ILNews

Attorney fees eat up most of recovered Fair Finance funds

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A New York firm is contacting Fair Finance Co. investors seeking to purchase their bankruptcy claims – a sign that investors in the defunct business could secure a sizable recovery.

Investors in the Tim Durham-owned company in June began receiving letters from Woodbury, N.Y.-based ASM Capital offering to buy their claims for 5.25 cents on the dollar.

While few investors are swayed by that amount, they figure an investment firm wouldn’t have swooped in if its principals didn’t believe the actual payouts would be far greater than the offer.

So-called claims trading isn’t unusual in bankruptcy, especially in cases like Fair, where potential recoveries might take years to collect and many of the holders of claims are elderly.

“The people in that kind of business aren’t running charities,” said Doug Drushal, an attorney in Wooster, Ohio, representing about 200 purchasers of Fair Finance investment certificates. “They aren’t going to make an offer unless they think there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow they can grab onto.”

Fair, a consumer-finance company based in Akron, Ohio, halted payments on the notes after FBI agents raided its headquarters and Durham’s offices in Indianapolis in November 2009.
 

fair-finance-062512-15col.jpg Fair Finance investors faced locked doors on Dec. 7, 2009, at the investment firm’s Akron, Ohio, headquarters. One visitor took time to alter the door sign. (Photo courtesy of Akron Beacon Journal)

The raid was part of a federal investigation that culminated June 20 with a jury convicting Durham on all 12 of the felony counts he faced. The jury found Fair co-owner Jim Cochran guilty on eight of 12 counts, and company Chief Financial Officer Rick Snow guilty on five of 12 counts.

A grand jury indictment unsealed in March 2011 alleged that, after Durham and Cochran bought the business in 2002, they raided its coffers for personal expenses and to cover losses at failing businesses they owned.

The transfers, recorded as related-party loans, never were repaid, and prosecutors said Fair soon was operating as a Ponzi scheme, relying on the sale of new investment certificates to pay off prior purchasers.

The outlook for the more than 5,000 Ohio investors who hold more than $200 million in Fair Finance investment certificates looked dismal until early this year, when bankruptcy Trustee Brian Bash sued two deep-pocketed financial firms he accused of aiding and abetting fraud.

Though by then Bash already had filed dozens of lawsuits seeking to recoup some of the insider loans and other transfers that investigators say gutted the business, many of the defendants had few if any assets. Even Kelly Burgan, an attorney for Bash, said a year ago that investors likely would recovery only a “teeny-tiny fraction” of what they were owed.

Attorneys for the trustee no longer will speculate on potential recoveries. During testimony in the Fair Finance trial June 18, Bash said he’d recovered $5.6 million, with just $518,000 coming from collections on the massive related-party loans prosecutors say brought down the company.

Under cross examination by Durham defense attorney John Tompkins, Bash acknowledged it is his “hope and belief” he’ll be able to recover much more.

Lawyer fees

Bash in March asked Ohio bankruptcy court Judge Marilyn Shea-Stonum to switch compensation for his counsel – the Cleveland law firm Baker & Hostetler – from hourly fees to contingency fees, with attorneys collecting one-third of recovered funds.

Investors interpreted the move as a sign the legal team is so optimistic it can haul down large settlements or court judgments that it is willing to give up a sure thing – millions of dollars in hourly fees – for the potential of a much bigger payoff. Experienced attorneys working on Fair litigation have been charging as much as $400 an hour.

After the judge rejected the proposal, the trustee this month proposed lower contingency fees – 30 percent of the first $50 million recovered, 15 percent of the next $50 million, and 10 percent of all recoveries exceeding $100 million.

The judge has not ruled on the new request.

So far, expenses, including attorney fees, have eaten up the lion’s share of recoveries, and there have been no distributions to investors.

While the legal fees frustrate investors, they’re hopeful the lawsuit spree won’t be for naught. Buoying their spirits was a suit the trustee filed in February seeking up to $1.2 billion from two of Fair’s lenders – Rhode Island-based Textron Financial Corp. and New York-based Fortress Credit Corp.

The suit charges the companies, which have billions in assets, turned a blind eye to Durham’s fraud because they held first liens on the company’s only assets with real value – finance contracts it bought from health clubs and other firms providing extended-payment plans to their customers. As a result, they were positioned to collect what they were owed regardless of whether Durham looted the company.

The suit cites Textron emails sounding alarms about the extent of the withdrawals from Fair. One, sent by a Textron vice president to Durham in November 2003, expresses concern that Durham’s use of proceeds from note sales “as a piggy bank” to fund losses at other businesses was “wrong” and “could come back to haunt us.”

In March, Bash sued former Fair owner Donald Fair, saying he kept quiet about how Durham was running the company to ensure he received the full $20 million due from the purchase.

To collect the final $3.2 million in 2007, Donald Fair threatened to “create a ‘run on the bank’ that would halt the Ponzi scheme if he wasn’t paid in full,” the suit alleges. “In essence, Durham and Cochran ‘bought’ Don Fair’s silence by paying him in full.”

Including punitive damages, that case seeks more than $150 million.

‘Allegedly salacious quotes’

To no one’s surprise, the lenders and Fair deny the allegations and are girding for battle. In a motion to dismiss filed in April, attorneys for Textron scoffed: “The trustee here has engaged in an ill-considered rush to judgment, ignoring the facts on the ground at the time, and cherry-picking documents and allegedly salacious quotes from documents, while ignoring clearly exculpatory information that does not fit the trustee’s theory.”

The trustee’s move to sue lenders with substantial resources “makes everybody a lot more optimistic,” said David Mucklow, an Akron attorney representing about 260 investors.

ASM, which specializes in buying claims in bankruptcy, believes the recovery for Fair investors ultimately will be greater than what it’s offering, but the litigation to collect that money likely won’t wrap up for years, said Jared Muroff, the company’s managing director of research.

“We do think … it is a good opportunity for investors to take money off the table now,” Muroff said. He said the offer is open to all but the smallest investors, those with less than $10,000 in investment certificates.

Firms in ASM’s field sometimes offer far more than pennies on the dollar. Reuters reports, for instance, that claims in the Bernard Madoff bankruptcy case are fetching around 60 cents on the dollar. The trustee in that case, Irving Picard, has recorded $9.1 billion through legal settlements, and his office has said creditors ultimately could get a full recovery on their more than $17 billion in allowed claims.

Mucklow, the attorney for Fair investors, isn’t impressed with ASM’s offer, in part because the contract appears to give it the right to claw back payments from investors under certain circumstances.

“I am cautioning my people to look closely,” he said. “If I were in their shoes, I would wait.”

James Coco, a certified public accountant in Medina, Ohio, who is owed $200,000, isn’t interested.

“Fifty percent would get my attention,” Coco said.

Donald Russell of Doylestown, Ohio – whose family lost $475,000 – was more outspoken.

“It’s insulting, totally insulting,” he said of the offer. “My view is we have been patient for 2-1/2 years, and we are finally getting some answers. Now, at this point, we have these bottom feeders who are trying to victimize us some more.”•
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT