Madison Timber Receiver Alysson Mills submitted her required 90 day status report to U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves on September 30. There is no new news in the report as Ms. Mills documents her slog to recover funds for the victims of Lamar Adams.
The SEC is trying to claw back illegal profits earned by Lamar Adams and promoters of a $164 million Ponzi scheme based on phony timber investments. Adams is incarcerated in federal prison after he pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud. Receiver Alysson Mills represents the SEC in recovering assets for later distribution to the victims. Her efforts include suing promoters who received commissions as well as the Butler Snow and Baker Donelson law firms. Butler Snow settled for $9.5 million. Mills and Baker Donelson are still slugging it out in federal court. However, Ms. Mills went after several banks as well.
The Receiver sued Trustmark, Bankplus, River Hills Bank, and their employees in federal court, alleging they made it easier for Lamar Adams to carry out his Ponzi scheme as their customer even though Trustmark and Bankplus submitted suspicious activity reports about Adams to the federal government. The Court approved the settlements in October.
JJ estimates the amount Mills collected from various defendants such as those mentioned above to be approximately $42 million.
The new status report states there are only two major outstanding lawsuits. The defendants are Baker Donelson (including Jon Seawright and Brent Alexander) and the UPS Store Madison. Seawright and Alexander have paid back the required $977,044 in restitution.
Both corporate defendants filed motions to subpoena all 218 victims in the Madison Timber fraud. Mills opposed the motions, arguing there is no precedent for such discovery. The Court overruled her and allowed Baker Donelson to depose groups of investors.
The status report is posted below. It should be noted that Ms. Mills has not sued any investors who enjoyed profits in the scheme.
30 comments:
can you get a statement from her as to when she intends to pursue the illegal profits?
I$ $he $till milking thi$?
I want to know when we will see more criminal charges
Interesting 2 weeks i got a message in my Madison Main street UPS store box they needed a copy 2 forms of ID saying USP need from everyone mind you i been there over 11 years & they get that from you when opening a new suite box. I asked the mgr & she didn't understand why or she just didn't want to tell me well i understand now lol. I remember it was a lady who was there another mgr when i 1st opened an acct she was very snappy & rude to people come to find out she was the main person notarizing that stuff of course she resigned when things went down i asked an employee there where was she he said she retired & helping her son with his business. I didn't know at the time this fraud was going on they got her out of there quick. There's paperwork online UPS filed with all the employees on it for case dismissal because they were named in the suit i will try & read it later. Copy paste from here https://madisontimberreceiver.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/2020-08-26-138-the-ups-store-inc.s-motion-to-dismiss-for-lack-of-jurisdiction.pdf
Why has she not sued individuals for this? I personally know three people who invested and got out at the right time and made a significant profit.
The low hanging fruit has long- since been picked. The Receiver has serious work to reach what is left. But it appears the two defendants are seeing to that.
She is not suing individuals who profited because she knows she is already neck-deep in a conflict situation.
@2:36 Care to expand on your comment?
If i was an individual who had taken a big loss and recouped only a small percentage from the actions of the Receiver, and I had waited all these years, and recognizing recouping more from the remaining defendants was questionable and a long way out-- I would bring an action against some of the ultra-wealthy investors who profited and never took a loss. Recoveries against those similarly situated in other Ponzi schemes are commonly made.
Why hasn't this occurred?
Because she got a stay on all such proceedings early on. You'd probably have to sue her first to contest it.
@Kingfish-that's why she is neck-deep in conflicts
1:05, If by "milking this" you mean doing her job, then yes, she is.
2:49: And what would be your cause of action against the co-investors who didn't take a loss?
I'd appreciate citations to some cases with those "commonly-made" recoveries. I'd imagine any such cases would be extremely fact-specific.
3:44
Just for starters, read about the recoveries made in the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme. The bulk of recoveries were from the earlier investors who profited and paid to the late investors who were left holding the bag. There are many other examples.
There were clawbacks in the Madoff ponzi scheme.
A clawback is nothing more than retrieving an ill gotten gain and using that ill gotten gain to distribute to entire group of ponzi participants in an effort to return all to status quo. What’s wrong with that?
Her claws have obviously not sunk into the skin of Mr. McHenry. Of course, he filed bankruptcy and got kicked out of (what was) his house, so he's made it appear he's destitute. Smooth maneuver.
Meanwhile, this gig will take her into retirement.
@3:44. I do not hany any citations. But, on the COA question, unjust enrichment comes to mind.
@4:34 - you conveniently left out the 30% of the "ill-gotten gain" that goes to the claw-er.
IMO, the discovery ruling from last week is significant. Maybe discovery can finally move forward. Long road ahead. At some point, you've just got to pick your battles to keep, or get, the case moving.
How did Thornton skate? Good lawyering or did he flip?
"It should be noted that Ms. Mills has not sued any investors who enjoyed profits in the scheme."
Perhaps more than merely noted.
Lamar Adams will be out of jail soon
Will there be balloons and champagne?
So I see the receiver has filed a lawsuit against a law firm, from which best I can determine, profited nothing from the scheme and holds no ill-gotten gains, yet will not undertake to clawback from early investors holding ill gotten gains.
Something is wrong with this picture.
If a person invested under the belief that this was a legitimate operation, and they profited as was agreed upon in their agreement, on what basis would the court be able to retrieve the profits from them? I'm not one of them. I'm just not sure how an innocent investor should be held liable for profits which they legitimately earned. Now if they knew it was a scam, then fair game, but if they did not, what basis does the court have to claw-back their gains?
to 4;34..... tell me mr wise ass , do you work for free? not everybody gets a big government check on the 3nd day go each month.
@7:45
the 'Profit" was ill gotten; The investment/profit was and is illegitimate.
The ones holding"profits" do so at the expense of victims.
JJ has posted stories about the Madoff recovery. The receiver went after those who made money off the Ponzi scheme. The result? 90% recovery.
Unfortunately, Reeves will not hold his receiver accountable because he appointed her even though there were better qualified applicants.
if there was transparency, the dots could be easily connected as to why "investors" are not being pursued. there is a firewall for a million reasons
Post a Comment