ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

[The Observer]

So far the receiver has clawed back a little over $1M, out of what is probably a $400-500M dollar scam (31000+ contracts at $12k or $18k apiece, we don't know the breakdown). And those were the easy clawbacks, that's 1 out of 500, that's 0.2%, that's not even one penny on the dollar yet. And much if not most of that money is going to the receiver and lawyer so far.

That is the brutal math of the situation, one that BHM and others just didn't want to deal with when this whole scam started getting attention 6 years or so ago.

And, note that BeverlyHillsMan (if he is real), is a 'net LOSER', so... no clawback from him...

I always felt that he was not a real, but showed up here as an agent of Joel and Ed's, in the hopes that they could deflect the examination that was going on the thread. But if he was real and his story accurate, you are correct in your observation of him being a net loser. This is where people get off the beaten path, seeing that someone owns 200+ contracts and thinks that means this must be a huge net winner. Their assumption is that he must have gotten in early. But he didn't, nearly all of his contracts were bought within 3 years of the bitter and there was absolutely no chance for him to recoup his investment in that time.

[grimreaper]

And much if not most of that money is going to the receiver and lawyer so far.

Correct me If I'm wrong, but the receiver has stated that compensation would NOT be based on nor derived from the proceeds of the claw back.

[The Observer]

Some interesting showed up on page 4 of the Receiver's third interim report:

The success of this work is already evident as the Receiver has recovered more than $1.1 million from Clawback
Claims to date, with many claims still being investigated, numerous outstanding demands, and three recently-filed Clawback lawsuits. Case Nos. 15-CV-05737, 15-CV-5747, 15-CV-5755 [my emphasis].

For the the life of this thread we have been enduring lots of posts by one person who has been consistently wrong about what will and what will not happen during this receivership:

There won't be a TRIAL. Sentencing is the next event.

SUMMARY JUDGEMENT means NO TRIAL. A Hearing is NOT a trial.

But now all of a sudden, the receiver has filed lawsuits. That is right, LAWSUITS, which grimmie maintained were not necessary, that the receiver could go into court and ask for a summary judgment without a trial. This is a shocking development; I can only guess that the receiver has never heard of grimmie's method of being able to just get summary judgments without a trial. So like the naive person this receiver must obviously be, or because he hired dirt-cheap mediocre legal counsel, he is going to TRIAL instead with named defendants who get to show up and contest the suit if they so desire. THIS RECEIVER COULD HAVE HAD SUMMARY JUDGMENTS FOR THE ASKING (and you can ask grim, he will tell you!) AND INSTEAD HE WASTED THE OPPORTUNITY AND FILED LAWSUITS! LAWSUITS!

Imagine it - a full blow trial! Who would have thunk it?! But I bet grimmie is going to contact the receiver and let him know what he should have done - right, grim?

[The Observer]

Correct me If I'm wrong, but the receiver has stated that compensation would NOT be based on nor derived from the proceeds of the claw back.

Well, if it does not come from the clawbacks, where is the receiver going to get the money?

But before you answer that, I would like to see the source of the statement above that you are relying on.

[Hyrion]

Correct me If I'm wrong, but the receiver has stated that compensation would NOT be based on nor derived from the proceeds of the claw back.

Based on? I'd actually be surprised at that:

• Receiver: My fee is 30% of the recovered proceeds

I would actually expect a fixed salary. If you mean "derived from" in the sense of "an interest amount derived from a formula" then this is the same concept as the "based on".

If you mean "derived fom the proceeds" in the sense of "paid out of the proceeds" - I'd be surprised if the receiver costs - including salaries - are not being paid out of the assets of the estate that's under receivership, and that would indeed include any recovered funds.

[notorial dissent]

My main frustration with this whole thing is the great lack of verifiable numbers. So far there have been a lot of relative numbers, of contracts, or participants, etc, but I still haven't seen anything that really puts a solid number to any of it. Too much is speculation due to NASI's shoddy record keeping. Makes it really hard to get a grasp of just how big this thing was. It does look like in excess of 24,000 checks a year were being sent out, and that is a lot of checks, which does make for an immense book and record keeping mess to wade through. I keep waiting for even a tentative breakdown / schedule of customers and contracts, and so far haven't seen a thing.

Right now, as was posted earlier, it looks like the recovery is sitting at .2%, I haven't done the math myself yet, but that isn't much, not even covering the expenses to date, and unless this goes differently than any of the ones I was familiar with the expenses aren't going to diminish all that much over time, except possibly in the forensic accounting area, and as entangled as this is I'm not betting on that even. The thing that concerns me at the moment in the ongoing saga of Oasis and the mystery subdivisions that seem to be involved with it. The Receiver has been getting absolutely NO cooperation from whoever is running Oasis and so is having to pull information by court action, which magnifies the time involved and expense of getting to the bottom of all of it. It is apparent that a great deal of money was funneled down that particular rat hole, just not how much, or where it went, trailers maybe owned maybe not by subsidiaries on Oahu????, oh my aching head. Reading between the lines in the report it doesn’t sound like the book and record keeping of Oasis was any better and possibly worse than NASI, which means more work and ongoing expense to reconstruct. The explanation of what they did with their assets is not comforting.

My take on the latest report and what is and isn’t in it, is that there is a great deal more digging to do, and that it isn’t going well. They have literally had to reconstruct the NASI information from scratch and it would appear to have been quite the project that isn’t done yet. They still haven’t filed the tax reports which tells me they are still digging and trying o reconstruct, which isn’t good. They still haven’t produced any solid numbers which isn’t good.

The point I’m trying to make here is that if they don’t have good clear records when they go in to court, they will have lots of problems and open themselves to challenges to the validity of their claims.

At this point the Receiver is getting paid expenses out of the corpus and the recovered funds. When, and more likely if there is anything left once everything is wrapped up, the Receiver will get their 30%, if there is anything to get it from, it is entirely possible that by the end of this there won’t be. A recovery so far of .2% is a piddly dismal insignificant drop in the bucket.

I will have to go with Observer here, in that I never thought BHM was real, his answers were too pat and too much of an (obvious) attempt to derail suspicion and questions. He sounded too much like shills for other scams we’ve had show up here trying to divert attention, almost painfully so in fact.

The other thing to consider is just how the court actions on the clawbacks are going to cost the corpus. If the Receiver is going to court, it will have to be on instances where the amount they are seeking is sufficient to cover the cost of going after it as the deciding factor, and yes they will have to go to court on any of the ones who told them to pound sand of just flat out ignored the demands. The Receiver can demand anything he wants, but it will be up to a court to enforce it, and that may not happen.

[Hyrion]

It does look like in excess of 24,000 checks a year were being sent out

From the first post in the thread:

the company "guarantees" a minimum monthly income of $200-300 bucks

Assuming the numbers are reasonably correct, and that the cheques in the final year were paying the least amount of what was "guaranteed", we have:

• 24,000 * $200 = $4,800,000

They've gotten over $800k paid back by investors.

So.... best case scenario: The receiver recovered the equivalent (so far) of the final 2 months of payout.

• $4,800,000 (minimum paid out for the year) / 12 (months) = $400,000 * 2 (months) = $800,000 (recovered)

And this is the "easy" recovery part.

[notorial dissent]

I didn't really bother to do the math on any of it so far, but what you've come up with sounds reasonable, and very very depressing.

[Tednewsom]

Some interesting showed up on page 4 of the Receiver's third interim report:

The success of this work is already evident as the Receiver has recovered more than $1.1 million from Clawback
Claims to date, with many claims still being investigated, numerous outstanding demands, and three recently-filed Clawback lawsuits. Case Nos. 15-CV-05737, 15-CV-5747, 15-CV-5755 [my emphasis].

For the the life of this thread we have been enduring lots of posts by one person who has been consistently wrong about what will and what will not happen during this receivership:

There won't be a TRIAL. Sentencing is the next event.

SUMMARY JUDGEMENT means NO TRIAL. A Hearing is NOT a trial.

But now all of a sudden, the receiver has filed lawsuits. That is right, LAWSUITS, which grimmie maintained were not necessary, ....HE WASTED THE OPPORTUNITY AND FILED LAWSUITS! LAWSUITS!

Imagine it - a full blow trial! Who would have thunk it?! But I bet grimmie is going to contact the receiver and let him know what he should have done - right, grim?

With due respect... can you give this song a rest and play something else? I never interpreted grimreaper's "no lawsuits" comment as pertaining to anyone but the pair of rascals. And there haven't been any suits against them. Legal moves, seizures, investigations, criminal proceedings-- and they rolled over instantly. I'll be darned. The lawsuits you mention are at investors who profited off other people, not the NASI thieves.

The guy-- as I recall-- has family and friends who got royally screwed. OK, so he's new at wrestling with numbers, schemes, conflicting laws, and confronting criminals. Fine, he's a relative naïf to this complex nonsense. His questions or theories are probably more naïve than yours, but then he hasn't been up to his eyeballs in this stuff for decades either. Some of you guys make fun of him as if he's continuously claiming there's a leprechaun's pot of gold at the end of the NASI rainbow-- which he hasn't.

I recall being a figure of fun for a number of others early on in this thread, too. I admit I probably know far less about investing scams than anyone here. I got several tons of shit thrown at me by such financial luminaries as beverlyhillsman, Happy Investor, Ms. Sockpuppet and a number of others. "He doesn't know what he's talking about," "His figures are wrong," "He's just causing trouble," bla bla bla. And bla.

And yet, just using common sense and basic arithmetic, I seem to have been right about 90% of the time. Beginner's luck maybe?

The guy's here because he's concerned. He's not a defender of the NASI faith like the obvious shills.

[The Observer]

With due respect... can you give this song a rest and play something else?

Ted, with all due respect, no. Grim has gone out of his way here to challenge any number of people here on their understanding, experience and knowledge on how what occurs legally in these situations. Especially to the point of telling us we would have to eat crow when he was proved right about no trials. I could understand your concern if grimmie had done this once or twice several months ago and then shut up. But he has continued to keep putting up false information, jumped to unfounded conclusions and generally just beeen wrong about things in some way or other 80% of the time. No one else has done this - even the shills and defenders of NASI shut up once they realized that we weren't falling for their lies.This site does not exist merely so people with wrong information can just come here and post it to the detriment and misleading of others.

Some of you guys make fun of him as if he's continuously claiming there's a leprechaun's pot of gold at the end of the NASI rainbow-- which he hasn't.

Ted, go back through the threads, he has pretty much done that throughout the thread. Then we paint him into a corner or get him to back off his claim. Then a new development pops up and he is back at the same game again.

I recall being a figure of fun for a number of others early on in this thread, too. I admit I probably know far less about investing scams than anyone here. I got several tons of shit thrown at me by such financial luminaries as beverlyhillsman, Happy Investor, Ms. Sockpuppet and a number of others. "He doesn't know what he's talking about," "His figures are wrong," "He's just causing trouble," bla bla bla. And bla.

But that didn't come from the regulars and experts here. Big, big difference.

And yet, just using common sense and basic arithmetic, I seem to have been right about 90% of the time. Beginner's luck maybe

Yes, which seems to suggest that grimreaper isn't using the same tools - basic math and common sense - that you used. Maybe if he had, he would have been right 90% of the time as well.

The guy's here because he's concerned. He's not a defender of the NASI faith like the obvious shills.

As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. By continuously shoving out bad information, Grim is not helping the victims here in the least. At best he is confusing them as to what to expect and realize from the ruins of this scam, at worst he may be misleading some into pursuing the wrong action at the wrong time.

And I have my doubts as to why he is really here in the first place. My cynical side is getting the feeling that this is all motivated by his ego in order to appear as an "expert" rather than out of any real concern for the victims.

[The Observer]

I never interpreted grimreaper's "no lawsuits" comment as pertaining to anyone but the pair of rascals. And there haven't been any suits against them. Legal moves, seizures, investigations, criminal proceedings-- and they rolled over instantly. I'll be darned. The lawsuits you mention are at investors who profited off other people, not the NASI thieves.

Then you need to look again. Grimmie has been adamant and very clear that there would be no need for the receiver to file lawsuits to get clawbacks from the net winners. His position was the receiver could just get summary judgments from the court based on the fact that they were net winners.

[NYGman]

I thought Grimmie was dead. Didn't he say he was done here? Yet, he keeps coming back, with the same "facts" that are just not correct. While I agree with Ted, that we should not be basing people with different opinions, but we should correct wrong statements that may mislead someone coming to this thread.

I think Grimmie is just over optimistic, and combined with a lack of legal knowledge, just seems to spew unsupported nonsense, which just can't stand on its own. Therefore it is appropriate to point out the issues in his analysis, so as not to give false, unsupported hope to those that lost out in this scam.

I wish recovery were better, and I wish Grimmie was correct, but the fact is, neither will happen

[Hyrion]

I never interpreted grimreaper's "no lawsuits" comment as pertaining to anyone but the pair of rascals.

As Observer mentioned: you're interpretation of what Grimreaper was claiming is mistaken.

Let's let the horse speak for himself. Below I've included the dates/times Grimreaper posted on the specific subject of who would get a trial vs summary judgement. I've included the thread page numbers for easy reference. You can certainly, easily go back and review various context as you wish.

--

There won't be a TRIAL. Sentencing is the next event.
I stand by my statement>>>
All those who are shown to have NET PROFITS will NOT be having a TRIAL.

--

Damn...there are some people here who just don't *GET IT*
There is NO DEFENSE for distributions deemed fraudulent and >>>BY DEFINITION, ALL distributions of a PONZI are >>>>Surprise >>>>FRAUDULENT. Investors may RETAIN those distributions only to the extent of their initial investment.
All other distributions are subject to claw back...PERIOD. No trials...no defense.

--

NET profits were subject to a SUMMARY JUDGEMENT..NO TRIALS.

--

If it can be demonstrated that a *net winner* has taken the receiver to a TRIAL (not a hearing), I'll be the first to eat some crow here. It has to be either 1) a JURY TRIAL or 2) A BENCH TRIAL.
[snip]
SUMMARY JUDGEMENT means NO TRIAL. A Hearing is NOT a trial.

--
In response to:

Uh, why would a net winner need to take the receiver to trial? We have been saying that the receiver will be having to take the net winners to trial. Defendants are not responsible for initiating legal action.

Receiver will get a >>>>SUMMARY JUDGEMENT<<<<< GET IT? If defendant wants to contest, they *MAY* get a subsequent HEARING. I say *MAY*. >>>NO TRIAL.....COMPRENDE???

--

I maintain that there will be no trials for net winners.

--

Will there be TRIALS for those net winners who don't settle? [snip] I'm of the OPINION ..again >>>>OPINION<<<<< that there will be >>>NO TRIALS?[/quote}
--

*No Legal Defense* for a Ponzi Scheme means exactly that. THERE IS NONE. Why? The distributions are fraudulent BY DEFINITION. [snip] If you are a net winner in a Ponzi, there >>>IS NO LEGAL DEFENSE to get you off the hook.

--
Sorry Ted... As you can see, Grimreaper was very much talking about net winners - not the top echelon who pled guilty. Perhaps, before you make such a claim that's easily disprovable, you should first go back and review the thread to see if your memory accurately identifies what actually happened.

[worried]

In the same spirit that Ted is I think espousing, I tried to not sound like I was picking on Grimreaper in my last post...

But, I do have to say that a few months ago, it was clear to me that Grimreaper was simply inventing an argument for the sole purpose of winning it as well as, whether intentionally or not, promoting false hope...

you know Grimreaper... I have a family member still involved in this too, that's why I, like others, care about what you post on here... it's great for people to scrutinize the docs and post some things that I may not have seen or thought about. I check this site every damn day for updates. We ALL owe a big thank you to Webhick for giving us the insights we crave. I love to see posts with new information, and I often enjoy the intelligent humor of many of the regulars on here. Any other types of posts, as you've been made aware, get a pretty negative response from the audience.

[notorial dissent]

While I can say in all honesty that I really wish that a lot of what Grimmie was saying /claiming was true or going to happen was true, it QUITE SIMPLY ISN'T/WASN'T. I really don't think, and it really doesn't appear at this juncture that there is going to be a lot of recovery. I would and do hope otherwise, but experience and reality tell me otherwise.

On another point, it is all well and good for the Receiver, or someone/anyone, to claim that a given person is a "net winner" it is another point entirely to prove it legally and to the satisfaction of the law, and that is why those claims will have to go to court. It is entirely possible for someone to look like a net winner on paper until everything is factored in, and then a great deal can change. The incredibly shoddy book keeping on this makes that an immense likelihood. Which is why the Receiver will have to go to court, and win, on each and every one of the clawbacks if the parties dispute or ignore the claim, adn it looks like a lot of them are.

I also don't think that the "boys" qualify as net winners, since as far as I am aware they didn't actually participate in the actual scam as "investors" but just raked in and spent the skim from it.

[worried]

I think we have to consider also that the 'keep 30% of your profit' early settlement offer from the receiver was actually a GREAT deal. Those that took it, are STILL WINNERS with a not-too-shabby ~4-5% return on the principal associated with profit that was otherwise exposed to clawback. Those winners may have had other profits NOT subject to clawback as well. But... in order to take advantage of that great deal, those winners had to actually still have the cash available. I bet the rest of the winners would LIKE to get that deal, but frittered the cash away on something else and just don't have it. That means it's going to be very hard for the receiver to get that money. I think there is a very low probability of a 'winner' being smart enough to NOT fritter away their profits (and still have the cash on hand), but NOT see the wisdom of the early settlement offer...but, anything can happen I suppose, just not very often....

I just always think to myself: "hope for the best, plan for the worst"

I wasn't able to discern from the docs (or I don't remember seeing) exactly how many people took the early offer, and wasn't there a limit on the number of deals the receiver would give?

revise:
Actually, if I'm doing this right (I'm not the finance guy remember, just an engineer ), winners that took the deal ended up with 6% yearly return on their money, not too bad. And they still may be keeping 20% yearly returns that were beyond the reachback. Now THOSE are REAL winners'. ... I suppose there could be another class of 'winners', those that just blew all their money having fun so that there's literally nothing to seize and sell, but they're no help to us.

[grimreaper]

Some interesting showed up on page 4 of the Receiver's third interim report:

The success of this work is already evident as the Receiver has recovered more than $1.1 million from Clawback
Claims to date, with many claims still being investigated, numerous outstanding demands, and three recently-filed Clawback lawsuits. Case Nos. 15-CV-05737, 15-CV-5747, 15-CV-5755 [my emphasis].

For the the life of this thread we have been enduring lots of posts by one person who has been consistently wrong about what will and what will not happen during this receivership:

There won't be a TRIAL. Sentencing is the next event.

SUMMARY JUDGEMENT means NO TRIAL. A Hearing is NOT a trial.

But now all of a sudden, the receiver has filed lawsuits. That is right, LAWSUITS, which grimmie maintained were not necessary, that the receiver could go into court and ask for a summary judgment without a trial. This is a shocking development; I can only guess that the receiver has never heard of grimmie's method of being able to just get summary judgments without a trial. So like the naive person this receiver must obviously be, or because he hired dirt-cheap mediocre legal counsel, he is going to TRIAL instead with named defendants who get to show up and contest the suit if they so desire. THIS RECEIVER COULD HAVE HAD SUMMARY JUDGMENTS FOR THE ASKING (and you can ask grim, he will tell you!) AND INSTEAD HE WASTED THE OPPORTUNITY AND FILED LAWSUITS! LAWSUITS!

Imagine it - a full blow trial! Who would have thunk it?! But I bet grimmie is going to contact the receiver and let him know what he should have done - right, grim?

15-CV-05737...Do your really think this will go to trial? Same with the other three mentioned.
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/cas ... an_v_Adler

[Hyrion]

15-CV-05737...Do your really think this will go to trial? Same with the other three mentioned.

Will go to trial?

I doubt many here will claim that it will go to trial.

But I believe any of the 4 currently identified may go to trial. None may go to trial, any combination of the four including all four may go to trial.

That's the problem with your position Grimreaper: you've taken a hard core stance on exactly what will happen in the context that a trial will not occur realitive to any of the net winners.

The rest of us have been pointing out many other realities that could occur.

We've got nothing to loose if nothing goes to trial because that is one of the possibilities - although it's far less likely then the possibility that at least one of the cases will go to trial.

But you've only got one position:

• Other then those that fold, 100% of the cases must be resolved on summary judgement and avoid going to trial

You've stacked the deck against yourself.

[grimreaper]

I have maintained that there will be>>NO TRIALS, law suits not withstanding. Filing a law suit is not tantamount to >>>GOING TO TRIAL. Time will tell. Continue to bash at will....so far>>>NO TRIALS. The *possibility of having a trial* means nothing. I stand by my statement and so far NO ONE HERE can refute it.

[grimreaper]

But I do find it interesting that up to this point only 33 net winners have been identified. According to those proponents of the 1:1 ratio of winners to losers, only 33 people got taken by Ed and Joel. I guess all of the other investors broke even.

You failed to admit you were wrong here didn't you? I pointed out there were 155 net winners investigated, but you want to bash me and ignore your ignorance. How convenient.