ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

[grimreaper]

Some of the investors bilked by Wall Street swindler Bernard Madoff will soon be receiving some money back, nearly three years after his scheme was first revealed.

The trustee charged with recovering funds for customers of the jailed financier says some $312 million will be distributed staring Wednesday on claims relating to 1,230 accounts.

Trustee Irving Picard has recovered about $8.7 billion from investors who were paid fictitious profits by Madoff above the amount they invested.

That's about half the roughly $17.3 billion lost by Madoff customers who have filed claims.

The bulk of the recovered funds can't be paid out yet because they are tied up in litigation and appeals.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/madoff-vict ... stitution/

And that's money they have recovered. They have $8.7 billion and can only pay $312 million of it after 3 years, There was, of course, NO DEFENSE to keep that money..

That was THREE years ago

Recent news>>
http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/02/2 ... covery.htm

Amanda Remus, a spokeswoman for BLMIS trustee Irving Picard, told the New York Times the ruling was "an important milestone" in recovery efforts for investors.
Picard was "hopeful that further delay will be viewed as pointless" and no further appeal will be pursued, enabling over $1 billion to be distributed to customers with allowable claims, Remus told the Times. She said the money had been held in reserve.
So far, Picard's office has recovered more than $10.5 billion, with $7.2 billion and counting paid out.

[notorial dissent]

So..for all those Hollerin' at me....IF YOU were an investor in this case>>>>what would YOU DO when you get the first demand letter with a settlement incentive? If NOT settling... What would YOU do when they hand down a judgement to fork over the profits you received? I'm waiting for an answer.

Grimy, I’m sorry you’re feeling picked on, well not really since you’ve brought it on yourself, and I’m long past caring.

I don’t know if you really have reading comprehension problems, although the way you read things and react to what you’ve read lead me in that direction, or if you just plain don’t pay any attention to what people tell you, for the umpteenth time, but you are rapidly reaching the point of tiresomeness.

You have asked this question repeatedly, and THE ANSWER(s) HAVEN’T CHANGED, and won’t change. The response would depend on a great many factors, not the least of which was if I, or they, still had the money, any money. When push comes down to shove, the “investors” who get that letter will do a cost benefit analysis and decide from there, hopefully with the help of qualified legal counsel. You are assuming that there is going to be a judgment, which is foolish in the extreme. The cost of taking very many/any one to court will be EXTREMELY expensive, it just won’t be quite as expensive since it will all be in one court, but that is still going to entail lots of legal time and fees, ever case they bring is going to entail lots of pricey legal time and expense, all eating in to the corpus. What part of that is so hard for you to understand? There will be some “investors” who will make arrangements to pay back some of what they got, statistically that will happen, statistically it won’t be very many or very much. In the final analysis, what they recover may well be a literal drop in the bucket and maybe will increase the final payout by a few pennies after expenses are subtracted out.

Please please please get this through your head, this IS NOT the Madoff business, there isn’t a large pool of property and funds floating around out in the ether for them to get at. The only comparison or similarity here is that both of these were ponzis, and that is as far as it goes. There is NO comparison to what was recoverable and what could be paid out between the two. NOBODY CARES, don’t bring it up again. To put not too fine a point on it, from what I have seen to date, there is effectively chump change left. Until I see the actual preliminary audit, there is no point in even speculating on what MIGHT be recoverable.

The main thing you seem to be refusing to recognize is that while there may well be a number of “net winners” on paper, proving it in court, getting an actual judgement, and then getting anything off the judgment are all separate and unrelated things. It is notoriously hard to recover on something like this, and in the end, there is always bankruptcy which will end it right then and there.

My last and final question, is just how much are you on the hook for?

[Gregg]

You go to court, GR was right, there is NO DEFENSE and you get judgements against some net winners.

Winner number one is Leisure Suit Larry in Las Vegas. Lives large, runs around in Porsches, has a house by IM Pei and a large former linebacker who stands by the velvet ropes while he eats lunch. Your Judgement is for $1 million and you can just smell the money. BINGO!


Larry is technically insolvent, the cars are leased, the house in foreclosure, owes 6 figures of child support and his ex wife's process server is the main reason for the big guy by the door, who is paid in peruvian marching powder and spillover cute little girls....

You got nothing.....

Winner number two is LaMont Ummmner El Bey, Royal Prince Moor of the PeekAboo Tribe, claims to own about half of New Mexico. White Stretch Cadillac, 13 pre teen sons in bow ties, suits, and Ray Bans. Surrounded by rumors of mason jars full of gold coins buried in the desert.
He owes $4 million, this sounds lucrative!

You got nothing, Even if he has jars of Krugerands buried in the desert, going to court with the guy is gonna be like fighting a pig in the mud, you'll get all muddy and the pig will enjoy it. If you win, you may eventually get a chance to go out in the desert with a shovel, a metal detector and hopefully a kevlar vest and look for jars,

Winner number 3 is Mike Brady. Family guy, has some equity in the house, a decent retirement plan 2 kids in public colleges and drives a Taurus. He owes you a half a million and if you add up the retirement fund, the equity, the money set aside to finish the kids in college and if the guys retires at 72 instead of 55 like he planned to, he could pay every penny. He even feels guilty and wants to pay and is willing to work something out. He was a little cautious though and you spent $50,000 litigating the suit to attach a lien to the house.

You got lunch money. The house is in a community property state, so you only have half the equity, behind 4 other liens and the wife. He has promised to a 10 year payment schedule starting when the kids graduate The receiver sells that 10 year cash flow for 10% cash.

And then you have a little investment unit of Wells Fargo. They owe $50 million! Holy SMokes Batman, we's a gonna get PAID!
And sure enough, after some lawyerin and offerin and counterin they agree to pay $35 million NOW or risk going to court. If the receiver is smart he takes the $35 million.


SO, if you can find some investment bank or a bank with FDIC funds on deposit (which wouldn't cover this, but they don't want to let you anywhere near even asking), you're golden, Sparky. But if not, well, not so much.


Madoff, as has already been pointed out, had more than a few fat banks, brokerages and corporations that were more than willing to take the hit as a cost of doing business and get it behind them as quickly and quietly as they could.

I think you'll find NASI doesn't have many or any of those, but they'll have more than a few each of the other types listed.

[The Observer]

My last and final question, is just how much are you on the hook for?

Grimmie has claimed in the past that he has never invested in the NASI scheme and that his only connection to it was that he has family or friends that were net winners. I am just wondering, ND, if your question is one of those "methinks he doth protest too much" statements.

[Gregg]

Like, maybe his life savings one way or another?

[notorial dissent]

Observer, let's just say for arguments sake that I have a nasty suspicious mind, which I do, for having worked in this field for the number of years I have, and then yes for arguments sake. All hypothetically speaking of course. Let's also say that no one has that much free floating displacement, angst, refusal to accept a simple answer, and whatever else you want to call it without a reason. Hypothetically. If someone has no dog in the fight, then there is no real reason to get all that worked up about it. hypothetically. If you have no investment in a situation, then why fixate on a possible outcome that couldn't possibly apply to you? Hypothetically.

[The Observer]

And here I was thinking that I was the only person on this site who was cynical, pessimistic, jaded and saturnine.

[Judge Roy Bean]

So..for all those Hollerin' at me....IF YOU were an investor in this case>>>>what would YOU DO when you get the first demand letter with a settlement incentive? If NOT settling... What would YOU do when they hand down a judgement to fork over the profits you received? I'm waiting for an answer.

I would have talked to a qualified attorney and relied on his or her professional opinion.

[grimreaper]

I would have talked to a qualified attorney and relied on his or her professional opinion.

I agree

For all those here who are *wondering*..... I never invested. I asked for financial statements and they weren't *available*. This along with a 20% *guarantee* kept me away. I was tempted once I saw people getting distributions past the 5 year threshold, but that didn't trump the aforementioned red flags. When I saw distributions linger for over 10 YEARS I was really at a loss in understanding how this could have persisted for so long. I became convinced things were about to unravel (eventually) when one of the investors decided to cash in several contracts and it took over 3MONTHS to get their money back>>>BINGO. I'll share here what the investors with whom I'm acquainted, decide to do.

[grimreaper]

If you have no investment in a situation, then why fixate on a possible outcome that couldn't possibly apply to you? Hypothetically.

There is a legitimate reason....I'm not at liberty to divulge. Think what you will, I really don't care, since it's not germane to this discussion.

[Tednewsom]

And I don't have a dime invested and am still extremely interested. Wait. No regular contributor here has a dime invested. In fact, the few victims who've posted here seem to have settled back to watch everybody argue among themselves over the hypothetical recovery and/or 100% financial disaster... with no middle ground allowed. Guys!

I really truly don't understand this ganging up on the guy. He's not saying a search for assets or a clawback will automatically make everything all nice-nice. THAT would be stubborn and naïve. I think he realizes what the worst case is: no assets found and attached, no payout to net losers.

But even as a Pollyanna-ish attitude is unrealistic, I see the jet-black bleak predictions equally so. There will be absolutely no funds recovered, because all the heavy investors have the deviousness of Machiavelli and the banking brains of the Templars, their money-hiding lawyers are smarter than Roy Cohn, and anyway they've already hidden all their assets in three levels of Swiss bank account fog.

Hey-- the victims of the scam-- more properly, suckers-- were not a bunch of Blofelds or Moriartys. They were naïve enough to accept a con man's transparent sales pitch, stupid enough to invest without due diligence, then dumb enough to throw good money after bad for years. Why would they suddenly become financial brainiacs?

And really, why would the SEC and/or the courts even bother pursuing this if there was not a chance at recovering something? No, the net losers will never get 100% of their money back. They may not get half. They'll be lucky if they get 5% or 10% when it all shakes down. But I know from experience, it's not that hard to hunt down assets. I've watched guys do it quickly and slickly when I was working for a PI firm, both domestic assets and foreign. Even a lot of so-called "sophisticated" financial crooks are often a lot dumber than they think they are.

[grimreaper]

TED..well said. The bulk of investors are NOT the *cognoscente* many here seem to give them credit for. In fact, I'd venture to say they are no where NEAR the level of sophistication that many Madoff investors were. The bulk of investors here were RIPE for the picking and naive when it came to matters of investing. They wanted to *BELIEVE* and so they became *true believers* in turn. So, how will these people now react when confronted with a formidable legal threat? A threat that really has no defensible position? Cut their loses and settle? Fight it? Stonewall? Do these type of *investors* have the stomach for a fight? Have these SHEEP READY FOR SLAUGHTER ever been tested in the crucible
of LEGAL BATTLE? I doubt it....

[Judge Roy Bean]

Gregg is so close to the truth that it almost makes one wonder how many times he's had to pursue debtors.

More common will be the alleged net-winner who, like so many people today, has spent everything and has few tangible assets to show for it. As Gregg alluded, an awful lot of cars are leased. Those annual ski trips to Aspen aren't assets, nor is a facelift or breast enhancement.

[grimreaper]

Gregg is so close to the truth that it almost makes one wonder how many times he's had to pursue debtors.

More common will be the alleged net-winner who, like so many people today, has spent everything and has few tangible assets to show for it. As Gregg alluded, an awful lot of cars are leased. Those annual ski trips to Aspen aren't assets, nor is a facelift or breast enhancement.

So we're now operating under the assumption that MOST profits may have been consumed and are no longer up for grabs...up in smoke . My question is then..are ANY ASSETS then fair game?..as TED suggests? You can't *ear mark* where profits go! It will be assumed that anything owned by the investor is fair game... how or when they were obtained notwithstanding.
Oh..but of course>>>

has spent everything and has few tangible assets to show for it

[Tednewsom]

I'm sure there are "net winners" who never managed to save anything-- my friend is one, and she's scarcely profligate. The ATM "dividends" were her only source of income. I'm sure she's not the only one to be left hanging. And she's legitimately judgment-proof-- there's nothing there.

However-- we're talking about, what, 3000 people total? Not every one is going to be left flat broke, not every one will be several million dollars in the black. There's a broad spectrum of low rollers and high rollers here, with little in common except naiveté.

[grimreaper]

I estimate that there are 1000 winners and 1000 losers. 2000 total, since that was the total # checks issued prior to the melt down. $100M on the table...give or take. All investors I know have assets...significant assets.

[Gregg]

And really, why would the SEC and/or the courts even bother pursuing this if there was not a chance at recovering something?

A crime has been committed, the Securities laws have been broken. If they just ignore it, well, a lot of crooks are smart enough to figure out from what they don't do how to get away with stealing a lot of money with little risk, look at HYIPs, Ponzi Schemes and a lot of what is trying to get away with calling itself MLM. Hundreds of millions of dollars in less than 6 months in some of them, being stolen in broad daylight and the people doing it aren't even hiding, they're flat out bragging about it.
I'm gonna plug another site, and I'm doing it to make a point. The site was started 5 years ago to evaluate MLM opportunities, under the assumption that while many were maybe over promising and under delivering, they were at least real companies trying to sell real products. Hundreds, neigh, thousands of reviews later, and its actually rare that Oz reviews a company that isn't a flat out ponzi scheme. Its also very rare for any of the people involved to face any penalties, most often they just take their hopeful downlines to the "next big thing".

http://behindmlm.com/

Victims getting anything back, even when the government steps in, is not the norm, its the exception. The first and ultimate job of any court appointed receiver is to wrap up the loose ends left by the collapse of the illegal company and refunding any victims is just something they normally (but are not required to) do if anything is left.

[Gregg]

Gregg is so close to the truth that it almost makes one wonder how many times he's had to pursue debtors.

More common will be the alleged net-winner who, like so many people today, has spent everything and has few tangible assets to show for it. As Gregg alluded, an awful lot of cars are leased. Those annual ski trips to Aspen aren't assets, nor is a facelift or breast enhancement.

I have never had the pleasure, the only bank I have ever worked for was the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.

If the winners are not as sophisticated as the average tax cheat, I would think that would make them more likely to not have anything left. The ones who don't have it stashed in bullion in a Caymen safe deposit box can still declare bankruptcy and walk away, no one is going to prison to make them pay anything back.

[Judge Roy Bean]

... It will be assumed that anything owned by the investor is fair game. ...

That's an assumption on an assumption. The arguments over "anything" and "owned" can be made into a Gordian knot.

[Arthur Rubin]

Gregg is so close to the truth that it almost makes one wonder how many times he's had to pursue debtors.

More common will be the alleged net-winner who, like so many people today, has spent everything and has few tangible assets to show for it. As Gregg alluded, an awful lot of cars are leased. Those annual ski trips to Aspen aren't assets, nor is a facelift or breast enhancement.

Keyboard warning ahead.










OK, you asked for it.








How do you repossess a breast enhancement?