Archive for the ‘USA Capital’ Category

No Trustee should submit ex-parte motions on selling assets, especially when conflicting positions may be at stake unless testimony is taken rather than affidavits.    Having testified in bankruptcy court , it is the best way to determine the truth and avoid  hidden agendas.  This is the basis of the Comvest objection.   I know I’m old school but I like to see the whites of their eyes on that stand under penalty of perjury.

Besides arguing about future Silar loans (designed to preserve assets and flush out co-borrowers) Duncan, Stubbs and the usual suspects continue to argue about everything under the sun.  Jones ruled that Cross fees are subject to review by him but Duncan disagrees and apparently is filing a bankruptcy lawsuit to determine just that.  Duncan is at odds with the new Silar liquidating trust since undoubtedly, he sees a trim back of his accrued fees on the horizon. (Jones doesn’t really like the Texas agreement, with its arbitration provisions and self serving fee accruals)  Duncan was having a garage sale of his own on serviced assets before the liquidation trust was formed for just that purpose.  The Trust wants to slow down,  pursue a more deliberate course of action and hopefully recoup more money for hopefully DLs.  A recent loan approved by Jones against the liquidation desires of Duncan brought to light the conflicts. /// On another matter, a federal tax case subpoena required docs from Stubbs and Cross but they were no shows.   I don’t think a federal judge will be that pleased with their arrogance.

Read the rest of this entry »

Serious questions arise concerning rights under the USA loans concerning the individual rights of note holders to sue.  The attached motions, and judgment obtained by Terry Coffing, an attorney in Nevada — in this ruling — regarding the Godines guarantee,  gives individual lenders the rights to sue in Nevada notwithstanding the fact that many issues were raised objecting to the judgment. These included,  that only the servicer could sue, 51% were required to vote for the suit; Texas is the proper jurisdiction;  and in fact counterclaims existed against the servicer which needed to be examined in discovery.  The court dismissed all these arguments and ruled  for Coffing. Very interesting decision which we understand has been contradicted in some other rulings out of state.

Add the ARC bankruptcy trustee’s rights, issues pertaining to the constitutionality of the 51% ruling,  principal and agent liability issues, etc,  and all hell could break lo0se.  Who ever said the “no one was smart enough fo the law”?   or is is just luck of the Judge draw?