Quick dating
Custom Menu
  • Adult chat without e mail
  • all dating ukrainian
  • Text live sex chat without registragion
  • NEWS
    We’ve done our absolute best to provide you with an accurate list of free dating sites.


    Usacm liquidating trust

    Madden , Diamond Mc Carthy Taylor Finley & Lee, LLP, Dallas, TX, Rob Charles , Lewis and Roca LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiffs.

    Perrin , Latham & Watkins, Los Angeles, CA, Rosa Solis-Rainey , Steve L. Presently before the Court is Defendant Deloitte & Touche LLP's Motion for Summary Judgment (Imputation, In Pari Delicto, and Statute of Limitations) (Doc.

    usacm liquidating trust-86usacm liquidating trust-67

    AA at 66-68, 107.) USACM was in the business of originating loans to real estate borrowers provided by direct lenders and servicing the loans it originated by collecting principal and interest from the borrowers and distributing those payments to the direct lenders. P.) USACM primarily obtained revenue through loan origination and servicing fees. K at 56.) USACM also sometimes invested in development projects, including some that USACM originated and serviced. at 58.) USACM's original business model consisted of matching direct lenders to borrowers whereby each lender had a partial interest in both the loan and the underlying security for each loan. 350, 34 P.2d 1076, 1077 (1934) (quotation omitted); see also Bates v. 388, 441 P.2d 622, 624 (1968); Restatement (Third) of Agency § 5.03. In Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Allegheny Health Education and Research Foundation v. For example, USACM made advances to HMA Sales either directly or through USAIP to support the operations of HMA Sales. (Id.) After completing the 2001 year-end audit, Deloitte withdrew as USACM's auditor in January 2003. (Id.) Despite finding numerous violations each year, FID only fined USACM ,000 in April 1999 for various violations, and fined USACM for unapproved advertising in March and November 2000, and July 2001, resulting in fines of

    AA at 66-68, 107.) USACM was in the business of originating loans to real estate borrowers provided by direct lenders and servicing the loans it originated by collecting principal and interest from the borrowers and distributing those payments to the direct lenders. P.) USACM primarily obtained revenue through loan origination and servicing fees. K at 56.) USACM also sometimes invested in development projects, including some that USACM originated and serviced. at 58.) USACM's original business model consisted of matching direct lenders to borrowers whereby each lender had a partial interest in both the loan and the underlying security for each loan. 350, 34 P.2d 1076, 1077 (1934) (quotation omitted); see also Bates v. 388, 441 P.2d 622, 624 (1968); Restatement (Third) of Agency § 5.03. In Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Allegheny Health Education and Research Foundation v.

    For example, USACM made advances to HMA Sales either directly or through USAIP to support the operations of HMA Sales. (Id.) After completing the 2001 year-end audit, Deloitte withdrew as USACM's auditor in January 2003. (Id.) Despite finding numerous violations each year, FID only fined USACM $4,000 in April 1999 for various violations, and fined USACM for unapproved advertising in March and November 2000, and July 2001, resulting in fines of $1,000, $3,000, and $2,000 respectively, but took no other actions to suspend or revoke USACM's license. The Trust further responds that the adverse interest exception to imputation applies because Hantges and Milanowski were acting in their own interests, not USACM's interest, when they engaged in the alleged fraudulent schemes. It has been recognized as an affirmative defense which "prohibits plaintiffs from recovering damages resulting from their own wrongdoing." Nisselson v. The doctrine generally arises out of the theory that courts should not become involved in resolving disputes among wrongdoers, but instead should leave them where their own wrongdoing has left them. Denying judicial relief to a wrongdoer "is an effective means of deterring illegality." Id. The Trust contends that the Court should not apply the in pari delicto defense against it here because doing so would not serve the policies underlying the doctrine, and other public policy considerations favor dispensing with the defense under these circumstances.

    The Court held a hearing on these motions on August 30, 2010. Hamilton obtained a five percent interest in USACM in 1999, but was not a board member at any time. First, the Trust contends Hantges and Milanowski transferred vast sums of money from USACM into USAIP and other entities owned by Hantges and Milanowski without any obligation to do so on USACM's part, and without any corresponding benefit to USACM. USACM bought out direct lenders' interests on loans where the borrower was in default, and paid direct lenders principal and interest even if the underlying borrower had not made the corresponding payment, because it was better for USACM's business to be able to raise money in the future if it could tell investors that USACM's investors never lost money. (Id.) Defendant Deloitte performed year-end audits for USACM for fiscal years 1998 through 2001, completing the last audit for fiscal year 2001 on November 26, 2002. B-E.) For each year Deloitte worked as USACM's auditor, it issued unqualified audit opinions and certified that USACM's financial statements were fairly stated. 3, 4, 5.) FID's examinations of USACM identified a number of deficiencies over the years and FID expressed concerns about USACM's ability to meet the requirement that it have a net worth of $250,000 due to the substantial number of related and affiliated party transactions. The Trust responds that imputation should not apply because Hantges and Milanowski were not acting within the scope of their authority when they violated the law. United States, 572 F.3d 697, 700 (9th Cir.2009) (quotation omitted).

    # 149).) The parties thereafter filed briefs regarding supplemental authority (Doc. Plaintiff USACM Liquidating Trust ("Trust") is the successor-in-interest to USA Commercial Mortgage Company ("USACM") and USA Capital Diversified Trust Deed Fund, LLC ("DTDF"). (MSJ ¶ 6.) The only other stockholders included Paul Hamilton ("Hamilton") and Jamie Wise ("Wise"). X at 10-11, 38-39.) Hamilton held the title of managing director, but it was only an honorary title and Hamilton did not consider himself a member of USACM's management. (Id.) Establishment of these funds coincided with a drastic increase in the number of loans USACM originated from 2001 through 2005. K at 63.) According to the Trust, Hantges and Milanowski developed two fraudulent schemes to misappropriate USACM's service fees and funds in the two trust accounts for their own purposes. (Id.) The advances were non-interest bearing and thus as to USACM there was no upside in advancing money to HMA Sales. at 182.) However, USAIP stood to gain substantial profits and any potential upside to the advances inured to USAIP's benefit. The Trust contends Hantges and Milanowski did so to encourage both continued investment by current lenders as well as to attract new investors to keep money flowing into USACM which they could continue to divert to their other entities, such as USAIP. S at 164.) According to Milanowski, this was a business decision intended to benefit USACM. K at 91.) As loans defaulted at a higher rate, USACM began to withhold payments to direct lenders, including DTDF, because there were not enough funds in the Collections Trust Account to cover payments to lenders on non-performing loans. P at 283-85.) For example, in 2002, USACM withheld $7 million in principal and interest from DTDF. T.) USACM's payments on defaulted loans allowed USACM to claim that no direct lender ever failed to receive a payment, thus encouraging further investment to provide fresh capital into USACM. A at 69-70.) Indeed, investors continued to invest funds up to the date of USACM's bankruptcy. Deloitte further contends that even without imputation, the Trust's claims related to the fiscal year 2000 audit are time-barred under the applicable statute of repose. In pari delicto is a doctrine which generally provides that "[i]n case of equal fault the condition of the party defending is the better one." Kardoh v.

    USACM was incorporated in Nevada in February 1989 by Thomas A. (MSJ ¶ 4.) In 1995, Hantges became USACM's sole shareholder. Milanowski ("Milanowski") acquired USACM stock from Hantges. K at 42-43.) From May 1998 until its demise, Hantges and Milanowski together never owned less than eighty-three percent of USACM's stock. X at 38, 50.) In May 2006, Hamilton transferred his five percent interest in USACM to Milanowski. W.) Wise was Hantges' wife until the couple divorced in 2003. U at 24.) In January 2000, Hantges transferred eight percent of his stock to Wise's separate property trust. (MSJ ¶ 17.) To facilitate this business model, Hantges and Milanowski formed two investment funds, DTDF, and First Trust Deed Fund ("FTDF"). P at 180-81.) These transfers provided no benefit to USACM's loan origination or servicing business. at 181.) USACM had no obligation to make these advances, and it never had any ownership interest in HMA Sales. at 180 (TJA Marketing); 183-85 (Twelve Horses).) USACM made many advances to USAIP which were not interest bearing. at 204-05.) USACM had no ownership interest in USAIP, and thus had no obligation to advance any funds to USAIP, and had no right to share in USAIP's profits on these ventures. at 205.) Second, the Trust contends Hantges and Milanowski engaged in a "Ponzi-like" scheme by which they used new incoming investor funds to cover interest and principal payments to other investors who owned an interest in non-performing loans. NN.) Payments on non-performing loans eventually outpaced incoming investments and USACM filed for bankruptcy on April 13, 2006. Deloitte thus contends the statute of limitations has run on the Trust's claims. The Court therefore will consider whether Hantges' and Milanowski's knowledge and conduct bar the Trust's claims under either the in pari delicto doctrine, the statute of limitations, or both.

    ||

    AA at 66-68, 107.) USACM was in the business of originating loans to real estate borrowers provided by direct lenders and servicing the loans it originated by collecting principal and interest from the borrowers and distributing those payments to the direct lenders. P.) USACM primarily obtained revenue through loan origination and servicing fees. K at 56.) USACM also sometimes invested in development projects, including some that USACM originated and serviced. at 58.) USACM's original business model consisted of matching direct lenders to borrowers whereby each lender had a partial interest in both the loan and the underlying security for each loan. 350, 34 P.2d 1076, 1077 (1934) (quotation omitted); see also Bates v. 388, 441 P.2d 622, 624 (1968); Restatement (Third) of Agency § 5.03. In Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Allegheny Health Education and Research Foundation v. For example, USACM made advances to HMA Sales either directly or through USAIP to support the operations of HMA Sales. (Id.) After completing the 2001 year-end audit, Deloitte withdrew as USACM's auditor in January 2003. (Id.) Despite finding numerous violations each year, FID only fined USACM $4,000 in April 1999 for various violations, and fined USACM for unapproved advertising in March and November 2000, and July 2001, resulting in fines of $1,000, $3,000, and $2,000 respectively, but took no other actions to suspend or revoke USACM's license. The Trust further responds that the adverse interest exception to imputation applies because Hantges and Milanowski were acting in their own interests, not USACM's interest, when they engaged in the alleged fraudulent schemes. It has been recognized as an affirmative defense which "prohibits plaintiffs from recovering damages resulting from their own wrongdoing." Nisselson v. The doctrine generally arises out of the theory that courts should not become involved in resolving disputes among wrongdoers, but instead should leave them where their own wrongdoing has left them. Denying judicial relief to a wrongdoer "is an effective means of deterring illegality." Id. The Trust contends that the Court should not apply the in pari delicto defense against it here because doing so would not serve the policies underlying the doctrine, and other public policy considerations favor dispensing with the defense under these circumstances. The Court held a hearing on these motions on August 30, 2010. Hamilton obtained a five percent interest in USACM in 1999, but was not a board member at any time. First, the Trust contends Hantges and Milanowski transferred vast sums of money from USACM into USAIP and other entities owned by Hantges and Milanowski without any obligation to do so on USACM's part, and without any corresponding benefit to USACM. USACM bought out direct lenders' interests on loans where the borrower was in default, and paid direct lenders principal and interest even if the underlying borrower had not made the corresponding payment, because it was better for USACM's business to be able to raise money in the future if it could tell investors that USACM's investors never lost money. (Id.) Defendant Deloitte performed year-end audits for USACM for fiscal years 1998 through 2001, completing the last audit for fiscal year 2001 on November 26, 2002. B-E.) For each year Deloitte worked as USACM's auditor, it issued unqualified audit opinions and certified that USACM's financial statements were fairly stated. 3, 4, 5.) FID's examinations of USACM identified a number of deficiencies over the years and FID expressed concerns about USACM's ability to meet the requirement that it have a net worth of $250,000 due to the substantial number of related and affiliated party transactions. The Trust responds that imputation should not apply because Hantges and Milanowski were not acting within the scope of their authority when they violated the law. United States, 572 F.3d 697, 700 (9th Cir.2009) (quotation omitted). # 149).) The parties thereafter filed briefs regarding supplemental authority (Doc. Plaintiff USACM Liquidating Trust ("Trust") is the successor-in-interest to USA Commercial Mortgage Company ("USACM") and USA Capital Diversified Trust Deed Fund, LLC ("DTDF"). (MSJ ¶ 6.) The only other stockholders included Paul Hamilton ("Hamilton") and Jamie Wise ("Wise"). X at 10-11, 38-39.) Hamilton held the title of managing director, but it was only an honorary title and Hamilton did not consider himself a member of USACM's management. (Id.) Establishment of these funds coincided with a drastic increase in the number of loans USACM originated from 2001 through 2005. K at 63.) According to the Trust, Hantges and Milanowski developed two fraudulent schemes to misappropriate USACM's service fees and funds in the two trust accounts for their own purposes. (Id.) The advances were non-interest bearing and thus as to USACM there was no upside in advancing money to HMA Sales. at 182.) However, USAIP stood to gain substantial profits and any potential upside to the advances inured to USAIP's benefit. The Trust contends Hantges and Milanowski did so to encourage both continued investment by current lenders as well as to attract new investors to keep money flowing into USACM which they could continue to divert to their other entities, such as USAIP. S at 164.) According to Milanowski, this was a business decision intended to benefit USACM. K at 91.) As loans defaulted at a higher rate, USACM began to withhold payments to direct lenders, including DTDF, because there were not enough funds in the Collections Trust Account to cover payments to lenders on non-performing loans. P at 283-85.) For example, in 2002, USACM withheld $7 million in principal and interest from DTDF. T.) USACM's payments on defaulted loans allowed USACM to claim that no direct lender ever failed to receive a payment, thus encouraging further investment to provide fresh capital into USACM. A at 69-70.) Indeed, investors continued to invest funds up to the date of USACM's bankruptcy. Deloitte further contends that even without imputation, the Trust's claims related to the fiscal year 2000 audit are time-barred under the applicable statute of repose. In pari delicto is a doctrine which generally provides that "[i]n case of equal fault the condition of the party defending is the better one." Kardoh v. USACM was incorporated in Nevada in February 1989 by Thomas A. (MSJ ¶ 4.) In 1995, Hantges became USACM's sole shareholder. Milanowski ("Milanowski") acquired USACM stock from Hantges. K at 42-43.) From May 1998 until its demise, Hantges and Milanowski together never owned less than eighty-three percent of USACM's stock. X at 38, 50.) In May 2006, Hamilton transferred his five percent interest in USACM to Milanowski. W.) Wise was Hantges' wife until the couple divorced in 2003. U at 24.) In January 2000, Hantges transferred eight percent of his stock to Wise's separate property trust. (MSJ ¶ 17.) To facilitate this business model, Hantges and Milanowski formed two investment funds, DTDF, and First Trust Deed Fund ("FTDF"). P at 180-81.) These transfers provided no benefit to USACM's loan origination or servicing business. at 181.) USACM had no obligation to make these advances, and it never had any ownership interest in HMA Sales. at 180 (TJA Marketing); 183-85 (Twelve Horses).) USACM made many advances to USAIP which were not interest bearing. at 204-05.) USACM had no ownership interest in USAIP, and thus had no obligation to advance any funds to USAIP, and had no right to share in USAIP's profits on these ventures. at 205.) Second, the Trust contends Hantges and Milanowski engaged in a "Ponzi-like" scheme by which they used new incoming investor funds to cover interest and principal payments to other investors who owned an interest in non-performing loans. NN.) Payments on non-performing loans eventually outpaced incoming investments and USACM filed for bankruptcy on April 13, 2006. Deloitte thus contends the statute of limitations has run on the Trust's claims. The Court therefore will consider whether Hantges' and Milanowski's knowledge and conduct bar the Trust's claims under either the in pari delicto doctrine, the statute of limitations, or both.

    ,000, ,000, and ,000 respectively, but took no other actions to suspend or revoke USACM's license. The Trust further responds that the adverse interest exception to imputation applies because Hantges and Milanowski were acting in their own interests, not USACM's interest, when they engaged in the alleged fraudulent schemes. It has been recognized as an affirmative defense which "prohibits plaintiffs from recovering damages resulting from their own wrongdoing." Nisselson v. The doctrine generally arises out of the theory that courts should not become involved in resolving disputes among wrongdoers, but instead should leave them where their own wrongdoing has left them. Denying judicial relief to a wrongdoer "is an effective means of deterring illegality." Id. The Trust contends that the Court should not apply the in pari delicto defense against it here because doing so would not serve the policies underlying the doctrine, and other public policy considerations favor dispensing with the defense under these circumstances. The Court held a hearing on these motions on August 30, 2010. Hamilton obtained a five percent interest in USACM in 1999, but was not a board member at any time. First, the Trust contends Hantges and Milanowski transferred vast sums of money from USACM into USAIP and other entities owned by Hantges and Milanowski without any obligation to do so on USACM's part, and without any corresponding benefit to USACM. USACM bought out direct lenders' interests on loans where the borrower was in default, and paid direct lenders principal and interest even if the underlying borrower had not made the corresponding payment, because it was better for USACM's business to be able to raise money in the future if it could tell investors that USACM's investors never lost money. (Id.) Defendant Deloitte performed year-end audits for USACM for fiscal years 1998 through 2001, completing the last audit for fiscal year 2001 on November 26, 2002. B-E.) For each year Deloitte worked as USACM's auditor, it issued unqualified audit opinions and certified that USACM's financial statements were fairly stated. 3, 4, 5.) FID's examinations of USACM identified a number of deficiencies over the years and FID expressed concerns about USACM's ability to meet the requirement that it have a net worth of 0,000 due to the substantial number of related and affiliated party transactions. The Trust responds that imputation should not apply because Hantges and Milanowski were not acting within the scope of their authority when they violated the law. United States, 572 F.3d 697, 700 (9th Cir.2009) (quotation omitted). # 149).) The parties thereafter filed briefs regarding supplemental authority (Doc. Plaintiff USACM Liquidating Trust ("Trust") is the successor-in-interest to USA Commercial Mortgage Company ("USACM") and USA Capital Diversified Trust Deed Fund, LLC ("DTDF"). (MSJ ¶ 6.) The only other stockholders included Paul Hamilton ("Hamilton") and Jamie Wise ("Wise"). X at 10-11, 38-39.) Hamilton held the title of managing director, but it was only an honorary title and Hamilton did not consider himself a member of USACM's management. (Id.) Establishment of these funds coincided with a drastic increase in the number of loans USACM originated from 2001 through 2005. K at 63.) According to the Trust, Hantges and Milanowski developed two fraudulent schemes to misappropriate USACM's service fees and funds in the two trust accounts for their own purposes. (Id.) The advances were non-interest bearing and thus as to USACM there was no upside in advancing money to HMA Sales. at 182.) However, USAIP stood to gain substantial profits and any potential upside to the advances inured to USAIP's benefit. The Trust contends Hantges and Milanowski did so to encourage both continued investment by current lenders as well as to attract new investors to keep money flowing into USACM which they could continue to divert to their other entities, such as USAIP. S at 164.) According to Milanowski, this was a business decision intended to benefit USACM. K at 91.) As loans defaulted at a higher rate, USACM began to withhold payments to direct lenders, including DTDF, because there were not enough funds in the Collections Trust Account to cover payments to lenders on non-performing loans. P at 283-85.) For example, in 2002, USACM withheld million in principal and interest from DTDF. T.) USACM's payments on defaulted loans allowed USACM to claim that no direct lender ever failed to receive a payment, thus encouraging further investment to provide fresh capital into USACM. A at 69-70.) Indeed, investors continued to invest funds up to the date of USACM's bankruptcy. Deloitte further contends that even without imputation, the Trust's claims related to the fiscal year 2000 audit are time-barred under the applicable statute of repose. In pari delicto is a doctrine which generally provides that "[i]n case of equal fault the condition of the party defending is the better one." Kardoh v. USACM was incorporated in Nevada in February 1989 by Thomas A. (MSJ ¶ 4.) In 1995, Hantges became USACM's sole shareholder. Milanowski ("Milanowski") acquired USACM stock from Hantges. K at 42-43.) From May 1998 until its demise, Hantges and Milanowski together never owned less than eighty-three percent of USACM's stock. X at 38, 50.) In May 2006, Hamilton transferred his five percent interest in USACM to Milanowski. W.) Wise was Hantges' wife until the couple divorced in 2003. U at 24.) In January 2000, Hantges transferred eight percent of his stock to Wise's separate property trust. (MSJ ¶ 17.) To facilitate this business model, Hantges and Milanowski formed two investment funds, DTDF, and First Trust Deed Fund ("FTDF"). P at 180-81.) These transfers provided no benefit to USACM's loan origination or servicing business. at 181.) USACM had no obligation to make these advances, and it never had any ownership interest in HMA Sales. at 180 (TJA Marketing); 183-85 (Twelve Horses).) USACM made many advances to USAIP which were not interest bearing. at 204-05.) USACM had no ownership interest in USAIP, and thus had no obligation to advance any funds to USAIP, and had no right to share in USAIP's profits on these ventures. at 205.) Second, the Trust contends Hantges and Milanowski engaged in a "Ponzi-like" scheme by which they used new incoming investor funds to cover interest and principal payments to other investors who owned an interest in non-performing loans. NN.) Payments on non-performing loans eventually outpaced incoming investments and USACM filed for bankruptcy on April 13, 2006. Deloitte thus contends the statute of limitations has run on the Trust's claims. The Court therefore will consider whether Hantges' and Milanowski's knowledge and conduct bar the Trust's claims under either the in pari delicto doctrine, the statute of limitations, or both.

    Leave a Reply


    Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 | Next | Last


    




    Copyright © 2017 - lakrost.ru