Quote:
Originally Posted by Davidmstr8
Steed is claiming this was a "Ponzi" Scheme, the company was insolvent in October 2007 and that Joy, Pam and Angie were insiders.
This was not a "Ponzi" Scheme, it lacks one crucial part to be a "Ponzi" Scheme. Lou did not have an exit strategy. Lou was simply a poor business manager.
The company was not insolvent (Could not meet it's debts) until after April 2008. Lou had at least $7,000,000 around the end of March. This is in the court records. This was what was in one InterbankFX account and one bank account so I am sure there was more money in other accounts as well.
Adversary Complaints have been filed against Joy, Pam and Angie. Steed is claiming they were insiders and the first to be filed against (An Adversary Complaint is a lawsuit coming from a bankruptcy).
You have to understand if Steed can prove a "Ponzi" Scheme he can use more laws to get more from everybody. The further back he can prove the company was insolvent the further back he can start claiming money from employees.
Many people voluntarily gave Steed everything when he asked. Now they are finding out they didn't have to give him much of anything. He took clothes people turned in and just gave them away. The only thing Steed is entitled to, are things belonging to the estate (Lou and/or the company) like some of the cars titled in the company name or real gifts.
Several employees have hired lawyers and they are talking with Cara and Steed at this point. You can look at the charges for work Cara has filed with the court. She listed everyone she talked to and it shows who has lawyers and who they are.
Steed and Cara are going through the records and to see what they can come after from employees.
|
Thank you for the information Davidmaster8. You seem to have a lot of information that is helping many of us so maybe you’d be willing to answer some questions I have about what you just posted:
You say Steed is calling Joy, Pam, and Angie “insiders” but how is that defined? If they had knowledge of any wrongdoing then charges would have been filed against them and there were none.
How do you figure this was not a “Ponzi” scheme? Are you saying that the promissory notes were loans and not investments? Even if they prove a “Ponzi” scheme, how did they choose October 2007 as the date of insolvency when promissory notes were the only business income and they had been taking notes since spring 2007?
What makes you think the trustee plans on going after any other employees? From what I’ve seen they have only asked for anything back from less than 30 of the 175 employees, still haven’t gotten everything back from half of those and yet still only filed lawsuits against three. Since they’ve only sued the mothers and grandmother of the babies then it’s pretty obvious they are just suing for show, don’t you think? (I also think that cinches your Grinch Award for Steed)