Consolidated Reply to Responses by SEC and Co.
August 17, 2011
By KACHROO LEGAL SERVICES, P.C.
No one has disputed in their oppositions that the Investor Committee lacks a majority of independent and
disinterested investors, which is necessary to adequately represent the interests of investors. To the
contrary, the Investor Committee admits that three of its non-investor attorney members have substantial
contingency fee agreements with the Receiver, and that the non-investor Examiner is paid out of the receivership
estate - resulting in a situation where four of the seven members are interested.
Additionally, a fifth member, an attorney, is not an investor. The Movants seek intervention based on the simple
and uncontroversial principle that the Investor Committee should be comprised of at least a majority of disinterested
investors.
The motion should be granted on this basis alone.
Rather than substantively address this concern and reassure investors that they are in fact adequately representing
their interests, the Investor Committee prefers to attack Movants' counsel in a personal and, frankly, inaccurate
character assassination, for which they should be ashamed. The fact that the Investor Committee is seeking to repel
rather than welcome independent support and help is very telling.
To their credit, the SEC and the Receiver did not engage in personal attacks, but also did not address the principal
concern: whether the receivership is adding value to the estate for investors.
One of the concerns raised by Movants in their motion was a 25% contingency fee agreement with attorneys on the
Investor Committee (representing the receivership and essentially therefore all investors), that could generate
hundreds of millions of dollars in attorneys' fees, in cases that the Receiver has already investigated and developed,
and with no provision for judicial review or approval of the appropriateness of the fees in relation to the
work performed...
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE! Source.
Related article:
Stanford Victims Refuse to be defrauded by Texas Receiver.
Response and Objection to the KLS Motion to Intervene.
READER DISCUSSION
SIVG reserves the right to delete comments that are off-topic or offensive. Excessively long comments may be moderated as well. SIVG cannot facilitate requests to remove comments or explain individual moderation decisions. The comments posted here, express only the views of their authors and not the administrators/moderators from SIVG; for that reason SIVG won't be held responsible for those contents
Showing 0 comments...