and distribution procedures proposed in the motion.

Claims and Distribution Procedures Motion – Mason

Exhibit A – Claims and Distribution Procedures Motion – Mason

Exhibit B – Claims and Distribution Procedures Motion – Mason

Exhibit C – Claims and Distribution Procedures Motion – Mason

Exhibit D – Claims and Distribution Procedures Motion – Mason

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Claims and Distribution Procedures Motion”

  1. Timothy August 6, 2014 at 12:04 am #

    Thank you Jesus for progress…

    • mlmgfc August 8, 2014 at 6:01 pm #

      “Richard Smith” has experienced a technical issue in attempting to post the below comment, so the Receiver is posting the same on his behalf…

      *********

      Yes, what pleased us is the progress into the long-waiting distribution stage, it’s been 18 months since the closure of JHM & appointment of our receiver and at length we are seeing certain sign of the payment.
      As anticipated, the final list confirms that there is no net-winner (except 1 account if that person is US domestic resident) whose net gain exceeds the threshold amount for clawback litigation set by various professionals specialized in Ponzi scheme – please see my past posts , especially the one dated on March 29th ’14 here: https://masonreceivership.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/welcome/#comments , thus it’s absolutely clear that at least international clawback litigation must be RULED OUT now.
      No matter what the status of the receiver’s negotiation with the net-winners may be, any further clawback activities should be dismissed except the cases which net-winners already agreed to payback.
      Let me remind everyone that the receiver’s clawback action should be determined based on the absolute amount at stake rather than % impact against the whole scheme, because our base amount is extremely small, too small for the receiver to make litigation with a lot of uncertainties & disproportionately high fixed cost – people tend to overlook the hard fact that the failure of clawback is primary attributable to Collection Stage (due to insolvency, concealment, strong resistance & escape etc.) for individual defendants (whereas the Court Judgement is a key to big institutional defendants), which means if the receiver tries to propose clawback litigation targeting individuals, he should demonstrate specific cost / reward rationale by confirming collectability namely identifying & locating the recoverable assets under the particular conditions of our case.
      Therefore, unless the receiver can establish such solid rationale, he must not pursue any further clawback activities (I’m referring to the US defendants because outside US is completely out of the question now, let me reiterate that even the biggest net-winners’ gain is far less than the threshold for the international clawback means none of them is worth pursued given the commonly predicted cost and no safeguards such as firm collectability seen in the big financial organizations, so risk can no way be justified).
      Bear it in mind that economy of scale speaks volume like Zeek case, their class action must achieve efficiency & huge pursuing amount of over $400 million must absorb all the fixed costs of the receiver & other professional fees and expenses, and sadly our case doesn’t apply (all our net-winners’ combined gain is even less than Zeek’s any single top net-winners).
      Finally, let’s summarize where we are now. Our total loss claim looks around $3.4 million and the recovered assets was $1,258,208,16, deducting $305,882.98 of fee & expense until the last report brought the net available asset of $952,326.Assuming the receiver consumes another $50,000 fee & expense during the current quarter, then the expected loss recovery is around 26% ($900,000 / $3.4 million), which we should say fairy satisfactory compared with the miserable Ponzi industry’s average recovery of less than 10%, but it is only if we can get the final distribution now (the receiver’s past Barki case seems to have recovered only 8%+, $3.3 million / $38 million according to this newsletter: http://ncnga.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/10-2011.pdf ).
      All that said, we really look forward to the court’s order of proceeding into the first & final distribution of the available assets at the earliest possible to prevent any further depletion of the scarce assets caused by the receiver’s ungrounded actions.
      BTW, when it comes to the distribution method, I personally don’t have any objection toward the suggested rising tide method under the circumstances.
      Hope these make sense.
      Richard

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: