Respondent's Response to Enforcement Opposition for Change to 120 Day Proceedings Re: Mark Feathers 3- 15755
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Respondent's Response to Enforcement Opposition for Change to 120 Day Proceedings re: Mark Feathers 3- 15755 Enforcement shows strong opposition to Respondent's request for the Commission to modify these proceedings to a 120 day category from a 75 day category. Is this not the Commission's decision to make? Enforcement presents its normal assemblage of red herrings and alternative facts in its reply. The district court order enjoining Respondent against violating federal securities laws was issued in 2013. And, Respondent is under probation and criminal court order, as well, to not engage in violations of the securities laws through 2022. So, "urgency" as the basis to 75 day proceedings, as Enforcement argues in its opposition filing, is nonsensical. And the Stalker forensic accounting report of Respondent's investment funds, ordered by criminal court but only after civil court's adverse summary judgement against Respondent, clearly has added a level of complexity to these proceedings which the Commission could not have considered (and likely did not even hold awareness of), at the time it ordered 75 day hearings. The Commission should now be made aware of the Stalker Report, and form its own determination on Respondent's request to re-designate these as 120 day proceedings. And, since the public paid for the report, Respondent holds belief, which he hopes that the Commission and this court concur with, that the public benefits as well with knowledge that Enforcement is not allowed by this court to snuff out material and reliable third-party produced adversarial evidentiary information from being presented to this court and to the Commissioners. And, In its reply, Enforcement points to a statement in criminal court that civil proceedings were " prolonged" and "caused" by Feathers. Exhibit 1, which Respondent asks this court take judicial notice of, is the Receiver's "Seventh Interim Fee Application". The Receiver, appointed on Enforcement's district court request, not on Respondent's request, notes on line 4, page 9 of his report, fees in his "Totals" column of $1,830,930. Column 2 of the Receiver's report is labeled as "Defendant- Related". They total $66,415, or de minimis, at only 3.6% of the Receiver's fees. Yet, Enforcement would rather the Commission, and/or, this court rely on red herring arguments. The numbers speak for themselves, however. Right? In June 2012 Enforcement's licensed CPA added together the distributions of Respondent's funds to their investments, and on that basis -while under seal and using "proforma" and "prima facie" labels to his work, doubled the appearance of the actual distributions of Respondent's investment funds, doing so even while not informing district court that third party CPA audited financial statements of Respondent's investment funds, with GAAP basis CPA verified distribution amounts, thoroughly rebutted his false, uncontested, and sealed, assertions. Respondent asks this court, and the Commissioners, in the near future, to imagine they hold a checking account. Money goes in, and money goes out. Perhaps in a year's time $1,000 was deposited and $1,000 was withdrawn, for a net balance of $0. Now, imagine that a federal government CPA told a district court, under seal that $2,000 was actually withdrawn, and while so doing, asked the court to allow a seizure of the judge's checking account on the basis of providing false financial illustrations to that court which grossly exaggerated the actual amounts of monies withdrawn, with no explicable basis for doing so. And that the Enforcement CPA was able to adhere a "Ponzi-like" in his descriptive labels, but only by knowing that a court would hold reliance on that CPA's own false numbers, and in deference to the fact that the numbers were presented by an esteemed and reputable party such as an SEC ENFORCEMENT CPA. An accountant with 23 years of Enforcement experience and federal CPA licensing, as described by Enforcement in civil court pleadings, in fact. Clearly, in 2012, Enforcement's staff of accountants and prosecutors were willing to do anything, including engaging in criminal activities themselves, on appearance, to prove to the public that they were busting Ponzi schemes right and left. And to promote their efforts, Enforcement heralded its own duplicitous actions very publicly, and to the untold great harm of Respondent; see Exh ibit 2. Case5:12-cv-03237-EJD Document966 Filed10/28/14 Page1 of 155 1 DAVID R. ZARO (BAR NO. 124334) TED FATES (BAR NO. 227809) 2 ALLEN MATKINS LECK GAMBLE MALLORY & NATSIS LLP 3 515 South Figueroa Street, Ninth Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3309 4 Phone: (213) 622-5555 Fax: (213) 620-8816 5 E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected] 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Case No. CV12-03237 COMMISSION, 12 Plaintiff, RECEIVER'S SEVENTH INTERIM FEE 13 APPLICATION vs. 14 Date: February 5, 2015 SMALL BUSINESS CAPITAL CORP.; Time: 9:00 a.m. 15 MARK FEATHERS; INVESTORS PRIME Ctrm: 4 - 5th Floor FUND, LLC; and SBC PORTFOLIO Judge: Hon. Edward J. Davila 16 FUND, LLC, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LAW OFFICES Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Case No. CV12-03237 Mallory & Natsis LLP RECEIVER'S SEVENTH INTERIM FEE APPLICATION Case5:12-cv-03237-EJD Document966 Filed10/28/14 Page2 of 155 1 Thomas A. Seaman (the "Receiver"), the court-appointed Permanent Receiver 2 for Small Business Capital Corp. ("SB Capital"), Investors Prime Fund, LLC 3 ("IPF"), SBC Portfolio Fund, LLC ("SPF") and their subsidiaries and affiliates 4 (collectively, the "Receivership Entities"), submits this seventh interim application 5 for approval and payment of fees. This application covers the three-month period 6 May 1, 2014, through July 31, 2014 (the "Seventh Application Period"). 7 During the Seventh Application Period, the Receiver and his staff spent 1,220.3 8 hours at a weighted average hourly rate of $163 per hour for a total cost of 9 $198,712.00 to service the loan portfolios, prepare for the sale of the remaining 10 assets, administer investor inquiries, and otherwise execute the duties set forth in the 11 Temporary Restraining Order and Order Appointing Receiver entered on June 26, 12 2012 (“TRO”), the Preliminary Injunction Order entered on July 10, 2012 (“PI”), 13 and subsequent orders of the Court. Significant progress in all aspects of the case 14 was made during the three month period of the fee application, including the 15 ongoing managing and servicing the loan portfolios in accordance with SBA and 16 DRE requirements, financial reporting and preparation of tax returns, the CBB 17 litigation, and marketing the remaining loans and SBLC license for sale. Loan 18 servicing, which generated a profit of $160,335 net of the Receiver’s servicing fees 19 during the Seventh Application Period, and preparation of the loan portfolios and 20 SBLC license for disposition, which will lead to a significant return of investors’ 21 principal, comprised over 87% of the fees during the Seventh Application Period. 22 Effective August 1, 2014, the Court began reviewing the Receiver’s invoice 23 for loan servicing. The amount for loan servicing during the Seventh Application 24 Period was incurred prior to August 1, 2014 and future fee applications will account 25 for any such amounts approved by the Court. 26 During this period, the gross receipts from all sources were $1,256,805.34. 27 The cash balance as of July 31, 2014, was $5,767,665.83. The Receiver’s fees as a 28 percentage of the gross receipts during the Seventh Application Period were 15.8%. LAW OFFICES Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Case No. CV12-03237 Mallory & Natsis LLP RECEIVER'S SEVENTH INTERIM FEE APPLICATION -1- Case5:12-cv-03237-EJD Document966 Filed10/28/14 Page3 of 155 1 Inception-to-date1, the Receiver’s fees as a percentage of gross receipts are 6.3%, 2 and are 5.5% as a percentage of total disbursements. The Receiver seeks approval 3 of his fees in full and authority to pay 90% of the approved fees. 4 The Receiver notes that while the foregoing metrics indicate that the amount 5 of the Receiver’s fees is reasonable based on the size of cash flow and receivership 6 assets, many of the Receiver’s activities which are necessary and properly incurred 7 do not generate revenue to the estate. These activities include supporting discovery 8 requests of interested parties, quarterly reporting to the Court and interested parties, 9 administration of claims, investor communications, and the interference of 10 Defendant Mark Feathers. During the Seventh Application Period, the Receiver 11 and his agents responded to numerous investor inquiries about distribution checks 12 and related matters. In addition, efforts to sell the remaining loans accounted for 13 nearly a third of the fees during the Seventh Application Period, which will generate 14 a substantial recovery for the estate when the sales close. 15 16 WORK PERFORMED BY THE RECEIVER 17 During the Seventh Application Period, the Receiver and his agents and 18 counsel worked diligently to operate the Receivership Entities and administer the 19 receivership estate. Significant progress and completion of substantial requirements 20 of the case have been achieved. The primary work still to be completed is the sale 21 of the loan portfolios and the SBLC license and resolution of the litigation against 22 California Business Bank. Once this work is done, the Receiver will be in a position 23 to make a final distribution to investors and conclude the receivership case (if 24 approved and authorized by the Court).