Well…this isn’t good

http://barkinvestors.blogspot.com/2010/08/more-trouble-at-siena_16.html

Looks like our good friends at the Siena have been dipping into their employee’s paychecks, charging them for their health care benefits, but not passing the funds along to the insurance company. That’s not good, right?

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Well…this isn’t good

  1. Regarding RE Loans: I feel that Bruce Horwitz and the Bar-K Group have been as slippery as ‘ice-on-ice’. I am still awaiting my copy of the audit, which was promised to me several years ago. They must be more transparent. I would like to know EXACTLY where the Wells Fargo 40M went. We were told that this information is unobtainable and given generalities only..Let’s be specific! Respectfully, Frank Tomasello

  2. Mr. Tomasello,

    Here are the specifics that you requested.

    Paragraph 120 of Dixon Collins’ First Amended Complaint states:

    “Specifically, the first draw on the $50,000,000 line of credit, taken on July 17, 2007, was in the amount of $43,624,663. Of that amount, $21,335,590.46 was used to pay unreserved construction loan commitments, while $22,039,072.58 was taken by Defendants, BRUCE HORWITZ, WALTER NG, and KELLY NG, to pay themselves, to continue their disbursement of principal to preferred investors, and for other improper purposes.”

    I will mail a copy of the document that has the specific details of that first draw to you today.

    • Maybe it’s about time we actually discuss the Collins suit. Approximately two months from today there will be a case management conference.

      • I agree that the Collins suit deserves comment – specifically why Barney Ng has not been named as a defendant. Let’s all bear in mind that it was Barney Ng who selected the properties on which RE Loans was to make loans, most of which apparently was raw land, not income producing and on which no permanent take- out financing had been obtained; it was Barney Ng who made zillions in fees from the RE Loans that were made and it was Barney Ng (Bar-K) who was responsible for servicing the loans. IF there is a reason he’s not a defendant in the Collins suit I’d love to know what it is.

    • I would also like to see a copy of that document or perhaps you can post it on this site. If it is a document prepared by Barney Ng my own view is that it is probably worthless.

      • If “that document” mentioned in your 7:39 pm comment refers to either the Complaint or the First Amended Complaint filed in the case of Dixon Collins v. Walter Ng and others, then “that document” was prepared by me. My name, address and telephone number are on the caption as the attorney of record, and I signed it, attesting to its accuracy.

        There are two letters attached to the First Amended Complaint. The two letters were sent from Barney Ng’s attorneys in Los Angeles to Walter Ng and Kelly Ng in December 2009. I have independently verified all of the essential allegations in those two letters.

        The decision of whether or not to name Barney Ng as a defendant in the Dixon Collins case was mine, and mine alone. My decision was based upon all of the facts and the law, and my more than 30-years of experience in civil and criminal litigation.

        In my opinion, the facts which you recited in your 7:48 pm comment are legally insufficient to support naming Barney Ng as a defendant in a breach of fiduciary duty and misrepresentation case brought by an investor, like Dixon Collins.

        • You state: “I have independently veritfied all of the essential allegations in those two letters.” How did you accomplish that verification??? Barney Ng sent those same two letters to me. They are beautifully written documents but where are the lawsuits he threatened? Have they materialized? I don’t think so. Why, in your 30 years of civil and criminal experience, if all the information contained in those letters is/was accurate haven’t the lawsuits threatened by Barney Ng against his father and brother been filed?? Is Barney Ng using Mr. Collins as a ‘stalking horse’?

          • First, independent verification depends upon the facts alleged. For example, in the letters written by Barney Ng’s attorney he alleged, among other things, that J. Robert Orton, a close friend of Kelly Ng, received a cash distribution of $5,000,000 from R.E. Loans between January and October 2007. This allegation is true except the close friend’s name is actually J. Robert Orton, III, and the date of the $5,000,000 distribution was precisely March 30, 2007.

            Second, the two letters written by Barney Ng’s Los Angeles attorney are dated December 30, 2009. On April 16, 2010, Barney Ng’s Los Angeles attorney filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint against Bruce Horwitz in Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. C 09 – 02845. In Paragraphs 23 and 30 of that First Amended Cross-Complaint, Barney Ng’s Los Angeles attorney repeated the same essential factual allegations found in his two December 30, 2009, letters.

            Finally, collateral estoppel is a legal concept which allows a second, third, fourth or fifth plaintiff to use any favorable result obtained by the first plaintiff against a defendant. In that sense, Dixon Collins is a “stalking horse” for those investors who are waiting to see the outcome of his case before filing their own cases. In other words, they know that if Dixon Collins wins, they win.

  3. Robert

    Thank you for the information on the Collins case.
    Good luck. Could you send a copy of the first amended
    complaint to John so he can post it?

    Notwithstanding the foucs of your complaint I think it is important to have a larger view of what the Ng’s
    scheme was.

    They built a high volume risky loan business. Them more investors they got, the more money they had to loan. The more loans the put together, the more commissions the got.

    Ok, so you assume that each investor knew these were
    risky loans to devlopers. I don’t believe that there
    was a real apprisal process for the underlying collateral. I have a friend who is an appriser and he
    has told me after looking at some of these deals that they were way over inflated when the loans were made.

    Second there is a total lack of simple due dilligence
    on the part of the Ng’s to find out who they were really loaning the money to. For example loan A0109 which I investigated and wrote about in November shows a total lack of due dilligence. The principal in that deal was a crook. A simple seach of court records would have shown his checkerd past.

    http://vlex.com/vid/u-s-v-worthen-18483720

    That is just one example. They were loaning money to developers that a proven track record of failures.

    Why?

    All the Ng’s were intrested in was attacting more investors and making more down and dirty loans to
    rake in bigger commissions for themselves.

    In most every instance they just handed over millions to these developers with no strings attached. There were no sechedule for release of funds when milestones were met. There was no procedure set up to insure sub contractors and taxes were paid. They just handed over millions and collected their commission.
    It was then on the the next deal.

    Did they adequately reserve intrest payments on these loans in accorance with industry standards? According to experts I have talked to, they were all woefully under reserved.

    As you know as a lawyer with criminal law experience
    “Motive” is key.

    In relation to your case, my brother was told by Horwitz when he requested a withdrawal of principal to cover some needed expenses that he would get it,
    but was stalled and lied to by him and eventually was
    given a lower abitrary sum. I believe this was at the
    same time the proceeds of the Wells Fargo loan was being spent as you allege.

    I will call your office this afternoon and leave my
    phone number.

Comments are closed.