Doug, I appreciate the thought you put into your suggestion. While I agree
this approach would likely reduce legal and accounting fees, I do not agree
that it is appropriate. What we all signed up for was the specific risks of
the contracts and properties in our respective pools. I looked at certain
pools and avoided them (even though they paid higher interest) because they
involved higher risks. I am sure many others did the same. We did not agree
to take the wider risk of investing equally across all pools. The court
cannot force that greater risk upon us by creating one supercool merely because
American Equities illegally commingled funds without our permission. What you
have proposed would be efficient, but at the cost of fairness. It would force
some funds with modest losses to subsidize others with large losses, even
though the majority of the losses may just relate to the higher risk of certain
pools. That would be great for the investors in the large loss category and
terrible for the investors whose pools are in better shape. All of the pools
are separate entities and all could have different Managers after the
Receivership is terminated. The investors in each LLC have the right to pick
their own Manager and work out fair compensation for the Manager"s work. I
think the accounting can be worked out outside of a receivership for much less
than it would be inside it. For now it makes sense to benefit all investors in
all pools by stopping the absurd level of receiver and attorney fees we are
being charged. Once this is done we should be able to get some level of income
flowing to the investors. TreySent from my Galaxy Tab A
-------- Original message --------From: Doug Meddaugh <dmmedda@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 7/7/19 1:16 PM (GMT-07:00) To: aem-vanc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject:
[aem-vanc] Re: Status of current objections to Receivership 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 treytennyson3Sent: Tuesday, ;
July 02, 2019 9:55 PMTo: aem-vanc@freelists.orgSubject: [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> Date: 7/2/19 7:18 PM (GMT-07:00) To:
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] On Behalf Of treytennyson3Sent: Tuesday, ;
July 02, 2019 7:04 PMTo: aem-vanc@freelists.orgSubject: [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> Date: 7/2/19 6:42 PM (GMT-07:00) To:
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] On Behalf Of treytennyson3Sent: Tuesday, ;
July 02, 2019 6:12 PMTo: aem-vanc@freelists.orgSubject: [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>
Date: 7/2/19 6:05 PM (GMT-07:00) To: 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 Meddaugh2901 Columbia StVancouver WA 98660360-241-9999 From:
aem-vanc-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:aem-vanc-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf ;
Of treytennyson3Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2019 4:28 PMTo:
aem-vanc@freelists.orgSubject: [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 Tennysontreytennyson3@xxxxxxxxx Sent from my Galaxy Tab A
