Hi Trey (and everybody),
I’ve been meaning to respond to the valid points you make. I would like to
suggest an idea that I believe offers a way forward while minimizing conflicts
of interest among investors:
My bottom line is that I would like to see the maximum return end up in the
hands of the investors and the minimum in the hands of receivers, attorneys,
etc. The best way to achieve that, I believe, is to essentially break down the
walls of the 15 separate pools and treat the collective as one super pool in
effect. The basic idea would be to add up the individual contributions of
everyone (original investments plus reinvested returns for those who reinvested
rather than taking monthly distributions) and then dividing each individual’s
total investment by the overall total to establish each person’s percentage
share of the whole. Then as properties are liquidated and periodic
distributions can be made, each person receives their percentage share of that
distribution.
That’s the basic idea and seems to me to address a great concern of mine that
if we get into the business of trying to unwind what has gone on with loans
from one fund to another and try to make sense of that, the process of doing so
is going to eat up a lot of potential return due to the cost of expensive
research, not to mention the potential of in-fighting among investors and
further legal action that isn’t going to serve anyone well. If ideally we could
all agree to moving forward with getting Hamstreet and Miller Nash removed,
cutting through all the conflicts of interest and put in place one attorney and
a new fund manager representing the super pool, everything could move much more
quickly and efficiently. Regardless of what happened within any one pool and
between pools, Ross blurred the lines between the pools without knowledge or
approval of any investor, no one is going to get back what was promised us, and
where we are today is where we are. I propose we all throw in together and move
forward as a single entity to put the maximum possible return into the pockets
of the investors.
I would welcome other thoughts and perspectives.
Wishing everyone the best,
Doug
From: aem-vanc-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:aem-vanc-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of treytennyson3
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2019 9:55 PM
To: aem-vanc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [aem-vanc] Re: Status of current objections to Receivership
Doug, I am not advocating separate lawyers unless that is necessary. The
problem we could run into with the same lawyer is if your fund owes my fund
money or vice versa. If that is the case and we have the same lawyer then he
will have a conflict of interest and cannot represent both sides.
I think we could be represented together initially for the purpose of opposing
the receivership and appointing a new Manager. After that it could get
complicated if there are disagreements.
Trey
Sent from my Galaxy Tab A
-------- Original message --------
From: Doug Meddaugh <dmmedda@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dmmedda@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Date: 7/2/19 7:18 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: aem-vanc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:aem-vanc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [aem-vanc] Re: Status of current objections to Receivership
I guess I misunderstood. I am invested in AEM Mexico 200. I took your
statement, ‘My attorney has requested that I find other investors in the AEM
600 fund and the other funds’ to mean he would represent all funds involved in
the receivership action. Do we really need 15 separate lawyers and actions to
navigate through this?
From: aem-vanc-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:aem-vanc-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:aem-vanc-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of treytennyson3
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2019 7:04 PM
To: aem-vanc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:aem-vanc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [aem-vanc] Re: Status of current objections to Receivership
Agreed, but there should not be a conflict of interest. That likely means that
Tim should only represent the AEM 600 investors, since there are loans between
the funds.
Trey
Sent from my Galaxy Tab A
-------- Original message --------
From: Doug Meddaugh <dmmedda@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dmmedda@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Date: 7/2/19 6:42 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: aem-vanc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:aem-vanc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [aem-vanc] Re: Status of current objections to Receivership
Yes, Trey, I am willing to help with the costs but can only do so to a limited
extent. I would like to know how many investors are likewise willing to do so.
We really need broad participation in and commitment to sharing the legal
costs, and not have multiple lawyers duplicating efforts and potentially
working at cross purposes. I really like the fact that Tim zeroed right in on
the need to file objections and proceeded to do so.
I’d like to throw out there to the community, a request for show of interest
that we all retain Tim as our legal representative so we can more narrowly
focus our efforts, energies and resources for the common good. There is so much
to be gained by working in concert.
-Doug
From: aem-vanc-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:aem-vanc-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:aem-vanc-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of treytennyson3
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2019 6:12 PM
To: aem-vanc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:aem-vanc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [aem-vanc] Re: Status of current objections to Receivership
Thanks, Doug. It appears we think alike. Most investors are in this for the
income, rather than a fast return of principal. I would rather receive a lower
income stream now and better return down the road than fire sale prices. Would
you be willing to consider also retaining Tim as a client? The more we can get
the lower the costs for each client.
Tim or I will be in touch soon
Trey
Sent from my Galaxy Tab A
-------- Original message --------
From: Doug Meddaugh <dmmedda@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dmmedda@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Date: 7/2/19 6:05 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: aem-vanc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:aem-vanc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [aem-vanc] Re: Status of current objections to Receivership
Thank you, Trey! I only today was able to get setup on the list-serve and read
through all the posts to date. All I can say is thank you for taking the steps
you have and I am happy to sign the statement. I couldn’t agree more that we
need a new manager in place. I, for one, would rather take longer to liquidate
properties and contracts and receive greater return by doing so, than sell
quickly at fire sale prices for lower return.
And I just want to say that I believe the sooner we can collectively agree on a
single legal representative who represents all interests, and share the costs,
the better off we all will be.
Again, thank you.
Douglas Meddaugh
2901 Columbia St
Vancouver WA 98660
360-241-9999
From: aem-vanc-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:aem-vanc-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:aem-vanc-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of treytennyson3
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2019 4:28 PM
To: aem-vanc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:aem-vanc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [aem-vanc] Status of current objections to Receivership
Good afternoon, fellow investors. My name is Trey Tennyson. My mother and I
have very large investments in the AEM 600 fund, but no others.
I am a recently retired trial attorney from Vancouver. As I relocated to
Arizona a few years ago, I hired Vancouver attorney Tim Dack to represent my
interests in the AEM receivership.
After reviewing the legal documents (pleadings) that American Equities filed
with the court to start the receivership, I became convinced that the
receivership had been improperly started. The documents that were filed with
the court showed that American Equities (as Manager of each of the different
funds) had made what is called an assignment of assets to the Receiver in favor
of its creditors. This is a fancy way of saying that American Equities simply
transferred our assets to a third party who will now act as our new fund
Manager. Unfortunately, this new Manager (the Receiver) wants to be paid $500
per hour and wants its attorneys (((Miller Nash) to be paid $500 per hour.
These fees are well in excess of the .50 percent management fee we were paying
to American Equities.
As you all know, each fund is set up as a separate Washington Limited Liability
Company(LLC). The investors in each LLC became its members and also its
creditors. LLCs in Washington are governed by statutes. The most important
statute relates to member voting rights, and provides that ALL members must
consent to any dissolution (dissolving) of the LLC or to any action of the LLC
Manager which is outside the ordinary course of business of the LLC. The
receivership would effectively dissolve each of the LLCs and it is clearly not
part of the normal course of the business which is managing real estate
investmen
Last week, Tim Dack filed an objection to the Receiver`s request for
compensation (including attorneys fees, receivers fees, accountants, etc) on
the grounds that the LLC investors did not vote to approve the receivership and
it is therefore illegal. We also onjected on the grounds that the receiver and
his attorneys were requesting that they be paid different amounts of money from
each LLC for work that they claimed benefitted each fund equally. This could
cause some funds to pay far more than their fair share and hurt the investors
in these funds.
My mother and I were the only investors to file an objection to the Receivers
request for compensation. However, I am sure many of you share these same
concerns and would agree with these positions. None of us voted to set up an
expensive receivership. What we need is a new Manager of the LLC funds who is
competent , will work for a reasonable fee and can gradually liquidate the
funds in the way that returns the most money to the investors.
As a result of our objection, the Receiver will have to file a legal motion and
set a hearing in front of Judge Gregerson. This will be done in the next week
or two and the hearing will likely be in late July.
The Receiver has also scheduled a hearing in July where he is requesting
approval from the Judge to sell property owned by all the LLCs. We are
objecting to this request because the receivership was not properly approved by
the investors.
My attorney has requested that I find other investors in the AEM 600 fund and
the other funds who will join in writing and support our objections. This will
show the Judge that many investors object to the receivership and the sky high
fees that come with it. If you are willing to sign such a statement, please
email me with your name, address and telephone and either myself or my attorney
will contact you. With our combined effort, the Receivership can be
terminated and a new Manager properly appointed that will return a much larger
amount to the investors.
Trey Tennyson
treytennyson3@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:treytennyson3@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent from my Galaxy Tab A
