Receiver’s Motion for Authority to Settle with Certain Net Winners

7 Aug

On August 7, 2014, Joseph W. Grier, III, Receiver, filed a motion for authority to settle the Receiver’s claims against net winners liable to the Receiver for amounts less than $5,000.00, 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 August 25, 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 for authority to settle the Receiver’s claims against net winners liable to the Receiver for amounts less than $5,000.00.

Motion to Approve Settlements with Certain Net Winners

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Receiver’s Motion for Authority to Settle with Certain Net Winners”

  1. mlmgfc August 11, 2014 at 9:40 am #

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

    *********

    The report shows that the receiver collected $3,502 through the clawback negotiation.
    I made the below comment in my past post in the Receiver’s Fifth Report section;
    “The receiver said in the 5th report that “currently in settlement negotiations with many of the net winners”, of which actions already costs around $17,000 (calculated by just summing up the $ relevant to clawback in the receiver’s activity log called Exhibit A to 5th Application for Payment of Attorney Fees), well we hope it’s been really a productive practice.“
    I’m not sure how much additional fee the receiver charges related to the clawback over the last 2 months (between 3rd June ’14 as the cut-off date of the last 5th report and today) though, it doesn’t look very productive so far.
    Having observed these progress, I’m sure everybody would agree with my repeated request that in case the receiver proposes any clawback litigation, he should develop & present solid cost / benefit analysis that can prove net recovery for each case.
    The analysis should at least include the following factors;
    1) The subject amount (total debt)
    2) The estimate time line up to the final collection
    3) The predicted amount of fee & expense of the receiver & other professionals involved
    4) The projected final collection amount based on the below key 2 variables;
    A. The probability of winning court judgement – if it’s less than 50%, the litigation should not be done or the projected collectable amount should be assumed less than 20% of the total debt
    B. The collectability of the debt, means identification of assets that can be finally seized if necessary – if it’s not identified then the projected collectable amount should be assumed less than 50% of the total debt
    Let me emphasize, the cost / reward analysis must be quantitative rather than qualitative, means we would like to see the result in numbers rather than narrative.
    So, the simple equation of “4) – 3) = Positive Number (Net Recovery)” can only justify calwback litigation but many victims still argue if the Net Recovery is worth Waiting Period of 2), when;
    – the receiver does not make even the first distribution of the available assets to the victims until all the proposed litigation are settled
    or
    – the receiver distributes only small portion of the available assets in the meantime by reserving enough amount for future fee & expense
    All that said, we also need to see the distribution & reserve schedule in any of the clawback litigation proposal.
    BTW, I’m sure all of you have already been aware that I am talking about only the US net-winners case, because any attempts of clawback toward outside US is absolutely ruled out now – refer to the comments here: https://masonreceivership.wordpress.com/2014/08/05/claims-and-distribution-procedures-motion/#comments
    Hope these will be reasonable & useful for everyone.

  2. Rob White August 23, 2014 at 7:00 pm #

    I totally agree!!! All that will happen is that the receiver will bill for more money and that will reduce the return of our loses even more

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: