2013 Year End Update From Zeek Receiver

UPDATE FROM RECEIVER – December 31, 2013

To Affiliates and Other Claimants of Rex Venture Group, LLC

On December 27, 2013 we began sending out more than 80,000 emails notifying claimants that their Letter of Determination is available for review. The Letter of Determination tells claimants the amount(s) of their claim(s) recognized by the Receiver. While I tried to make this process as understandable as possible, judging by the number of emails and phone calls, there is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about how this process works. I write this message to answer the most frequently asked questions.

While we have sent more than 80,000 Letters of Determination, we have received more than 170,000 claims, so roughly 90,000 claimants have not yet been sent a Letter of Determination. Every affiliate claimant will receive a Letter of Determination as soon as we are able to review and evaluate the claim. We are working hard to get this done as quickly as possible for every affiliate claimant. If you have not yet received a letter of determination, you will. Please be patient, and do not send emails or leave voicemails asking when you will get your Letter.

Many claimants who have not yet received a Letter of Determination are trying to login using a link forwarded to them by a claimant who has received a Letter of Determination. This will not work. The link will only allow a claimant who received an email notifying them that their Letter of Determination is available for review to login to the system.

Many claimants who received a Letter of Determination report that they cannot login because their Claim ID and/or password are not being recognized. This is because the claimant has forgotten one or both, or created more than one User ID or password, and is trying to login with the wrong one. If a claimant is having trouble logging in, please use the User Name Recovery tool that is linked to the login page on the portal.

Many who have received a Letter of Determination are confused about the amounts recognized. For every claim we “recognize” two amounts: the amount of money the claimant paid to Rex Venture Group/ZeekRewards (referred to as “Receivership Defendant”) before August 17, 2012, and the amount of money Rex Venture Group/ZeekRewards (again referred to as “Receivership Defendant”) paid to the claimant before August 17, 2012. Both numbers are important in determining how much money will be paid to each claimant once the Court approves a Distribution Plan. Some claimants look at the line showing “Payments from Receivership Defendant” and mistakenly think this is the amount of their claim recognized by the Receiver. “Payments from the Receivership Defendant” is simply the amount (if any) paid to the claimant by Rex Venture Group/ZeekRewards before August 17, 2012, that is, before the Court appointed the Receiver. It is NOT the amount of the recognized claim. Claimants can Accept both of the amounts (“paid to” and “received from”), or object to one or both of the amounts.

Many claimants ask if they still have to complete the online forms even if they Accept the Determination. The answer is yes, and the reasons are explained in Claims FAQ 33. Some claimants report difficulty completing the forms online. We have thoroughly tested, and continually test, the ability to submit these forms to be sure the online process is working properly.

Many claimants ask if completing the W-9 or W-8 (and perhaps later receiving an IRS Form 1099) means they will have to pay tax on a future distribution from the Receivership. Receiving a Form 1099 does not necessarily mean that a claimant will owe taxes on the future distribution. Each claimant’s tax situation is different, so I encourage each claimant to consult with his/her tax preparer or professional advisor. We are simply required, by applicable law, to report to the IRS if the Receivership distributes more than $600 to any claimant.

Because Forms W-9 and W-8 require a Social Security Number or Tax Identification Number, many claimants ask if that information will be safe and protected. Please be assured that it is and will be.

Do not send any documents directly to the Receiver. The only Court approved Claims Process required claim information to be provided through the Claim Portal. Documents sent to the Receiver will not be accepted or reviewed. Also, do not send emails to or leave voicemails for the Receiver directly. They are not read or listened to. All correspondence should be sent to claims@zeekrewardsreceivership.com. Every email sent to that address is reviewed and forwarded to the Receiver as appropriate. It is impossible to respond to every individual question, email or call. Common questions are answered by postings at Zeekrewardsreceivership.com. All available information and updates are posted there.

Thank you for your patience in this process.

Kenneth D. Bell

Please click here to view prior updates from the Receiver

ProSun Affiliate Settles With Kansas Securities Commission

I have no idea why these documents are just showing up months after they are filed, but here is another Profitable Sunrise related filing in Kansas.  One ProSun affiliate has struck a deal and neither admitted or denied wrongdoing and has settled with Kansas security authorities.

Here is the filing:

602  David P Cozzocrea Settlement with Kansas Securities  Commissioner

Kansas Securities Commissioner Dismisses NJF and FocusUp Ministries

Although this was filed a month ago, it is a recent find. The Kansas Securities Commissioner has dismissed without prejudice the Notice of Intent, Docket Number 13 E 021.  By dismissing “without prejudice”, it means the case can be renewed at a later date.

It doesn’t mean that Nanci Jo Frazer won this battle, not at all.


From BehindMLM: TelexFree Fined


TelexFree fined for acting in “bad faith”

Dec.26, 2013 in TelexFree 8 Comments


There’s been somewhat of an ongoing dance taking place between TelexFree and the Brazilian court system.

TelexFree will typically make an announcement either on Facebook or YouTube about how they will undoubtedly crush anyone who opposes them with some new legal angle they are sure cannot fail.

After the courts bitchslap the company back into reality, another video or announcement appears, typically proclaiming the defeat as an overwhelming success or revealing a new ploy that, this time, will finally crush anyone who opposes them and also cannot fail.

This is pretty much how TelexFree’s communication to its affiliates has played out ever since Acre suspended the company’s Brazilian operations back in June.

Now, after some fifteen plus TelexFree appeals have been denied in various Brazilian courts, it appears that finally the Judge handling the Acre case might have had enough.

[Read the rest of this entry…]

December 27th Update From Zeek Receiver

UPDATE FROM RECEIVER – December 27, 2013

I am pleased to report that more than 80,000 Notices of Claims Determination are being sent to Claimants in the ZeekRewards case between today, December 27, 2013, and December 31, 2013. These notices direct individuals who have had their Claim Determination issued to log in to the Claim Determination Portal to review their Claim Determination. Such notices are being sent from the email address ZRWDeterminations@tgcginc.com.

To those of you that have received a Claim Determination, please follow the instructions provided in your Claim Determination to either accept or object to the Claim Determination. Do not send emails to ZRWDeterminations@tgcginc.com regarding your Claim Determination. That email address will not be monitored. Any email sent to that email address will be deleted without being read.

If you have not received a Claim Determination, please do not contact the Receiver. Not receiving a Claim Determination notice at this time does not mean that your Claim is not valid. It only means that we have not completed our review of your Claim. Certain Claims will take additional time to evaluate and may require us to make further contact with you before we issue a Claim Determination. We are and will be working hard to reconcile all Claims and send all Claims Determination as soon as we are able to do so.

Zeek “Class” Group Files Opposition to Distribution Order

Wow, talk about “sour grapes”; These people are upset, why, exactly?  Let’s continue reading their filing from today:

NOW COME Johnny Belsome and seven hundred and thirty-nine (739) other interested parties, by their undersigned counsel, and file the following Objection to the Receiver’s Motion for Order Approving Distribution Procedures and Certain Other Related Relief:

1. On August 24, 2012, Johnny Belsome, Timothy Allen, Jody Hinkley, Donald Marcel, Keith Hinkley, Starr Atchison, Edward Thiel, Brett Hunte and Tara Belsome filed a Class Action Complaint, No. 12-2173, against Rex Venture Group, LLC d/b/a ZeekRewards.com and Paul R. Burks, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated around the world, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Since then, over one thousand unique individuals have contacted undersigned counsel to join in such lawsuit.

Perhaps they forgot, but the Louisiana case was moved to the North Carolina Western District and now is case 12-cv-00800, presided over by Senior Judge Mullen.  I have uploaded the most recent documents on this case (12-cv-800-GCM) onto the Files website, in the Class Action category.

3. The crux of Belsome’s Objection to the Receiver’s March 29, 2013 motion was that the proposed Claims Process failed to provide for any mechanism for Claimants who wished to have their claim processed by an attorney or other qualified third party.

4. On May 8, 2013, this Court granted the Receiver’s March 29, 2013 motion, thereby overruling Belsome’s objections to the proposed Claims Process. The Claims Process thus commenced on May 8, 2013 and closed 120 days thereafter. The undersigned filed individual Claims on behalf of each and every one of the 740 interested party Movants herein.

No one told these 740 claimants to hire/retain an attorney; and here we are, once again they are interjecting themselves into the Court approved process but they want to do it their way. Good luck with that….

9. Furthermore, in the section entitled “The Making of Distributions,” the Receiver proposes to “make distributions solely to the holders of allowed Claims without regard to any Claim or interest asserted by any third party in such distribution.” Motion, pp. 27-28.

14. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the seven hundred-forty (740) individual Movants herein, as well as all non-moving putative Class Members, are entitled to legal representation in the instant Claims Process, if they see fit to so retain the same. As such, the refusal to consider Claims made by represented Claimants would violate said Claimants’ Constitutional rights to Due Process.

And there we have it, their “Rights” have been violated, because the lawyer said so! But this is not a Class Action case; those have been Stayed/delayed, last I looked. But, wait….   it gets better:

15. Consequently, to the extent that the Receiver seeks to prevent any Claimant from retaining counsel to process his or her Claim, Belsome, et al. object thereto. Movants ask this Court to Order the Receiver to modify the Claims process in general, or the Claims Portal specifically, to allow for the processing of Claims by counsel or other qualified third party entities.

16. Additionally, Belsome, et al. ask this Court to Order the Receiver to add an identifier, either a name, Claim number, or otherwise, in its correspondence with Claimants, so as to permit third-party Claims processors, including but not limited to the undersigned, to distinguish between clients’ unique correspondence. To the extent the Receiver seeks to limit correspondence with Claims Counsel, Belsome, et al. object thereto.

WHEREFORE, Johnny Belsome and seven hundred and thirty-nine (739) other interested parties respectfully request that the Court Order that the Receiver modify the Claims Portal to include a means for third party entities to process Claims on behalf of Claimants, such as the inclusion of an identifier or Claim number, in order to distinguish one Claim from another. Movants also ask this Court to clarify that they are entitled to legal representation in their Claims processing and as such, that the Receiver must honor the terms and conditions of Movants’ Retainer Agreements.

Excuse me, but why does Mr. Bell have to honor a retainer they have with a their attorney? After all, Mr. Bell didn’t sign their retainer agreements, they did. You cannot make this stuff up, folks…..

All they want is for Judge Mullen to change the previously approved Claims Process so that their attorney can handle everything.  I somehow doubt this will be granted; most Judges are not prone to quiver at things presented by groups which are not actual parties to the case. It didn’t work in ASD, I doubt that it will work here. I suppose we shall see how Judge Mullen fells about this soon enough.


Senior Judge Mullen To Preside Over Olivares Civil Case

Added to the docket today is a case reassignment placing the case under the Senior Judge Graham Mullen, also presiding over the original SEC v Rex Ventures case.

Similarly,  in the ASD/AdSurfDaily case, the same District Judge held court over similar filings against the same Ponzi/Pyramid scheme.  DC District Judge Rosemary Collyer (my favorite District Judge to date) oversaw the Civil and Criminal case against ASD and Andy Bowdoin and did it very well.

U.S. District Court
Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte)

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Wright-Olivares et al
Assigned to: Senior Judge Graham Mullen
Referred to: Magistrate Judge David Keesler

Related Case: 3:12-cv-00519-GCM

Cause: 15:77 Securities Fraud

Date Filed: 12/20/2013
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 850 Securities/Commodities
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
12/23/2013 Case reassigned to Senior Judge Graham Mullen. Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney no longer assigned to the case. (Related Case) This is your only notice – you will not receive a separate document.(jde) (Entered: 12/23/2013)