After Hamstreet attorney read the Subscription Agreement and that it states the
manager can do anything he wants it was basically over....done.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 3, 2019, at 11:26 AM, Robert Paladeni <rpaladeni@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Chris I want to thank you for keeping everyone informed as to what happened
in court. I for one would be happy if the 40 million in the hole included
the bogus loans, and over valuations of property but I don't have the warm
fuzzies that it does. Definitely a sorry state of affairs for all investors.
On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 7:50 AM Denise <dmhood@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thank you for the detailed report Christine.
God help us all....
Denise Hood
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Christine Bugas <chrisbugas@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 8/3/19 6:28 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: aem-vanc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [aem-vanc] Re: Address for Court proceeding 9 am tomorrow, 8/2/19 ?
Dear aem-vanc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jim and I went to the court proceedings in which the objection to the
receivership was addressed. Hamstreet's rep spoke for 90 percent of the
time. Weak arguments against the use of receivership were offered. Grenley
said he didn't think that the receiver should be able to sell houses but
offered little to back up that assertion. Tim Dack said that he thought
that the use of receivership was out of the course of ordinary business.
But when asked what the alternative would be he had no idea. He did feel as
if there should be a vote by investors to which the judge said that would be
like herding cats. On the contrary, Hamstreeet's rep was making the
argument that the receivership is not bankruptcy and used arcane law and
convoluted embedded references to receivership in other case law that
pointed to how right it was for a receiver to take over. There was little
push back -- none really. The judge did not want to deal with going up
against the previous judge who said the receivership was OK. As for the
receivership charging 140,000 for the month of May: they stated that the
had charged 200,000 for 3 months, which sounds like it was weighted toward
the first month but that was as they were setting things up. The judge said
"we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" and "silk purse of a
sow's ear" and a few other overused cute little things. I believe he was
just dying to get out of there. And I had thought that it was to be just
this case and would be time to discuss but Hamstreet had every other case go
first -- at least 8 -- and by the time that the thing started, the judge was
ready to be done with all the day as it was Friday.
Tim Dack was ill prepared to argue against the receiver. He should perhaps
have said that the receivership was like a bankruptcy which is prohibited
without investor approval. Or, he could have said that, as Trey has pointed
out, this is simply eliminating the relationship each of us has to the LLCas
the LLC's will cease after their assets are entirely sold off and so this is
not the ordinary course of business. Hamstreet guy said in some convoluted
and tortured reasoning that this IS the ordinary course of business. But to
make that argument he had to go to other case law that an ordinary person
would not be able to access without being a receivership lawyer who argues
about receiverships for a living.
My take for the good of the group. Looks like we are in receivership and
that the dissolutionof the AE includes the dissolution of the LLC's in this
manner
Of note, Hamstreet guy said that American Equities may actually, and they
believe is actually, 40 mil in the hole. My question would be how is it
that they are still getting 80,000 per month in contracts that are paying
out if the holdings are so worthless? I believe they plan to live on the
money as long as is accepted by whoever is looking over their work -- no one
at this point -- and when they have fed at the trough for some amount of
time: they will simply leave.
I don't know if there is a way to read the transcript of the hearing and
require a redo on the arguments. Jim points out that investors could not
have come up with those cases to buff the Hamstreet position that
receivership is allowed. It's as Trey initially said: this is not the
ordinary course of business.
chris
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 8:05 AM Neil & Marilyn <nmr1311b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Note.............There is a parking garage just ot the north of the court
house. Also going in the back entrance of court house, you will have an
easier time going through security as they are much less busy.
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 7:40 AM Robert Johnson <rdj11256@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thank you.
Sent from Rob's iPad Pro
On Aug 1, 2019, at 10:11 PM, Ila Stanek <timeout29@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
1200 Franklin Street, Vancouver
Sent from Ila's iPhone with a mind of its own.
On Aug 1, 2019, at 10:00 PM, Robert Johnson <rdj11256@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Does anyone have the address and the courtroom for tomorrow’s
proceedings? Please publish to this list.
Sent from Rob's iPad Pro
