Zeek Receiver Replies in Opposition to Belsome, et. al.’s Motion

Here are the high point of this filing, I have skipped around.  Mr. Bell makes some valid points. The complete filing is on the Files website, ZeekDoc202.

 Preliminary Statement

In an effort to create the most appropriate claim payment process, the Receiver decided that it would be best to pay claimants and not third parties on claimants’ behalf. This Court has already approved this decision. Unfortunately, unable to let go of their own pecuniary interests, Movants’ attorneys are yet again challenging the Court’s decision by seeking to change the approved distribution process to require the Receiver to aid the Movants’ attorneys in collecting their attorneys’ fees from the Movants. The Receiver has not and should not be required to interject himself into the relationship between the Movants and their attorneys, and it is situations such as these that the Receiver wishes to avoid by making distributions solely to claimants. For the reasons set forth herein, the Receiver respectfully requests that this Court deny the Motion and permit the Receiver to pay distributions to claimants only. To the extent that there is any so-called “clarification” necessary, the Receiver asks that this Court find that the Receiver be authorized to make distributions solely to claimants and not to third parties.


A motion for reconsideration should be treated as a motion pursuant to Rule 59 or 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Rules”). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60. In the Motion, however, the Movants fail to allege any of the necessary grounds to permit reconsideration of the Order. As such, there is no basis to reconsider the Order, and the  Motion may be denied on that basis alone.

The Receiver has stated and continues to maintain that where a law firm’s address is listed as the recipient to receive a claimant’s distribution, the Receiver will not issue the distribution check until the claimant amends its address on the Claim Portal to provide the actual claimant’s address for payment. Until the amendment of a claimant’s address is made, no distribution will be made to such claimant.

Moreover, the Receiver does not wish to become embroiled in the midst of a potential debtor-creditor dispute such as the one between the Movants and their counsel. The Receiver, therefore, previously determined and has repeatedly stated that a claimant’s actual address is the only address to which he will send a distribution check, absent a judicial or regulatory body requiring payment to an alternative address.

The assertion that the Receiver is punishing claimants for having counsel is wrong. Claimants are receiving equal treatment regardless of whether they have counsel or represent themselves. Distributions will be sent directly to claimants—which is, in fact, equal treatment of all claimants. Requiring for all the legitimate purposes discussed above that a distribution be paid to a claimant and not a third party is not punishment for retaining an attorney. It may not assist Movants’ attorneys’ efforts to collect their fees (and it ought not to be the responsibility of the Receiver to act as the Movants’ attorneys’ collection agent), but it does not in any way punish their clients to treat them in the same way as other claimants.

Accordingly, no clarification of the Order is necessary, as no ambiguity exists regarding where distributions will be sent.

Ponzitracker: What’s next for TelexFree Victims?

The article below is written by Jordan Maglich, a well know complex-litigation attorney who gives a different perspective on scams and those who run them


PZ logo

What’s Next For TelexFree Victims?

Last week was a busy week for TelexFree.  After filing for bankruptcy protection on Monday in a Nevada bankruptcy court, state and federal securities regulators filed civil actions accusing the company of operating a massive pyramid and Ponzi scheme that, by one estimate, may have raised $1 billion from investors worldwide.  That same day, federal agents from the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security raided the company’s headquarters in Marlborough, Massachusetts, which later drew headlines after authorities discovered TelexFree’s Chief Financial Officer attempting to remove $38 million in cashier’s checks from the offices. (The company later claimed there was no nefarious purpose behind this effort.)

Now, one week after TelexFree’s bankruptcy filing and as reality begins to set in to an estimated 700,000 company “affiliates,” the focus turns to the next steps.  This includes not only the various pending court and regulatory proceedings, but also the future of those “affiliates” that made substantial investments based on promises of extravagant returns.

Court Proceedings

Currently, there are three pending court proceedings that interested parties should consider following.  The first is a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding pending in the District of Nevada Bankruptcy Court (the “Bankruptcy Case”).  The second and third are civil actions pending in Massachusetts: one, an administrative action filed by the Enforcement Section of the Massachusetts Securities Division (the “Massachusetts Case”), and the other an enforcement action filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission pending in U.S. District Court (the “SEC Case”) (collectively, the “Civil Cases”).  There are no current pending criminal cases, although it has been reported that criminal authorities were involved in the search warrant executed on the company;s headquarters last week.

Civil Cases

Both the Massachusetts Case and the SEC Case are enforcement actions premised on alleged violations of state and federal securities laws.  As civil regulatory actions, the purpose of these proceedings is purely remedial — each seeks injunctive relief prohibiting future violations of securities laws by the TelexFree entities (and in the SEC Case, by TelexFree principals and top promoters), civil penalties, and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains from the violative conduct.  The respective defendants will be entitled to varying forms of discovery (likely more in the SEC Case due to the administrative nature of the Massachusetts Case), and will then likely file dispositive motions seeking a court order finding in their favor without the necessity of trial.  If necessary, a trial could be held. Notably, neither the Massachusetts Case nor the SEC Case includes a request for the appointment of a receiver to secure and marshal assets; rather, as explained below, the consensus seems to be that responsibility for the recovery of assets is properly in the realm of the Bankruptcy Case.

Bankruptcy Case

While the Civil Cases contain a somewhat predictable path to finality, the Bankruptcy Case is not as certain.  On April 14, 2014, TelexFree Inc., TelexFree LLC, and TelexFree Financial, Inc. (collectively, “TelexFree”) each filed voluntary bankruptcy petitions under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.  Under a Chapter 11 proceeding, the filing entity seeks to continue operating during and bankruptcy and ultimately emerge from bankruptcy after restructuring various aspects of the business, including debts.  In comparison, a Chapter 7 bankruptcy involves the cessation of operations and a complete liquidation of a business, with the proceeds being distributed to company creditors.

In the press release announcing its bankruptcy, TelexFree cited “certain operational challenges,” and indicated it intended to “restructure its debt obligations.”  In a subsequent bankruptcy filing, the company sought approval from the Bankruptcy Court to reject “all agreements between the debtors and the promoters under both the Original Comp Plan and the Revised Comp Plan.”  According to the Commission, this included at least $174 million in compensation demands submitted by “promoters” after the company drastically revamped its compensation plan.

Continue reading “Ponzitracker: What’s next for TelexFree Victims?”