Why You Should Reject The Reorganization Plan

We (and by “we” I mean those of us who aren’t in on the scam) can make this easy on ourselves.  We really can.  Vote no.  Reject the plan.  I’m voting to REJECT THE PLAN.  All you really need to know is one simple item.  When your packet arrives in the mail, you’ll find a nine (9) page letter from the Official Committee of Note Holders of R.E. Loans, LLC, et al.  Search for the BIG BOLD CAPS.  Focus on this sentence:


Interestingly, the letter from the “committee” “elected” to represent us doesn’t actually list their names.  It doesn’t matter.  Here’s the math:

Any Committee Member = Walter Ng

The very people recommending urging us to trust them and approve their plan are the same people who been accused of taking distributions when the rest of us got NOTHING.  They’re the same people who were purportedly spotted dining with Walter and Bel and they’re the same people who will, without a doubt, screw us over to protect themselves and their friends.

The nine page tome suggests five times that we accept the plan.  I suggest six times that we REJECT the plan.

The last time we “voted” on a plan, our ballots ended up floating in the proverbial Bay.  Our votes didn’t matter because once Walter and Kelly cast their votes, it was over.  The process is slightly different this time around.

The Class of Noteholders will have accepted the Plan if at least two-thirds in dollar amount and more than one-half in number of the Allowed Noteholder Claims that are actually voted are cast in favor of the Plan.

Walter can line up the two-thirds in dollar amount votes.  Can he line up MORE than 50% of the entire votes that will be cast?  I don’t think so.  Many of our busiest traffic nights on this very blog saw over 1,800 unique views.  We’re out there.  We can “win” (Yes, I’m using the term “win” rather loosely).  We can beat Walter at his own shell game.  We need to vote.  Every one of us for each and every account we hold.

A few other notable items from the expensive packet of crap they sent us:

Mackinac Partners and Jim Weissenborn would remain in charge to liquidate our assets.  They’ve done such an absolutely shitty job to-date that we should not allow them many more years of revenue on our backs.

Page five (5) item B discusses the “Plan Compromise”.  The Committee got this right in that you should read this in detail.  My reading says this is such a blatant cover your ass and screw the majority it’s not even funny.  It’s sad.  And it should be criminal (is ANYONE at the FBI or SEC actually listening?).  The only compromise we’d be making is to our own detriment.  Read this:

The Plan Compromise resolves potential objections to, or grounds for subordination of, the Noteholders’ Claims, and further eliminates the risk that Noteholders could be subject to future litigation over the recovery of distributions paid to Noteholders between November 2007 and the Petition Date.

Do you know what this means?  It’s a GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD in a legal sense for Walter, Kelly, Barney, Bruce and everyone who got money when the rest of us couldn’t.  It glosses over the fact that the exchange agreement was potentially illegal, but who cares when the committee elected to represent us doesn’t actually represent us?

If you’re worried about the sweet little bank with the stagecoach, don’t.  Wells Fargo will be just fine under this plan, because if the plan is accepted, we will be giving them a full release.

The document also warns us about the downside of rejecting the plan.  This downside would be a Chapter 7.  While Pearl, Gene, Allen Cone, Sherrat Reicher and their cronies warn us about the ominous nature of a 7, I believe there are many, myself included, who would welcome a 7.  This gives a Chapter 7  Trustee supreme power.  Walter would be instructed to bend over and cough while we inserted the Hubble telescope up his anus.

Finally, our friends on the committee estimate a distribution of  approximately $34-$63.6 million for Distribution to Holders of Allowed Claims, including Noteholders”.  INCLUDING Noteholders?  We’re still second fiddle, but this time we’re likely taking a back seat to the attorneys at Akin Gump and all the other firms eating our cake.  Do the math on the low number and we’re looking at a glass that isn’t just half-empty, it’s entirely empty.

I urge you to VOTE NO.  REJECT THE PLAN.

I’m John Robie and I approve this message.

68 thoughts on “No Means No – REJECT THE PLAN

  1. Thanks for writing, John. It’s been terribly quiet for too long.

    I thought the attorneys we originally met with in Oakland were representing us.
    Did this recommendation come through them? Have they written for us, the implications of

    It is important for people/noteholders to weigh in here with their knowledge and comments. Please people, do so, especially those who really understand what is transpiring and who particularly understand the
    “legal ese” and the implications of what they’re asking us to sign.

    Back in 2007, we were asked to sign without understanding ramifications, and believing we had to sign.

    I don’t know that we have to do that now. How do we make that determination?

    Is it time for a meeting with the attorneys?

  2. Thanks Adrea. It’s too late for meetings with attorneys. We need to vote. Regardless of whether or not you agree with my thoughts, sitting this one out is worse than voting “yes” on the last go-round. We need to make sure every voter does what they’re supposed to do. Every single one.

    • John, regarding your initial post, on Thursday May 17, 2012, the Committee and Wells Fargo filed an agreement, that is a stipulation, document no. 852, extending the deadline to file a Complaint against Wells Fargo to 10 days after denial of plan confirmation. In other words, if the case goes Chapter 7, then the investors get to sue Wells Fargo. The Committee letter was silent about this. The Committee wanted you to think that a “No” vote would not revive the Wells Fargo lawsuit. In other words, converting to Chapter 7 has an big upside.

      In case anyone missed it, I posted the following on May 20:

      Due to certain rules against solicitation without Court approval, this is all that I can say:

      I am an attorney licensed to practice law in California. I represent several R.E. Loans and Mortgage Fund ’08 investors. I am familiar with the operation of R.E. Loans and Mortgage Fund ’08. I have reconstructed the Ponzi-like transactions between the two funds. I have read the proposed plan of reorganization and the accompanying documents. I have tested Exhibit B, the net cash out transfers after the Exchange Agreement, and determined that, in my opinion, it is not accurate, not reliable and misleading. In my judgment, based upon all of the above, the proposed plan of reorganization does not provide investors in the two funds treatment consistent with their legal entitlement. I further believe that rejection of the proposed plan would most likely lead to a result more favorable to the investors as a whole. I am therefore urging all of my clients to reject the proposed plan.

      • Hi John, Robert and Steve,
        Thanks for weighing in.

        John, I meant that I think we, the noteholders, all need a meeting to discuss the ramifications of signing and not signing. One question is, should our attorneys be present to address any misinformation and answer questions.

        Everyone, Is this not TOO important to be left to the mails and email?

        I think it’s time to energize again. We haven’t had to in quite awhile and there is much at stake as we all know, so isn’t the time worth it?

        If we meet, ask questions, listen….at least we have more facilitated information than via email conversation.


        • This is the most sensible idea out there. Use the court service list to contact investors and ask them to attend an informational round table session with Messers. Brower and Brwn as lead speakers. Mr. Robie might Chair. Invite Elliott Abrams and ask him to defend the Plan. Sort of like Firining Line.

  3. What if there’s only a few actual voting? What happens to the vote count if other investors are just tired, figures it’s of no use, just like the regular voter turn-out in most of the governmental and local elections? Does the mere action of no returned reply for an answer is taken as a “we approve”?

    I really hope that if this plan gets approved (due to a bad turn-out of votes), that it will still not stop the FBI, FTB and IRS from going after them.

    • Steve – We need to encourage people to vote. If someone does not vote then that is a YES vote. Vote no. Tell people to vote no. Do it yourself. Do not vote yes unless you have enjoyed the last few years of this ridiculous nightmare.

    • Section 1126(c) of the Bankruptcy Code reads, in pertinent part: A class of claims has accepted a plan if such plan has been accepted by creditors . . . that hold at least two-thirds in amount and more than one-half in number of the allowed claims of such class held by creditors . . . that have accepted or rejected such plan.

      What this means is that, of those who choose to vote (and whose votes are allowed to be counted, a different issue that depends on whether objections are filed to any claims by anyone before confirmation), the majority needed to have a Class (such as Class 8) be deemed to have accepted is 2/3 of the dollar amount voting and 1/2 of the number of voters.

      Uncast ballots are not counted one way or the other.

      In a case like this where the relatively small number of large dollar folks will probably be voting yes to save themselves from claw back liability (call them the 1% voters) what the 99% voters need to do to win is turn out large numbers of small dollar folks as voters since failure to get more than 50% of those voters who do vote is the end of the Plan insofar as acceptance by Class 8 is concerned.

      This comment is intended to be informational only, does not constitute legal advice, and certainly does not purport to solicit votes one way or the other.

  4. My recollections of past correspondences seems to reflect that substantive resolution would be further out in the future. Maybe this is offer is premature – a head fake – a juggernaut – a decoy/hoax?

  5. It is pretty clear that this scam voting ordeal needs to be rejected. Never mind the $$ we lost, but I choose to keep my soul by voting NO. Vote No to this plan. I believe the consequences for investors may be marginally better if we voted NO, but if we did vote yes, we will have paved the road of greed with gravy for the anonymous, self-elected committee and their legal accomplices.

  6. Adrea,

    I don’t think the investors who are knowledgeable and have worked tirelessly for the past 3 years attempting to assist us can make it any clearer, VOTE NO. Tell everyone that you know to VOTE NO. There is no need to meet and equivocate. Just do it.

    • Someone suggested notifying the media about this proposal.

      Unless there’s a good reason not to, I would think that putting this proposal
      under a media microscope “the good, the bad and the ugly”, might revive the issue to the public eye and
      pressure the various governmental agencies further.

      Who has the media contact?

    • Do we have any idea how many people are not on email contact, and not receiving these
      posts? Does anyone have a way to reach them to discuss the voting?

      • Considering this blog has 93 subscribers, a certain number of whom are probably lawyers, observers or members of the Ng family, it seems we’re missing a couple thousand people. There is no email list of investors or means to communicate outside what a handful of us have done with the blog. This has always been to the Ng’s advantage to have their investors isolated, where we can’t easily meet or plan anything.

        If anyone wants to contact the media, there is a list of some contacts at:

        The challenge is condensing it into a few coherent paragraphs for them to digest and report on.

        • Would the lawyers not have a more complete list? Who has the list? RELoans had the list so someone must have it. Is there any requirement that it be provided to other noteholders?

          Let’s be creative in order to reach those not on the blog. Their votes affect our lives. Or else we risk many more voting yes, not having the benefit of complete information.

          Some thoughts, not necessarily based in anything, other than straw grasping:

          Is there any action that could be taken that would cause anyone, or any entity, who has the largest contact list to either a. provide the list or b. contact them and tell them there is a discussion occuring?

          For example, if we had a phone/conference call meeting set up to discuss the plan, would they then have to be notified?

          All ideas are welcome. Our goal is the same.

          • The matrix is online as part of the legal proceedings, and contains all investor’s names and mailing addresses as a matter of public record. Here’s about 48 pages of them: It’s online in other places as well.

            But email addresses weren’t collected as part of the account info. If one could keep the communication down to a single photocopied page, with envelope and stamp, at around 50 cents per contact and got a group to donate the hours to fold, stuff and stamp those, you could send a letter to 2500 people for approx. $1250.00 Could probably save a few bucks taking off names from the creditor’s committee and Ng’s.

            Makes you wonder how much of our money gets spent assembling and shipping so many large envelopes for plans, and alternate plans. Unfortunately it’s not cheap to contact people.

          • I’m willing to contribute time and money. Others please weigh in.
            1. If we’re doing this, it needs to be quickly
            before people sign and return.

            2. should each need to send our own ballots in, with return receipt requested? This would
            be evidence of receipt of our votes in a timely period.

          • Rose Mary; have you contacted this group msnbc yourself? What information have you provided to them? Lots of people on this blog make suggestions but don’t take any action themselves…I hope you have…if so please tell us what you’ve done so we can follow up on it and try to get them to pursue this.

  7. This was just posted on the Google Group, and this is the exact attitude that will sink us:

    “To me, it’s a tad irresponsible and annoying to have received such an incoherent R.E. Loans-info package.
    I devoted 2+ hours trying to ferret basics from the documents–some rational basis for voting FOR or AGAINST.
    A good part of me threw up its hands. (To which my spouse said, “Now Dear, they just did the best they could.”
    To which I blew a gasket, silently. She’d not read a line of it.)

    In reference to Daniel Kahneman’s “THINKING, FAST and SLOW,” I then chose to rely on “judgement heuristics” and voted FOR. Given all the ground-rule influences, passage, I suspect, is a fait accompli. It’s likely our sole, semi-effective, course.

    Still, to reply that a proposal is complicated or complex (obvious, it is) should not absolve authors from the need to put themselves in the shoes of the vast majority of creditors, and then report in clear ENGLISH and MATH. But that was not the purpose, was it? To be clear. Interesting, that wide, wide, yet piddling range: 3.6—6.7% ughh”



    • NO NO NO IS MY VOTE! I Am placing calls today to friends involved and sharing the same information. We can’t let any of these entities off the hook. Something tragic happened and they are all responsible and must be accountable for what they did and how it’s affected everyone. NO NO NO—————-Even if Wells thinks they did nothing wrong, somebody convinced them to put a loan before all of the investors. They needed our approval to do this, they did not have the right to do this without our approval. Wells you knew what you were doing.

  8. We got our package over a week ago and voted “yes” because we couldn’t really understand what was really being said. It would have been nice to have this input that we received just today before we signed. Guess there is no way to rescind our vote. This is all such a mess and no one seems to win except Wells Fargo and the Ngs.

    Gene & Barbara Barrie

    • You might be able to rescind your vote. Considering there are weeks left to vote, hopefully others will take the time to read and research before rushing that into the mail.

      • How is everyone voting for the MFO8 Plan? We received 4 packets in the mail. Thank you for all of the advice.

      • There is no MF 08 Plan being solicited. It is already in plave and confirmed. All there is now is the REL Plan.

      • Hi Equitatus,

        Do you know if anything is being done to reach the vast majority of investors, regarding
        given them a different opinion on which way to vote and why?

        If we don’t, it’s likely they’ll vote like the other couple who received the letter and follow the “yes”


      • RE; 2007 REVISED 1099’S

        I just received a call back from the attorney, Michael. They have not heard anything back yet from debtor’s counsel. Hopefully by Monday they will accomplish a positive satisfactory answer, rather than one they need to continue to follow up on. Michael said he and his top Tax counsel are handling this.

        If the Fund was basically insolvent anyway, and needing infusions from ’08, how could the accountants say distributions were interest vs. principal? Who made that decision? And if any payments were received, are not most payments combinations of interest and principal? With the short term loans that RE supposedly gave, the ratio then of principal would be far higher than interest, And if there was any income, what was the net after running the fund? Was there actually any interest to be paid out? Or were all distributions principal, as I believe they should be considered to be.

        FYI The accountant had denied the request before, when I made it years ago. Let’s hope with the pressure from the lawyers, and pressure from all of us, we’ll have better results. By the way, some people called Michael expressing the same desire, ie new 1099’s. It would of course be helpful if he heard from others, perhaps Monday. My concern is, if we don’t have a satisfactory answer on Monday, how long could this drag on?


    • Since the deadline for receiving votes hasn’t passed, I would think legally (and I’m not a lawyer), that you’d be allowed to change your vote. Anyone know?

      Unless there’s a problem in doing so, I’m sending mine
      “return receipt requested”. I want no question of how I’m voting and that it was received.

      • I mailed mine RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED. However, the yellow envelopes cannot be sent that way, as they are business envelopes—per my Postmaster. I had to buy another plain envelope and put the yellow envelopes in the plain one, right at the P.O., to send them RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED. Just wanted to give a heads up to other investors in case you have a blank envelope at home. Then you won’t have to purchase at the P.O. I suggested earlier that you make copies of your ballots before you mail them. Protect yourself. VOTE NO!

        • TO ALL:


          I think it was Robert Brower (May 29+ or -) who said in one response on this blog:
          “The Committee had the obligation to sue Wells Fargo on your behalf to put money into the bankruptcy estate and the Committee failed to do that. The Committee did not file; the deadline passed.”

          Is there any liability here for them not doing so? Can we correct this? Should the lawyers to the Committee have made sure this was done?

          Please clarify.


            I’ve been in contact with Michael, the attorney, about our class action attorney’s suing Wells, or the Committee doing so. Timing is important here it seems. Here is what Michael wrote:

            “these are claims that belong to the Debtors’ estate—they do not belong to the noteholders personally—so as a starting point only the Debtors can pursue them. Anyone else seeking to pursue those claims in the Debtors’ name for the benefit of the estate (including the class action lawyers) could do so only after obtaining an order from the bankruptcy court granting them standing.

            The time period will start if the court enters an order denying confirmation.
            The confirmation hearing is scheduled to take place on June 20, 25 and 26.
            Hypothetically, if the court entered an order on June 26 denying confirmation, the lawsuit would need to be filed on or before July 6.

            If the Committee is not granted standing, the only other party who could file the lawsuit would be the Debtors (who actually own the claims)”.

            Is anyone knowledgeable on top of this?

    • We need to do more than “no”. We are a drop in the lake of investors. We need to be certain that
      what we know and the voting recommendation is mailed to the vast majority, who are not on this blog.

      Who is making sure this happens? I volunteered with time and some money. Who else? Time is important or they may well vote not knowing it should be no, as one other couple did..

      And does anyone have the media contacts to make them aware? That is another way to notify the others and place more pressure on.

      • This is not unlike a scam that unscrupulous plumbers and mortgage brokers use. i never heard of a rebellion that begins with yes.

        • I understand the list of investors was shared. Thanks to who did so. I believe it was shared with
          John Robie. I volunteered, as hopefully one of many, to address envelopes, and share in some of the
          costs of notifying the vastest majority of investors, who are not on the blog.

          Does anyone know the status of this mailing/notification, to the investor majority? I’ve not been
          contacted by anyone to coordinate our efforts to reach them.

      • There is a mailing list on file with the court recently filed by Alix Partners (the vote solicitation agent) which shows to whom Class 8 ballots, among other things, were mailed by US mail. There is no email list. Keep in mind that there are legal restrictions on soliciting yes or no votes through use of non-court approved solicitation materials.

  9. This could be a great avenue to some investigative work on behalf of the investors, nationally. It is a current site, and would reach millions more people, faster, on a national level than a youtube. You never know who might be reading. Open both links; the 1st tells what msn Investigative team does; the 2nd is what they have investigated up to the minute and ongoing. Since this blog’s reachable audience is small, if msn. investigates this story perhaps many more of the investors could be reached, maybe even before they vote. There are no secrets—it has all been publicly documented. The media should be all over this. Since we cannot be present in Dallas, and we have a Creditors Committee of which the majority of members have proven repeatedly they don’t and never did have the investors best interests as their primary responsibilities/duties, let the investigative reporters take a look. Again, ALL court documents are available to the public. If the Committee/Ngs/Horowitz have done nothing wrong, they should have no worries about being exposed. Here is a way to be proactive, as opposed to feeling helpless, except for one lousy vote that may or may not include the majority of investors. The majority of investors must vote NO in order for this ‘plan’ to be defeated. This is a critical juncture for the investors: Start writing letters/emails to msn.

    • I have written to msnbc as you suggested. If others will do the same and will explain this attempt to pass a Chapter 11 Plan which stops any further action against Wells Fargo and the Ngs we may be able to generate some valuable publicity and pressure. Please folks do it now.

      • In your earlier post, where you grilled me, there was not a “reply” option (see below.)

        Rose Mary; have you contacted this group msnbc yourself? What information have you provided to them? Lots of people on this blog make suggestions but don’t take any action themselves…I hope you have…if so please tell us what you’ve done so we can follow up on it and try to get them to pursue this.

        May 23, 2012 at 10:41 pm

        Not knowing who you are or what side of the fence you were on, it was none of your business what I have or have not written. Investors have been trying to get media attention for a very long time but to no avail. I posted a website that is geared for seeking information about a $750,000,000+ Ponzi scheme in which the investors are still getting the shaft; the worst of which is from the very people assigned to protect their interests, namely the majority of the Creditors Committee. Adding that Dixon Collins has worked tirelessly to help the investors in any and every way possible every day he has been on the Committee and continues to do so. He has been outnumbered. Undauntingly he fights the good fight on the investors’ behalf. It has been posted on this blog the Trustee in TX has been alerted to the overwhelming conflict of interests of Pearl Tom, Elliott Abrams, Sherratt Reicher, Eugene Rapp and their ilk on the Committee but refuses to do anything about it. It would be interesting to see what these people would say with a microphone and a television camera stuck in their face. Do you think they would take the 5th? Maybe deny the documents with their names, dates, and amounts of their early payouts and withdrawals? Put their hands in front of their faces? Or step up and tell the nation what a great job they have done for the investors including…..WHY they are advising the shafted investors to vote yes on “The Plan”?
        This is an opportunity to get as many letters and stories to the same investigative news source as soon as possible. It is up to the investors to take advantage and barrage msn. And yes, I have written to msn. I am glad you have written. I hope every investor who has been harmed will also write and pass this msn. link to everyone they know. It does not have to be an investor to send information and stories of what has been devastating to their loved ones and friends. I seriously doubt that any of the guilty members of the Creditors Committee will be sending off letters to msn. when their misdeeds are so obviously in favor of the criminals, including themselves. If someone can come up with a better news source I would be happy to send another letter if they will post a link.

        • Relax…no one’s grilling you…you suggested a course of action and just wanted some guidance on what to write.

  10. With regards to Elliott Abrams’ plea to vote yes on the reorganization plan, you should consider his biases. To begin, Elliott was hand-picked by the Ngs to sit on the initial REL creditor committee. You remember — the committee that did nothing and had all of its members named to the Official Noteholders Committee. The same committee, of which he is a member, that is now pushing for the reorganization plan.

    Some history: In early 2010 when concerned investors tried to organize the filing of an involuntary bankruptcy petition against REL, Elliott opposed the idea. In fact, he opposed it so strongly that he stated on the Google Groups site:

    “Several investors and I are actively putting together a group to have input into the reorganization process, to maximize the ultimate return from our investments and to oppose actions which would jeopardize these goals. Although I hope it will not become necessary, we will be organized and financially prepared to promptly act to protect our investments including opposing precipitous actions which threaten our investments.” April 22,

    Essentially, he threatened those who wanted to pursue filing the involuntary bankruptcy with a lawsuit if they filed a bankruptcy petition. That essentially stopped the involuntary bankruptcy from proceeding. In fact, the Ngs so loved his posting that they placed it on the RE Loans website.

    Elliott: Knowing what has transpired, do you think your threats worked to the benefit of all investors or just the few who received their preferential redemptions, either in cash or shady business deals?

    I think that if we had filed the petition over two years ago, the investors would now be in a much better position financially and we would have had control over the bankruptcy process, i.e. filing it in Northern California, not Texas, choosing our own creditor’s committee, hiring a law firm to represent the investors, not Wells Fargo and not paying Mackinac $10 million, etc.

    When you consider Elliott’s actions regarding the other investors, I think that you can see why his vote is yes: another attempt to influence events in such a way that the vast majority of investors will get screwed again.

    • Couldn’t have said it better myself. Thanks Monagesque. We should listen to Abrams at our own peril. We’ve seen it time and time again, the Ngs have their influencers who do their best to deliver the carefully-crafted talking points to the masses. Don’t let them influence this important decision. One more time. Vote NO.

      • Hi John,
        Have I miissed a response? Do you know if anything is being done to reach the vast majority who is not on the blog? Let’s not forget that one blog couple voted “yes” based on the letter they received.

        Is there a plan?


  11. After an almost 2 year hiatuses from any discussion on this blog Elliott Abrams feels compelled to give you only half the story and none of the facts which he has learned over the course of “representing” you on the creditors committees.

    His claim that the “… bloggers… consistently twist the truth and misstate easily verifiable facts…” is something you will have to decide in the absence of him giving any concrete examples.

    I respectfully disagree. Go back and look at the history of these blogs. They have posted thousands of pages of documents which certain people do not want you to see. They have connected the dots on the criminal activity of the Ng enterprise. They have identified people and family members that got preferential treatment. They have followed and reported on the McGuire and Class Action suits. They have reported on all aspects of the various bankruptcies.
    They have allowed “free speech” and hosted legal commentators such as Robert Brower.

    Mr. Abrams “ideas” and his theories need some examination because there is not a fact among them.

    Let us examine two examples out of the five different subject area’s he raised.

    He was privy to the following facts but did not tell you about them.

    Suing Wells Fargo

    1.The Creditors Committee’s outside litigation counsel, Diamond McCarthy recommended suing Wells Fargo. Elliott Abrams heard the reasons why he recommended suing Wells Fargo.

    2. Diamond McCarthy after reviewing over 500,000 documents researched and prepared a very well written complaint against Wells Fargo.

    3. Diamond McCarthy is not working on “contingency”, they are being paid hourly. There is no specter of a 40% contingency fee, rubbish.

    3. Why has the Creditor Committee gotten an extension to sue Wells Fargo on a date after final hearing on the Plan?

    4. Wells offered in earlier versions of the Plan to settle the claim for $3,000,000. If they offered
    $3,000,000 without a lawsuit being filed how much are they willing to pay?

    Suing Greenbery (sic) (Greenberg Trauig)

    Well again the Committee is asleep at the switch. As Wild Bill McGrane has continued to point out, Jeff Krause, representing REL all these years while the Ng’s were still in charge. He has blown the statute of limitations for suing Greenberg on behalf of REL.

    What has the Creditors Committee done about this? Nothing, except “reserved” the right to pursue an action against Krause. Think that will happen with the present Committee and counsel in place. Don’t think so. It will be conveniently swept under the rug.

    What would a Chapter 7 Trustee like Picard in the Madoff case do? He would turn over every stinking rock.

  12. The yellow Ballot, paragraph C, says that if you previously submitted a Ballot different from the one you are submitting now your current Ballot revokes the previous Ballot submitted and only the new current Ballot counts. This implies your vote can be changed. You would need to get a new Ballot (presumably from AlixPartners LLP?) and resubmit it if you wanted to change your vote. The deadline is June 18 at 5pm which gives plenty of time to change if you want to…but don’t delay! Insist on being given a new Ballot and when you send it in request a receipt confirming that it is valid and was counted.

    • I emailed my ballot in this morning (I rejected the plan). I asked that I receive confirmation of the receipt of my vote and have not yet received a response.


    In the last few days, an alarming number of factual inaccuracies, unsupported accusations, and misrepresentations have been posted on this blog by various individuals. Some of these posts are rife with factual and legal inaccuracies, and should not be relied upon.

    To answer investor questions about the plan and related materials, and to clear up any remaining confusion about the relative benefits to Noteholders of supporting the Plan and the consequences for Noteholders if the Plan is not approved by the Court, the Committee invites all Noteholders to participate in a telephonic conference on June 4, 2012 at 1:00pm PT. You will receive a letter in the mail shortly with the particulars on how to participate in the call and submit questions to the Committee and its advisors.

    The balance of this post is intended to respond to some of the more egregious statements made on the blog in the last several.


    CLAIM: “Any Committee Member = Walter Ng”

    FACT: The Committee was appointed by the United States Trustee in Dallas without any input from Walter Ng, and every member of the Committee has taken his or her role in this case seriously. The Committee is composed primarily of the largest creditors of R.E. Loans. The Committee members are victims of Walter’s fraud just as you are, and have collectively lost millions. The Committee does not communicate with Walter, nor has he had any involvement in the Committee’s deliberations.

    CLAIM: “The very people recommending urging us to trust them and approve their plan are the same people who been accused of taking distributions when the rest of us got NOTHING.”

    FACT: Over one third of all investors—1,000 accounts in all—received distributions. On the Committee, 5 members received distributions; 5 did not. THIS IS CRUCIAL: Ng and Horwitz “family and friends” were not the only ones to receive distributions. Over 1,000 investors received distributions, many of them as monthly payments for living expenses in retirement. The plan compromise insulates THOSE people from future liability, not the insiders.

    CLAIM: “Do you know what this means? It’s a GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD in a legal sense for Walter, Kelly, Barney, Bruce and everyone who got money when the rest of us couldn’t.”

    FACT: The Plan clearly states that the Ng family and other insiders are NOT released under the Plan, and the Liquidating Trustee reserves all rights to sue them for prior acts, including to recover prior distributions.

    CLAIM: “It glosses over the fact that the exchange agreement was potentially illegal, but who cares when the committee elected to represent us doesn’t actually represent us?”

    FACT: If the exchange agreement was found to be illegal, the likely result would be that EVERY Noteholder would be restored to their prior status as equity investors, in which case they would not be entitled to any distribution except after all other creditors (including MF08 and DSI) were paid in full. The Plan ensures that result will not happen.

    CLAIM: “Wells Fargo will be just fine under this plan, because if the plan is accepted, we will be giving them a full release.”

    FACT: The Plan releases only the Debtor’s claims against Wells Fargo, which was a necessary trade to obtain necessary financing and the ability to insulate Noteholders under the Plan from further risk of litigation. The Plan does not release individual Noteholders’ claims against Wells Fargo, including those presently being asserted in the class action lawsuit. All other litigation claims against third parties, including Greenberg Traurig, the Ng family, Bruce Horwitz, and the other “bad actors” are retained under the Plan and will be pursued by the Liquidating Trustee.

    CLAIM: “This downside would be a Chapter 7. While Pearl, Gene, Allen Cone, Sherrat Reicher and their cronies warn us about the ominous nature of a 7, I believe there are many, myself included, who would welcome a 7. This gives the U.S. Trustee supreme power.”

    FACT: The US Trustee has no “supreme power” in a chapter 7. Rather, an individual trustee would be appointed (not the US Trustee) to promptly liquidate the Debtors’ assets. A chapter 7 trustee has no statutory authority to operate a business, nor any money to finance it, so a trustee would almost certainly have to sell the remaining real estate at “fire sale” prices. Further, while a trustee could sue Wells Fargo, the trustee would also have broad discretion to decide not to sue Wells Fargo, or to settle those claims for a nominal sum.


    CLAIM: “In other words, if the case goes Chapter 7, then the investors get to sue Wells Fargo.”

    FACT: The investors are already suing Wells Fargo in the class action litigation and in individual lawsuits (like Dixon Collin’s current lawsuit), and nothing under the Plan changes that. If the case goes to chapter 7, a trustee appointed in Dallas will decide whether to pursue the DEBTORS’S claims against Wells Fargo. That same trustee may also elect not to sue Wells Fargo, or to settle for a nominal sum.

    CLAIM: “In my judgment, based upon all of the above, the proposed plan of reorganization does not provide investors in the two funds treatment consistent with their legal entitlement. I further believe that rejection of the proposed plan would most likely lead to a result more favorable to the investors as a whole.”

    FACT: The Committee’s decision is based on extensive deliberation and the analysis provided by bankruptcy legal and financial advisors, and was made with the benefit of confidential information relating to the Debtors’ assets and potential claims and causes of action. It is unclear what the basis for Mr. Brower’s conclusion is, or whether he is taking into account that the Plan insulates over 1,000 Noteholders from clawback exposure and insulates ALL Noteholders from the risk of being subordinated, in which case they would likely receive nothing. If the case is converted to chapter 7, Noteholders would have to hire their own attorneys to defend against attempts to subordinate their claims, as there would be no formal committee in chapter 7 to defend against such attempts on their behalf.


    CLAIM: “The Creditors Committee’s outside litigation counsel, Diamond McCarthy recommended suing Wells Fargo.”

    FACT: The Committee’s advisors concluded that the Debtors hold colorable claims against Wells Fargo. Any recommendation whether to pursue those claims required the Committee to consider the potential cost to pursue those claims. In this case, the cost to Noteholders is (i) the loss of any remaining value in the real estate and (ii) exposure to continued future lawsuits by DSI, MF08, and a chapter 7 trustee, including the risk of being subordinated to all other claims.

    CLAIM: “Wells offered in earlier versions of the Plan to settle the claim for $3,000,000. If they offered $3,000,000 without a lawsuit being filed how much are they willing to pay?”

    FACT: This offer (actually for only $1.5 million) was to settle individual Noteholder claims against Wells Fargo (i.e., those being pursued in the class action). Wells Fargo has never made an offer to settle the Debtors’ claims against it.

    CLAIM: “As Wild Bill McGrane has continued to point out, Jeff Krause, representing REL all these years while the Ng’s were still in charge. He has blown the statute of limitations for suing Greenberg on behalf of REL.”

    FACT: Mr. McGrane has been proven wrong time and again in this case, and anyone relying on his legal theories or conclusions does so at his peril. The Committee disagrees that the statute of limitations for pursuing claims has expired, and the proposed chapter 11 plan expressly preserves the ability for the Liquidating Trustee to pursue litigation against Greenberg Traurig..

    DO NOT VOTE YOUR CLAIM BASED ON FALSE OR MISLEADING STATEMENTS. Consider the facts. Consider what will happen if the Plan fails. We encourage all Noteholders to carefully review the materials they received, attend the Committee’s upcoming conference call, and send in their ballots.

    • Exercising my right to free speech, go back under your rock. Why don’t you put your real names on your post and stop hiding behind your “ng appointed” title? Not all committee members agree with you. Funny thing, at this late date suddenly you want to address us, on our own blog no less, as if you give a rat’s behind about us. Now THAT took some brass ones. What could be the REAL reason for these posts, pray tell??? Have you been looking at your bank account balances? Too late for this nonsense. You never did give a rat’s behind and you don’t now. Other than being repetitive, your post is boring. You scramble around but don’t say much. You wasted your verbage. Speaking for myself, I am not the least bit interested in your telephonic conference. It’s bad enough to read your lies let alone voluntarily listen to them. Your sudden interest in what WE think is, well, denigrating at best. At the end of your last letter to us months ago, you blew us off and wrote that any further communication should be directed to your lawyers. That was awe inspiring. I find it a bit nauseating that you felt the urgent need to even post on this blog, as if I wasn’t nauseated enough by your actions thus far. I am also insulted that you even for one moment, had the inkling that we might believe anything you would post here. Something bothering you??? I particularly liked who you referred to as the “bad actors.” Don’t you own any mirrors? Dip into the stash you took from us and go buy some. Good luck with your conference call. Maybe you could ask the Ngs and Horowitz to listen in so you don’t feel all alone. I’ll believe your rubbish when pigs fly. To the authors of your post—-I hope we are your worst nightmare. As John Robie said, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. My time will not be wasted on you. It will be spent sending more letters to:

      P.S. Stop bugging Equitatus. All of you wrapped up together can’t fill even one of his shoes.

    • Anybody can claim to be the “Official” anything Mr. Abrams, but that doesn’t make it so. As a lawyer you have an ethical obligation to be honest with everyone. But you aren’t. Here is the real truth: You are pitching a yes vote so hard because 1) you know you are losing this election and 2) you care more about coughing up what you owe to the Debtors than anything else.
      What a disgrace you are. And how obvious you are, too.

      • It may be a good idea to make copies of your “NO” ballots BEFORE you mail them, in case we have to have a recount, or some of them get lost, or, you know…. A certified letter receipt is just that; proof they received it. It DOES NOT prove how you voted. There is much at stake here, and they have not been known for their honesty.

    • In response to my May 22nd post, this person states that Dixon Collins is suing Wells Fargo. This is totally false. I represent Dixon Collins in his Contra Costa County lawsuit. Dixon Collins has never sued Wells Fargo. The Committee had the obligation to sue Wells Fargo on your behalf to put money into the bankruptcy estate and the Committee failed to do that. The Committee did not file; the deadline passed.

      I have argued here that one factor weighing heavily in rejecting the plan is the Chapter 7 trustee’s right to sue Wells Fargo within 10 days of the failure of plan confirmation. The facts support the case against Wells Fargo and i have posted some of them here. To somehow suggest to you that Dixon Collins is carrying the ball when he has not sued Wells Fargo misses the point.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s