I understand all that. But the benefit of collectively bringing another lawsuit
needs to be explained.
--
Julia Pond
juliapond@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019, at 12:49 PM, bfranke wrote:
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