ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

[grimreaper]

Last warning, Grimmy. You've been skating on thin ice too long

So, are you saying that you're in the position to sanction me on this board. A yes or no answer is all that's required.

[grimreaper]

Got my answer....

[grimreaper]

As stated previously, for any with the means, determination and adequate counsel, Yes

So do you think those winners ....with *OJ* deep pockets..... will get a trial? Not a hearing but a trial? Do you think that will >>>>in the REAL WORLD WE LIVE IN>>>really happen in THIS CASE? Should net winners, like those in my family, entertain that possibility??

[grimreaper]

Time to stop posting.
....I'll be reading only from here out. I'm sure many here will welcome this.
ADIOS!

[Gregg]

Last warning, Grimmy. You've been skating on thin ice too long

So, are you saying that you're in the position to sanction me on this board. A yes or no answer is all that's required.

I am, but behind the scenes I have argued against it, my point being that if nothing else you, and the responses you elicit are demonstrating a lot of things are wrong that some people might otherwise subscribe to.

So, for my money, keep on showing how wrong you are!

[Gregg]

As stated previously, for any with the means, determination and adequate counsel, Yes

So do you think those winners ....with *OJ* deep pockets..... will get a trial? Not a hearing but a trial? Do you think that will >>>>in the REAL WORLD WE LIVE IN>>>really happen in THIS CASE? Should net winners, like those in my family, entertain that possibility??

At the very least there will be whole lot of hearings, trials, judgements, defendants who ignore court dates and get hit with default judgements that they then dispute and open up another round of hearings, depositions, motions etc...

and you might be right, its possible that there will not be any of these cases taken to trial, but the fact is, any one of them, if the defendant wishes it to, could go to trial. If I was a defendant, you'd be able to bet your ass I'd go to trial.

[Lost Income]

Given all the NAS investors that profited, how much money has been recovered from NAS clawbacks so far?

Have lawyers won against paying clawbacks in the past?

[noblepa]

IANAL, but I seem to remember that, in the Bernie Madoff case, the scenario went something like this:

The receiver sent a letter to an investor, saying "we have determined that you received $xxx from Mr. Madoff. This letter is a request for you to return $yyy. If you do not comply, we will initiate legal proceedings."

Some investors paid up.

Others offered a lesser amount, which was accepted by the receiver.

Still others, either ignored the letter, or had their compromise offer refused. The receiver then sued them for an amount, probably greated than originally asked for.

This process is probably still going on in the Madoff case.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Given all the NAS investors that profited, how much money has been recovered from NAS clawbacks so far?

Have lawyers won against paying clawbacks in the past?

Given that more than 90% of civil cases are settled (and usually confidentially) it is impossible to say with certainty unless someone does a considerable amount of research.

But some of the alleged net winners may be have the same attitude as Gregg because they have the resources, time and motive to drag counsel for the Receiver through the knot-hole of trial simply as a matter of the "don't tread on me" principle.

FYI - the Madoff cases are still grinding their way through the courts. Last I can recall, they had recovered more than half of what was lost but there are more than 500 cases under way.

[Gregg]

Keep in mind here that we're still talking about just getting a judgement, which is possibly more than one step away from getting any money from said judgement.

[Hyrion]

I REPEAT>>NO TRIALS>>> It's a DONE DEAL

An example of a trial occurring in such a situation (ponzi scheme) can be found here:

http://www.madofftrustee.com/document/d ... cket77.pdf

The Applicants contend that the JPMorgan Settlement triggered the MFN clause, and the Trustee owes each a refund. Finding the Optimal Settlement ambiguous on this point, the Court conducted a trial on
July 30, 2014, and now concludes that the Applicants are not entitled to the refunds they seek.

Bolding mine. To be clear: This isn't an example where a trial was held over the specific context of the amount of money a net-winner might or might not owe.

It is an example that as long as there is a reasonable dispute over the facts directly relational to a point of Law the Judge is being asked to resolved - a trial can easily occur.

As my non-legal education indicates, a reasonable dispute whether a net-winner is or is not a net-winner or how much they actually owe could easily trigger such an event - a trial.

[worried]

Grimreaper reminds me of SomeYuppie.

I'm always suspicious of CERTAINTY (I'm even finally learning to be suspicious of my own certainties sometimes ).

There are a lot of people posting on this forum who at least SOUND like they're somewhat familiar with real law training, and guess what? They're warning of the UNcertainties associated with a case like this because of all the messy details. When somebody who even remotely sounds like they know what they're talking about warns you of UNCERTAINTY and that you should be CAREFUL, it's a good, and safe, idea to listen to them. I really don't understand what benefit there is in the certainty that Grimreaper is displaying.

I hope the best for anybody that means well.

[webhick]

Given all the NAS investors that profited, how much money has been recovered from NAS clawbacks so far?

Per the last report, nothing. It doesn't quite look like it's moved to the demand letter portion of things. It doesn't look like they've completed the books beyond a certain point yet. I don't have it written down, but it's in the filings somewhere. I can find it again if you like. They may need to wait until the books are rebuilt for NASI before trying to claw it back.

As someone who has rebuilt books before, you're usually smart to wait until the rebuild is complete before demanding that outstanding payment from a customer. It never fails that the one time you think you got it all and send that statement, they call up bitching and moaning about a $20 check cut by their mother's uncle's sister's niece who put some god-awful cursive chicken scratch in the memo that vaguely resembles a portion of the account number that you would have eventually matched up to this customer by process of elimination.

Yes. Cursive numbers. No word of a lie.

[notorial dissent]

Given all the NAS investors that profited, how much money has been recovered from NAS clawbacks so far?

Have lawyers won against paying clawbacks in the past?

I was under the impression, apparently mistaken, that letters had already been sent out. I seem to have jumped the gun, my error, and really should have known better, it would seem that they are still in the talking about it stage. I don't know if once the letters are actually done the Receiver will have to go back before the judge to get permission to send them out or not. Some judges micro-manage, others do not. I was aware of one operation that required approval for every little thing and took forever to warp up. A more recent one, Zeek, that has previously been discussed has moved fairly expeditiously, at least to my mind, as the judge seems to trust the Receiver's abilities, and there is actually real serious money to go after in that case. That and they had ALL the books and records when they started.

What still concerns me is how done or near done the Receiver is as far as the actual accounting and finalizing what will have to stand as the books when and if anything further goes to trial, and I can see that really buggering up the whole process. I can’t tell for certain that they have done the 1099's and final tax filing yet, although last we heard they’d asked for an extension, which is a good news bad news sort of thing. It means they are still working on it, and may not know just how much, or worse even how much is involved to report yet, which is really the bad news for all concerned since that means they don’t have any final figures and that could really make a mess out of some of the investor’s taxes. As I understand it, this is a nasty tangled sort of mess as far as figuring taxes is concerned and where a real tax lawyer or CPA could make all the difference in the world, but they gotta have real figures to work with, and it helps if what you’re filing matches what is being reported.

noblepa, the main difference, at least to my understanding, between this and Madoff is that a lot of the money coming back in was from institutionals who aren’t and can’t afford to fight it, for a variety of reasons. A good deal of which was also most likely covered by insurance, and probably a fair dip into Uncle Sugar’s pockets as well. I would suspect that many of the well heeled probably settled figuring it was easier and less expensive than fighting, and more importantly didn’t want the notoriety of having been taken quite so thoroughly. Madoff’s victims were all people with lots of money and a good many of them got hit and hurt on this one. My guess is that the Madoff Receiver will be in court for years to come before that is all settled and done. That being said, there is no real similarity between Madoff and NASI on that front.

As near as I can tell the only money they have gotten back to date came from the Relief Defendants, a piddling sum from Oasis and the return of a loan from someone affiliated with Oasis. Nothing earth shattering or momentous.

So at this point it is sit and wait. My only suggestion to anyone among the investor class, winner or loser, would be to get ALL your records and correspondence together to deal with this when it finally shakes down, you're most likely either going to need it to deal with the Receiver or the tax man, or both. Depending on how much you have involved, or how you feel about it, you might also start auditioning a tax lawyer and/or CPA as well. Or, in some cases a good litigation attorney wouldn't be out of order.

[wserra]

As someone who has rebuilt books before

As someone who has "rebuilt" books before . . .

Apropos of nothing, it's still funny the difference that a simple pair of quotes can make.

[Gregg]

I'm too a'scared to poke fun of Webhick, she has super powers and I've seen what she does to interns.

[grimreaper]

I REPEAT>>NO TRIALS>>> It's a DONE DEAL

An example of a trial occurring in such a situation (ponzi scheme) can be found here:

http://www.madofftrustee.com/document/d ... cket77.pdf

The Applicants contend that the JPMorgan Settlement triggered the MFN clause, and the Trustee owes each a refund. Finding the Optimal Settlement ambiguous on this point, the Court conducted a trial on
July 30, 2014, and now concludes that the Applicants are not entitled to the refunds they seek.

Bolding mine. To be clear: This isn't an example where a trial was held over the specific context of the amount of money a net-winner might or might not owe.

It is an example that as long as there is a reasonable dispute over the facts directly relational to a point of Law the Judge is being asked to resolved - a trial can easily occur.

As my non-legal education indicates, a reasonable dispute whether a net-winner is or is not a net-winner or how much they actually owe could easily trigger such an event - a trial.

You took LIBERTIES in those BOLD words WHY did you do this?
Do you think that bolsters your point? Are you saying that a hearing is the same thing as a TRIAL?

This is original quote>>>
The Court subsequently held
an evidentiary hearing on
July 30, 2014. The evidence
consisted primarily of the various drafts of te Optimal Settlement and
the testimony of the two
attorneys involved in drafting the
agreement. For the most part,
they testified about what they
contended the MFN clause meant, but did not provide evidence, beyond the exchange of drafts,
that touched on their negotiations, or specifically, who said what
to who about the MFN clause
and its various iterations.

[grimreaper]

I REPEAT>>NO TRIALS>>> It's a DONE DEAL

An example of a trial occurring in such a situation (ponzi scheme) can be found here:

http://www.madofftrustee.com/document/d ... cket77.pdf

The Applicants contend that the JPMorgan Settlement triggered the MFN clause, and the Trustee owes each a refund. Finding the Optimal Settlement ambiguous on this point, the Court conducted a trial on
July 30, 2014, and now concludes that the Applicants are not entitled to the refunds they seek.

Bolding mine. To be clear: This isn't an example where a trial was held over the specific context of the amount of money a net-winner might or might not owe.

It is an example that as long as there is a reasonable dispute over the facts directly relational to a point of Law the Judge is being asked to resolved - a trial can easily occur.

As my non-legal education indicates, a reasonable dispute whether a net-winner is or is not a net-winner or how much they actually owe could easily trigger such an event - a trial.

You took LIBERTIES in those BOLD words WHY did you do this?
Do you think that bolsters your point? Are you saying that a hearing is the same thing as a TRIAL?

This is original quote>>>
The Court subsequently held
an evidentiary hearing on
July 30, 2014. The evidence
consisted primarily of the various drafts of te Optimal Settlement and
the testimony of the two
attorneys involved in drafting the
agreement. For the most part,
they testified about what they
contended the MFN clause meant, but did not provide evidence, beyond the exchange of drafts,
that touched on their negotiations, or specifically, who said what
to who about the MFN clause
and its various iterations.

NOTE:
Yes I said no more posts...I'm doing my best, but this just couldn't be ignored.

[Hyrion]

You took LIBERTIES in those BOLD words WHY did you do this?

The answer to that is quite clear in the fact a trial was held because a reasonble dispute existed surrounding a point of Law.

Are you saying that a hearing is the same thing as a TRIAL?

Whether or not a hearing is the same as a trial - you can dispute the semantics with the Judge.

Title to the document linked to: Post-Trial Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law Denying Application For Partial Refund Of Prior Settlement Payments.

I'm absolutely positive the Judge who authored the document knows whether or not there was a trial. You can attempt to claim it was only a hearing and not a trial all you'd like. But I'll accept the reality that the Judge referenced it in both the title and other locations as a trial. For example, footnote 2 on page 3:

Two witnesses, Richard Levin, Esq. and Marc E. Hirschfield, Esp., testified at trial. By agreement, they gave their direct testimoney by declaration, and were then cross-examined. Hence, citations to their declarations actually refer to their direct testimony at trial.

In my humble opinion - it is absolute nonsense that you would attempt to insist a trial didn't occur when the Judge quite clearly authored the document as a trial that did occur. You wish to argue the semantics separating a hearing from a trial? Do so with the Judge who authored the document. I won't be responding to any more of your nonsense.

[grimreaper]

It's not simply semantics. A trial will be much greater in scope and review the entire case from start to finish. It's putting
ALL THE CARDS on the table and the consequences are far reaching...usually *ALL OR NONE*. When we have hearings, they are focused on particular issues and LIMITED IN SCOPE. This doesn't mean the possible consequences of a hearing might not be significant, since a NET WINNER could have their claw back diminished (say in the case of error). However, whereas a TRIAL might ELIMINATE culpability, a hearing would NOT in this case>>UNLESS it could be demonstrated that the investor was NOT a net winner after all. So, let's put this subject to rest. Yes, net winners will have recourse in hearings only, which will address specific issues. If the issue turns out to be an error, then those will be ameliorated. It may be possible that a hearing results in a diminished judgement for other reasons. However, net winners will not be able to *RE TRY* their case and get off the hook....AKA..dismissal.