How did he get that nice, big house?

[Shaka]

I believe these folks are Mckay Jacobsen's uncle/cousin.

You are correct.

[CardiacCoug]

Every now and then I drive through Fountain Green here in Sanpete County. There's a very nice house on the north end of town, right on State Street.

I have always wondered what the guy that lives there does for a living. The house really stands out since Sanpete County is pretty depressed.

I found out today how he does it. He runs a 220 million dollar ponzi scheme and he just got busted. Oops.

So turns out it's not a Ponzi scheme I guess?

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/56770290-79/investors-ponzi-case-wendell.html.csp

[Jeff Lebowski]

So turns out it's not a Ponzi scheme I guess?

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/5...ndell.html.csp

I'll be darned. He and I share the same attorney.

No wonder he got a favorable ruling. That guy is really good.

[Surfah]

So turns out it's not a Ponzi scheme I guess?

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/5...ndell.html.csp

I forget but isn't that similar to the ruling in the Michael Smith case?

[Harry Tic]

I'll be darned. He and I share the same attorney.

I will know that I have arrived when I have my own attorney. I guess this whole CS gig is both more lucrative and more a pain in the derriere than it might appear.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I will know that I have arrived when I have my own attorney. I guess this whole CS gig is both more lucrative and more a pain in the derriere than it might appear.

You have no idea.

[thesaint258]

That's pretty interesting. I'll have to pull that opinion and see what Judge Jenkins said since I have to deal with alleged Ponzi schemes from time to time.

[Paperback Writer]

It seems that the judges ruling is favorable to investors and that the investors are fairly untited against the court appointed receiver. Apparently, a key difference between this and traditional Ponzi schemes is that there are assets of real estate at stake. Rather then liquidate all assets and sell properties that may be under valued and are now appreciating towards original values, investors want to sell only some properties and manage and hang onto others. It also prevents the court appointed receiver from claiming money/returns paid to earlier investors to be put back into the pot to commpensate all investors. I suppose later investors who probably have received little return on their investment have determined that they will get more money back by the investor group managing the real estate then by forcing earlier investors to return gains and sell all the real estate at perhaps an unfavorable time.

So my take is that the main reason the judge declared it not a Ponzi scheme is because that's what the investors want. Something I agree with but that doesn't make it less of a fraud. It would seem that with the crash of the real estate market, money from new investors was being used to pay promised returns to current investors so that they wouldn't pull out and bring down the whole enterprise. Basically, they are trying to buy time for the business/enterprise to recover. That's somewhat understandable although still illegal.

[wuapinmon]

I'll be darned. He and I share the same attorney.

No wonder he got a favorable ruling. That guy is really good.

I figured you'd have a Cuffer as your attorney.

[Pelado]

It seems that the judges ruling is favorable to investors and that the investors are fairly untited against the court appointed receiver. Apparently, a key difference between this and traditional Ponzi schemes is that there are assets of real estate at stake. Rather then liquidate all assets and sell properties that may be under valued and are now appreciating towards original values, investors want to sell only some properties and manage and hang onto others. It also prevents the court appointed receiver from claiming money/returns paid to earlier investors to be put back into the pot to commpensate all investors. I suppose later investors who probably have received little return on their investment have determined that they will get more money back by the investor group managing the real estate then by forcing earlier investors to return gains and sell all the real estate at perhaps an unfavorable time.

So my take is that the main reason the judge declared it not a Ponzi scheme is because that's what the investors want. Something I agree with but that doesn't make it less of a fraud. It would seem that with the crash of the real estate market, money from new investors was being used to pay promised returns to current investors so that they wouldn't pull out and bring down the whole enterprise. Basically, they are trying to buy time for the business/enterprise to recover. That's somewhat understandable although still illegal.

There is probably more distinction between the two cases, but the one linked below is somewhat similar in that there were real estate assets and the management was accused of using new investor money to pay old investors' returns. But the trustee didn't wait for any ruling on whether or not it was a Ponzi scheme before filing avoidance actions against a slew of investors to claw back the money the investors had received from the company and its subsidiaries during the four years prior to the bankruptcy filing.

http://www.kccllc.net/dbsi

I figured you'd have a Cuffer as your attorney.

Where did it say the attorney was not a Cuffer/CSer?

[thesaint258]

There is probably more distinction between the two cases, but the one linked below is somewhat similar in that there were real estate assets and the management was accused of using new investor money to pay old investors' returns. But the trustee didn't wait for any ruling on whether or not it was a Ponzi scheme before filing avoidance actions against a slew of investors to claw back the money the investors had received from the company and its subsidiaries during the four years prior to the bankruptcy filing.

http://www.kccllc.net/dbsi




Where did it say the attorney was not a Cuffer/CSer?

That's what bugs me about how trustees/receivers work now. They operate under the theory that if you call something a Ponzi scheme from the beginning, it's true, and no one spends the money to fight it. The Ponzi presumption is a good one if there's a true Ponzi scheme, but there are cases in which the presumption is more harmful than not.

[Paperback Writer]

There is probably more distinction between the two cases, but the one linked below is somewhat similar in that there were real estate assets and the management was accused of using new investor money to pay old investors' returns. But the trustee didn't wait for any ruling on whether or not it was a Ponzi scheme before filing avoidance actions against a slew of investors to claw back the money the investors had received from the company and its subsidiaries during the four years prior to the bankruptcy filing.

http://www.kccllc.net/dbsi

Interesting. I wonder if their are differences due to juristiction; Deleware vs Utah. The Utah case decision was a by federal judge though. I do question why the receiver didn't claw back earlier returns. I dunno. Not an attorney but I did once stay at a Holiday Inn.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I figured you'd have a Cuffer as your attorney.

Hire one of these clowns? No way.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

Hire one of these clowns? No way.

No kidding. Not only would he have an attorney that just dick around on the Internet all day, that amounts to some serious billable hours.

[wuapinmon]

Where did it say the attorney was not a Cuffer/CSer?

He said that the attorney was really good.