Julie, there is the receivership for the assets that are ours collectively and
then there is a lawsuit for negligence on the part of AEM and it’s owners. The
receivership would happen first I would assume but I think a lawsuit needs to
be filed for afterwards and the losses still sustained. Maybe not everyone
wants to pursue this but whoever does could go the route that Troy is
presenting. Not a class action due to the cost.
Belinda
From: aem-vanc-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:aem-vanc-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of Julia Pond
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 2:25 PM
To: aem-vanc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [aem-vanc] Re: AEM Investor Representation
A class action lawsuit will benefit only the attorneys. A receivership at least
recovers in proportion to claims with lower costs.
I wouldn’t be interested in being a class member of a lawsuit (which would be
in addition to the pending one!) until or unless someone can tell me
definitively that my recovery will be greater than the receivership (with a
truly independent receiver) AFTER attorneys’ fees are paid.
--
Julia Pond
juliapond@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019, at 12:02 PM, Troy Rendon wrote:
I for one, am interested in pooling resources and choosing a law firm to
represent us all.
Do we have a law firm interested in taking on this case on behalf of us all?
I believe a potential contingency arraignment would be beneficial. Where a
hypothetical law firm agrees to take a percentage of winning if successful.
A true class action arrangement often seems to mostly benefit of the law firm
where any winnings are mostly chewed up by the attorneys and anything left over
is divided up amongst the class action plaintiff. We are a group of nearly
200 investors. That’s a relatively large group with a large combined network.
Does anyone know a law firm willing to take up our cause under a contingency
arraignment?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 26, 2019, at 10:06 AM, Julia Pond <juliapond@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
“amount of money” I meant. Darn autocorrect.
--
Julia Pond
juliapond@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019, at 10:01 AM, Julia Pond wrote:
It would be smart to have one attorney for whom everyone shares the cost
burden. Right now I believe we need to make the move to have the meeting with
the court to discuss the change of receiver. Because it was voluntary by Ross,
we got neither objectivity nor least cost. And given the punt of money and the
circumstances of senior citizens due to this, it is a crime in my view that
Hamstreet and attorneys will bill $1mm by year end.
--
Julia Pond
juliapond@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019, at 9:52 AM, William Pritchard wrote:
Good morning, fellow AEM Investors,
While we are all trying wrap our thoughts around AEM’s problems, it appears we
are scrambling to catch up.
Because it is wise that we all have good legal representation, for each
investor to have an attorney working on this issue is inefficient and expensive.
Would anyone be interesting in joining forces in a class action process to
pursue civil legal proceedings. I believe we are all in this together, perhaps
I’m incorrect. But if we pursue any remedy, it would wise to work together.
With hearing from Hamstreet that there has never been no audit and no tax
filings for the last ten years, the possibility of illegal financial accounting
seems to be looming. So pursuing a class action civil suit against AEM
principles may be a feasible and aid in exposing additional financial assets.
I am open to any thoughtful suggestions and any opportunity to get together and
redeem our investments.
We need a leader, a spokesperson and a mutually agreed upon legal team to
represent us, the investors.
I wish everyone the best in this difficult time. At the May 30 meeting I was
disheartened to see many good people in the senior years affected by this
trauma.
Let me know what suggestions and ideas you all may have.
Thank you, best regards
Bill
Bill Pritchard
drwilliampritchard@xxxxxxxxx
I would appreciate it, as I am sure you do, that our emails need to stay
private and not broadcast all over. This may impossible, be at least we try.
Thanks.
On Jun 23, 2019, at 2:48 PM, Julia Pond <juliapond@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
At this rate, Hamstreet and company will bill a million by the end of the
year.
--
Julia Pond
juliapond@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019, at 2:41 PM, LARRY MANSFIELD wrote:
Julia, unfortunately I was in involved in a Ponzi scheme years ago and it is
not over yet as of a few months ago the receivership attorney had received 2.96
million and other attorneys associated over 1.5 million and about another half
million for miscellaneous and probably received $.10 back on the dollar and the
people involved in that. The master mine does not get out of prison Until 2027
and his accomplice is out now and spent about three or four years in prison I
had checked American Equities out with the Better Business Bureau police fellow
investors and being local and in business since the 70s I felt pretty
comfortable
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 23, 2019, at 2:22 PM, Julia Pond <juliapond@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Usually, a bankruptcy attorney is the receiver (if court-appointed in the usual
manner). They bill at about $400/hour, but would not require a second attorney
to liaise with the court, as Hamstreet does. So that is a costly duplication of
billings.
--
Julia Pond
juliapond@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019, at 1:48 PM, Troy Rendon wrote:
Hi everyone,
To add to what Eva has said, my attorney has recommended similar advice.
Going after the funds / pools may be fruitless b/c they are going to be
liquidated in receivership, etc. So what is left? The other entities (managers,
accountants, attorneys , etc) that remain. This would include Davis Wright
Tremaine potentially b/c they wrote some or all of these contracts for American
Equities. However, he warned this would be no slam dunk. There is no
guarantee what Ross, et al is worth (if anything) and Davis Wright Tremaine is
a large law firm that has the ability and motivation to defend itself (it could
be expensive).
I’m on the fence about appointing a different receiver. I agree that the
current firm is charging very high fees and that this will get expensive.
However, I believe that would be true of any receivership. I would like to
hear more about forcing a bankruptcy and having a public entity (the federal
courts) overseeing the distribution of funds. However, what are the risks of
having a public entity overseeing a bankruptcy? I think we need to learn more
about all pros and cons of these potential decisions.
Troy Rendon
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 23, 2019, at 12:35 PM, Eva Johnson <los-johnsons@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Julia,
We are in Oregon and more importantly, so is our attorney, so I do not know if
we could file for the motion to change receivership. It’s my understanding
that if we file for involuntary bankruptcy (in Oregon or federally), it would
make it easier for our attorney to intervene. In any case, our first step
should be in my opinion, to get us together and have someone who knows tell us
our options. For instance, our attorney suggested that we should go in mass
to the District Attorney’s office in Vancouver and/or to the US District
Attorney’s office in Portland. Or that we go after the entities that are not
in receivership, so the accountants and lawyers working for AEM, along with
the family.
But I am only relaying these ideas and cannot elaborate much , because I am not
that well versed in the law. So it would be better to hear these from a lawyer.
Eva Johnson
On Jun 23, 2019, at 11:39 AM, Julia Pond <juliapond@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes. It changes the outcome for everyone if there is found to be illegal
activity.
The receiver also did not explain our options or procedures for objections. He
said only (and somewhat flippantly) that if we didn’t like something we could
take it up with the court.
A couple of weeks ago I contacted the FBI and made a report. I pointed to the
discrepancy between liabilities and assets as well as the amount of money
involved as evidence of a Ponzi scheme. The agent who took my report said that
the entity/situation is known to them. They could not elaborate.
--
Julia Pond
juliapond@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019, at 11:33 AM, LARRY MANSFIELD wrote:
Also at meeting at Red Lion, he was asked if he would contact or report any
illegal issues to proper authorities and his response was I am not here to
prosecute or judge illegal activities only to liquidate assets or words to that
effect were said, you are right he is representing Ross only.
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 23, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Julia Pond <juliapond@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Agreed. The current situation is neither objective nor least-cost, as we are
entitled to as creditors. We need to pursue the option to change receiver at a
minimum. I am willing to be one of the two that makes the motion. Can your
attorney file it?
My attorney is filing my objection to the notice of intent to compensate. We
have a couple of reasons in our objection, so at least the runaway train that
this has been is momentarily paused.
--
Julia Pond
juliapond@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019, at 10:13 AM, Robert Johnson wrote:
Hello,
My name is Eva Johnson, I am Robert Johnson's wife. We wrote and sent the
letter to all we could, in an attempt to get everybody together. This
list-serve is a great idea, thank for setting it up.
I think that we should pursue Julia's suggestion and file a motion to change
receivership. My husband I have been talking to our attorney and we were told
that we could also force AEM into involuntary bankruptcy (possibly in federal
court), which takes it out of the receivership and puts it into court. We need
to meet ASAP. I am not sure how to make this happen, anyone have an idea or
would want to take this on? We will have our attorney show up and help us
figure out our options. But time is of the essence. We want to meet with as
few or as many as are willing to do so. Thank you,
Eva and Rob Johnson
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:24 PM Julia Pond <juliapond@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All,
It only takes a motion of two or more creditors (served and filed within 30
days of the notice mailed to creditors) to make the court order a meeting of
all creditors to determine whether a person other than the assignee named in
the assignment should be appointed as a general receiver.
I think we ought to at least try to get someone who doesn’t have such high fees
AND get Ross’ attorneys out of this process.
As it stands, Hamstreet and the attorneys are on track to bill over a million
dollars by year end, and in any tough decision will favor Ross over any or all
of us—if it keeps the money flowing.
--
Julia Pond
juliapond@xxxxxxxxxxx
