ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

[webhick]

Involuntary BK is filed by potential creditors/investors. It is NOT filed by any government agency. Please do your DD before posting *opinions*.

That's what I've read as well. I also read that there's a whole hearing process and only if you successfully get through that can you actually force a company into bankruptcy.

The FBI and SEC may put a quick death to this right at the first hearing. I don't think you can circumvent the clawback system by forcing a bankruptcy during an ongoing investigation. If you can, then we've got a loophole in the court system that needs to be fixed.

[webhick]

This is a high activity thread and many of us have jobs, so if you happen to spot another solicitation - you know, anyone non-government trying to reach out to victims to form some kind of group to get money back - please report the post. This puts the post into a moderation queue then a moderator or admin can deal with it from there.

If you are unsure as to whether or not it's a solicitation, please report it. The fact that you even ask yourself whether it is or isn't is good enough reason to report the post. If we find that it's not, we'll just bump it out of the queue and if we find that it is, you would have just saved a victim from being revictimized.

The report button looks different depending on what theme you're using, but they all appear at the top of every post. For your reference:

• Quatloos (default) -
• Absolution -
• Prosilver -

It's not really doubled at the top of the post. That's just a button hover trick. It'd look like the top button. I should really screencap this stuff.

And for the inevitable, "Wait, there are THEMES?!" You can change your theme on the Board Preferences page.

ETA: Those buttons are also on any PMs you receive.

[snookered]

Here is information about Involuntary Bankruptcy written in easy to understand terms. See the bottom of the page where it speaks of Ponzi schemes.

http://bankruptcy.cooley.com/2012/05/ar ... y-process/

[grimreaper]

From what I recall, NAS has about 3 weeks to respond, if not the BK will go forward. However, during this period the SEC will either intervene and block the BK or they will work out a joint plan with the parties involved in the BK process.

Here is a famous case where SEC had to step in:

http://stjohns.abiworld.org/node/117

Byers is significant because it has enabled the SEC to keep control of Ponzi schemes by preventing creditors from filing bankruptcy petitions once the SEC initiated a receivership. Instead of limiting anti-bankruptcy injunctions to situations where the receivership had already started to liquidate the debtor, Byers has empowered the SEC to enjoin involuntary bankruptcy proceedings as soon as a receivership is established. [19] Thus, Byers has made the creditors’ ability to file bankruptcy petitions depend entirely upon whether an SEC receivership has been filed. [20] This change in policy poses a serious threat to creditors by ultimately allowing the SEC to trump their rights to file involuntary bankruptcy petitions and choose their preferred forum for liquidation. Because bankruptcy procedures afford creditors greater protections and more certainty than equitable receiverships, many creditors would normally opt for liquidation occurring through bankruptcy.[21] Byers, however, forced the creditors to accept the broad and uncertain relief available through equitable receiverships.

[Reader]

Hi, I have gone through this thread looking for the link to the SEC stuff, but have been unable to locate a working link.

My wife and I have 5 contracts totaling 28 machines; mostly from Sept 2012; but we owned 3 machines for a year or two before 2012. My wife just added a single machine contract and was waiting for that first check.

I have addendum with serial numbers and addresses of locations, albeit, at the moment I can only locate one addendum with 9 machine addresses and serial numbers, the others I think are in storage.

How do I "get in line"? or
protect / secure my machines if they do exist?

I was "brought in" by two friends I trusted, and shared this with other family members and friends. We saw tax returns showing income for many years before we "pulled the trigger" and dropped every thing we had plus borrowed money in 2012. It was first mentioned to me in 2003, but I thought it smelled fishy and declined. My "gut instinct", it usually saves me.

Thank you

[webhick]

Hi, I have gone through this thread looking for the link to the SEC stuff, but have been unable to locate a working link.

As far as we know, the place to report was mentioned back in this post. The FBI and SEC will be setting up web pages soon, but we don't have an ETA on it.

[The Observer]

How do I "get in line"? or
protect / secure my machines if they do exist?

You will have to wait until the SEC and/or FBI get their web pages set up. At that point they should have a page dedicated to the investors submitting information relating to their investments.

There is no line and and no machines that are yours; as has been discussed, the machines in all likelihood, were only used as a smokescreen to lure people into buying into an annuity scheme. I know that you were told different by Joel and/or Ed, that you have paperwork that shows you own machines, but frankly, you need to give up on the idea of you owning a machine. You don't - that is a lie perpetrated by NASI and is about as valuable as the paper that the contract you signed is printed on. If the machines were really owned by you, you would have been registered as one of the owners. Everytime anyone checks on the serial numbers, they always come back as being registered in the name of NASI.

[grimreaper]

Those who have *profited*, ie, made their initial investment back and continued to collect, will be subject to a *CLAWBACK*. There are many variables to consider, such as the length of time each *unit* had maintained that status and also the statute of limitations that apply in the particular state the investor resided. Here is a very famous case memorandum and IF this is a Ponzi/and or in breach of SEC Securities requirements, you can expect what you read here. In this case there were over 9000 who profited in addition to the small class of *TOP* profiteers (*LOW HANGING FRUIT*).

http://www.zeekrewardsreceivership.com/ ... n_Memo.pdf

[wserra]

Here is the petition in the NASI involuntary bankruptcy. It was filed by three individual creditors, through the same lawyer, alleging "breach of contract".

God knows I'm not a bankruptcy practitioner, but this seems awfully sparse to me.

[grimreaper]

YEP. The threshold of THREE creditors and the amounts were met. That's all you need. Ball is now in NAS's court (no pun intended). They have about 3 weeks to respond, but all this could be moot with the SEC taking over.

[grimreaper]

If this interview of *JOEL* guy is accurate and can be verified, or if they have this *20% Guarantee* on paper, then this is considered a *SECURITY* under Federal Law and, as such, must be registered. My take, this why the SEC had initially filed and the Company is in violation on those grounds alone.

"In SEC v. Edwards, 540 U.S. 389, 157 L.Ed.2d 813, 124 S.Ct. 892 (2004), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the validity of Howey, supra. In Edwards, the defendant controlled ETS Payphones, Inc., which sold payphones to the public. The payphones were sold under a sale and leaseback agreement, under which the investor would “purchase” the payphone and then lease it back to ETS in exchange for a payment of $82 each month. For each investor, the $82 payment represented a 14-percent return on the investment. After ETS filed for bankruptcy protection, the SEC filed a civil enforcement action against Edwards, alleging that he had violated the registration requirements of 15 U.S.C. §§77e(a) and 77e(c). The Eleventh Circuit in SEC v. ETS Payphones, Inc., 300 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2002), held that the sale and leaseback scheme was not a “security” because it offered a “fixed rate of return.” The Eleventh Circuit also held that the Howey test “that the return on the investment be ‘derived solely from the efforts of others’” did not apply because the investor had a contractual right to the $82 payment each month. 124 S.Ct. at 896, quoting ETS Payphones, supra, 300 F.3d at 1285. The Supreme Court reaffirmed Howey and held that “an investment scheme promising a fixed rate of return can be an ‘investment contract’ and thus a ‘security’ subject to the federal securities laws.” 124 S.Ct. at 898 – 899.

[Tednewsom]

On re-reading the other actions taken against other identical scams in the past (in Colorado, Florida, etc.), and assuming the number of "contracts" and "investors" in this case is accurate, I think this particular one just might be the biggest "leaseback" scam in history.

Of course, on the other hand, maybe it's all a big mistake, and this is the one and only honest ATM leaseback scheme in the world. Innocent until proven guilty, and all of that.

[Gregg]

Involuntary BK is filed by potential creditors/investors. It is NOT filed by any government agency. Please do your DD before posting *opinions*.

You are correct. I posted what I did because the only case I am familiar with it is a case in which the SEC did indeed force the involuntary bankruptcy, as one or the creditors in way of penalties the company had agreed to under a consent order.

And then you have the current Telexfree caswe which is not an involutary bankruptcy but the the SEC and/or FBI did have a Chapter 11 filing in Neveda reassigned to Massachusetts, had a Trustee appointed who now intends to make the case a Chapter 7 liquidation.
I apologize if I ruined your day by my imprecise and indeed WRONG statement but the point was, NASI didn't have much to do with the filing of the case, they have to respond to someone else's actions.

And on a personal note, on your very first day on our furom, (Welcome to Quatloos! BTW) while you were right and I was wrong I'd like to direct yhour attention to the extreme upper right hand corner of any post. In it you can see a person's Name, a Tittle (more on this will become apparent if you hang around), how many posts, join date etc... In short, it's kind of a ranking and while you really have to get familiar with the cast and crew to know when and how much weight to attach to it. In something I have NEVER done before I'd like to ask you to look at

Gregg1
Conde de Quatloo

Posts: 3072
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:08 am

I've been hanging around here helping people as best I can, for free, for over 10 years, and providing FREE snarky comedy and bad jokes (the bad poetry is NOT my fault though), as have a few others who are involved in this thread. If you dig around you'll find a few of us have some pretty good backgrounds to do this, the helping people for free thing. I think I've earned the courtesy of a little respect from someone in their first post. Please.....


Thank you, you may now return to regularly scheduled programmng.

[grimreaper]

I'm sorry you took offense.

[ATMCompany2]

Sorry I have been out of the loop for a day or so. If anyone still has questions about the workings of the ATMs and the business model itself, just ask. If I missed a prior question of yours, please repost.

[Tednewsom]

I've got one. There are two specific figures bandied about by investors, documents, quotes from the company principals and every other venue: $19,800 per unit, and $12,000 per unit. Leaving aside rumors I've heard from other financial advisors that there was an even higher buy-in in certain areas, both the $19.8K and $12K figures seem factual, both repeated by numerous investors about their own investments. In fact, those who cling to the $12K figure for their own investments scoff at the $19.8K figure. And those who have always paid the higher figure dismiss the idea that other people could get the same thing at a drastically reduced rate.

Why the difference?

If MarvinGardens' theory is correct, the actual figure doesn't matter to the function of the scheme, since it's an annuity scheme, not really a transaction of merchandise and service. But that does not explain the consistent reoccurrence of the same two, precise figures for the same thing.

And it is not as if there were different levels of investment, the "Standard Can't-Lose Ground Floor ATM Partnership" at a bargain rate of $12,000, and the "Super-Duper High-Yield Perpetual Motion Moolah Unto Infinity Partnership" at an affordable $19,800. You get the same thing, the same contract, the same monthly stipend -- but for two different prices. ("Just, please, don't tell the other guys or they'll get jealous of your slick deal. Or laugh at you for paying twice as much as they did.")

That's a consistent difference of $7,800 with every unit sold. Could that be the standard commission for the in-house salespersons (or rather, person)?

Because if so...

[grimreaper]

My take would be they both get the same *20%* return rate. So we have the *Chevy* or the *Cady* models. In this case, however, the model is not for you to choose. They simply offered them based on the investor profile. To me this is really is *Red Herring* and has no bearing on the issues at hand.

[Tednewsom]

Makes little sense. The $12K figure is the one most often associated with the wealthier investors. The $19.8K figure, the opposite. Why not charge those who can better afford it the higher rate, the ones with less money the lower one?

Yes, they both get the same return rate, which I mentioned. All the particulars are the same, except the price. There is no "Cadillac Vs. Yugo" difference, again, as I said.

MY issue at hand is trying to figure out how much their head of sales made per sale, and it looks to me like she was knocking down over seven grand with each one.

[grimreaper]

By *Cady* and *Chevy* it's simply a difference of absolute *return*. In all probability, there isn't an asset there at all...just the structure of the contract. Of course this is speculation. I just don't see why this topic really matters? We still have the fundamentally flawed investment and all the consequences that follow.

[Tednewsom]

It. Matters. To. Me.

It would indicate just how much one person made off the other, the amount of money lifted directly from their purse and into another. If the figure is accurate, that's $7800 times 6, or possibly 7 or 8. A years' income for the one, or in lean times, even two years'. As opposed to someone with three or four similar customers a year, each tossing $7800 into the kitty, thinking they're getting such a bargain.

And that is over and above her loss in the scheme in general.

I got into this whole thing because I was concerned for a friend, not because I necessarily wanted to do a favor for 2500 strangers. How much was stolen from her is all I'm concerned with.