Promissory Note Secured by Deed of re:$12,000,000.00 Oct. 20 1999/Faulkner v. Rotunda Partners II LLC Sept. 13, 2013
Promissory Note Secured by Deed of Trust $12,000,000.00 Oct. 20, 1999 PRINCIPAL
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, ROTUNDA PARTNERS II, LLC, a CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ("Maker"), promises to pay to the order of THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF OAKLAND, a public body, corporate and politic ("Payee")...by the holder of this Note, and without set-off or counterclaim, the principal sum of TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS($12,000,000.00)...
NOTE: THE RELEVANCE of Faulkner v. Rotunda Partners II LLC et Defendant: Leonard Epstein and Rotunda Partners II LLC Plaintiff: Dennis S. Faulkner Case Number 3:2013cv03696 Filed: September 13, 2013 Court Texas Northern District Court Office: Dallas Office County: Dallas Presiding Judge: A. Joe Fish Referring Judge: David L. Horan Nature of Suit: OTHER FRAUD Cause of Action: 28:1331
UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE PROMISSORY NOTE ABOVE[For the ROTUNDA BUILDING for which the Promissory Note is issue, THE ROTUNDA PARTNERS II are legally in DEFAULT.
SEE THE FOLLOWING: (4) LATE CHARGE Maker shall pay to Payee a LATE CHARGE of ten percent(10%) of such payment, which LATE CHARGE shall be IMMEDIATELY due and payable without demand or notice by PAYEE. In addition, at Payee's option in its SOLE discretion, all amounts owing to Payee under this note and the loan documents(as defined in section (6) shall bear interest at the DEFAULT interest rate(as defined in the following paragraph... "DEFAULT INTEREST RATE" is eight per cent(8%) per annum
(5)(d) CONTINGENT PAYMENT Payment upon REFINANCING. In addition to the CONTINGENT PAYMENT payable upon bona fide sale of the property as provided in this section (5), at the time of any REFINANCING of the property(excluding the take out financing as defined in Article 3 of the DEED OF TRUST) where the PRINCIPAL amount of the new loan exceeds TWENTY-ONE MILLION DOLLARS($21,000,000.00) Maker SHALL pay to Payee twenty percent(20%) OF THE NET PROCEEDS, if any, Maker receives from any such refinancing after payment of the previous loan which as secured by a deed of trust or mortgage encumbering the Property.
(7)(f) DEFAULT Maker and/or any guarantor or any shareholder, Principal, or PARTNER in Maker and/or any guarantor, SHALL become insolvent, make an ASSIGNMENT for the benefit of creditors, or COMMENCE or BECOME SUBJECT to ANY CASE OR PROCEEDING under the BANKRUPTCY CODE OR any OTHER insolvency, RECEIVERSHIP, reorganization, arrangement of DEBT, liquidation or DEBTORS relief law wherein Maker and/or guarantor, or ANY shareholder, Principal, or PARTNER in Maker and/or any guarantor , is debtor;
(8) ACCELERATION Upon any event of DEFAULT under this Note, the ENTIRE unpaid PRINCIPAL sum of this Note, TOGETHER with ALL accrued interest and OTHER sums due hereunder and under the DEED OF TRUST and/or other loan documents, SHALL become immediately due hereunder and PAYABLE, without demand or notice at the election of the holder of this Note. Payment under this note also may be ACCELERATED by the holder of this note pursuant to section 11.
(9)JOINT AND SEVERAL If Maker consists of more than one person or entity, their obligations under this Note SHALL BE JOINT AND SEVERAL. An individual executing this Note on behalf of a corporation, PARTNERSHIP or other legal entity warrants and represents that such individual has the legal authority and capacity to execute this note on behalf of such entity.
(13) MAXIMUM INTEREST
Note relevant legal authority California Code of Procedure 580(a), 580(b) 580(d) and 726
California Civil Code Sections 2809,2810,2819,2845,2849,2850,2855
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, ROTUNDA PARTNERS II, LLC, a CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ("Maker"), promises to pay to the order of THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF OAKLAND, a public body, corporate and politic ("Payee")...by the holder of this Note, and without set-off or counterclaim, the principal sum of TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS($12,000,000.00)...
NOTE: THE RELEVANCE of Faulkner v. Rotunda Partners II LLC et Defendant: Leonard Epstein and Rotunda Partners II LLC Plaintiff: Dennis S. Faulkner Case Number 3:2013cv03696 Filed: September 13, 2013 Court Texas Northern District Court Office: Dallas Office County: Dallas Presiding Judge: A. Joe Fish Referring Judge: David L. Horan Nature of Suit: OTHER FRAUD Cause of Action: 28:1331
UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE PROMISSORY NOTE ABOVE[For the ROTUNDA BUILDING for which the Promissory Note is issue, THE ROTUNDA PARTNERS II are legally in DEFAULT.
SEE THE FOLLOWING: (4) LATE CHARGE Maker shall pay to Payee a LATE CHARGE of ten percent(10%) of such payment, which LATE CHARGE shall be IMMEDIATELY due and payable without demand or notice by PAYEE. In addition, at Payee's option in its SOLE discretion, all amounts owing to Payee under this note and the loan documents(as defined in section (6) shall bear interest at the DEFAULT interest rate(as defined in the following paragraph... "DEFAULT INTEREST RATE" is eight per cent(8%) per annum
(5)(d) CONTINGENT PAYMENT Payment upon REFINANCING. In addition to the CONTINGENT PAYMENT payable upon bona fide sale of the property as provided in this section (5), at the time of any REFINANCING of the property(excluding the take out financing as defined in Article 3 of the DEED OF TRUST) where the PRINCIPAL amount of the new loan exceeds TWENTY-ONE MILLION DOLLARS($21,000,000.00) Maker SHALL pay to Payee twenty percent(20%) OF THE NET PROCEEDS, if any, Maker receives from any such refinancing after payment of the previous loan which as secured by a deed of trust or mortgage encumbering the Property.
(7)(f) DEFAULT Maker and/or any guarantor or any shareholder, Principal, or PARTNER in Maker and/or any guarantor, SHALL become insolvent, make an ASSIGNMENT for the benefit of creditors, or COMMENCE or BECOME SUBJECT to ANY CASE OR PROCEEDING under the BANKRUPTCY CODE OR any OTHER insolvency, RECEIVERSHIP, reorganization, arrangement of DEBT, liquidation or DEBTORS relief law wherein Maker and/or guarantor, or ANY shareholder, Principal, or PARTNER in Maker and/or any guarantor , is debtor;
(8) ACCELERATION Upon any event of DEFAULT under this Note, the ENTIRE unpaid PRINCIPAL sum of this Note, TOGETHER with ALL accrued interest and OTHER sums due hereunder and under the DEED OF TRUST and/or other loan documents, SHALL become immediately due hereunder and PAYABLE, without demand or notice at the election of the holder of this Note. Payment under this note also may be ACCELERATED by the holder of this note pursuant to section 11.
(9)JOINT AND SEVERAL If Maker consists of more than one person or entity, their obligations under this Note SHALL BE JOINT AND SEVERAL. An individual executing this Note on behalf of a corporation, PARTNERSHIP or other legal entity warrants and represents that such individual has the legal authority and capacity to execute this note on behalf of such entity.
(13) MAXIMUM INTEREST
Note relevant legal authority California Code of Procedure 580(a), 580(b) 580(d) and 726
California Civil Code Sections 2809,2810,2819,2845,2849,2850,2855
04 Sunday Jul 2010
Posted by REreno in Uncategorized
≈ 3 Comments
- 8/11/1999 – Five-Way Development (Barney Ng) bought the Holiday Hotel. The approximate cost for the hotel and adjacent land was $2,000,000. The lender was Gold Mountain Financial, a now shuttered entity owned by Walter Ng. (apparently shut after tax fraud charges in southern Cal)
- 6/30/2000 – Five-Way received a $20,000,000 construction loan from Golden Mountain Financial.
- 7/31/2001 – Siena opens.
- 8/21/2001 – General Contractor completes work on the project.
- 8/24/2001 – All the entities change names. Five-Way becomes One South Lake Street LLC. Golden Mountain assigns the construction loan to Bar-K (Walter NG). Original purchase loan and $20,000,000 construction loan paid off. New $50,000,000 loan from Bar-K.
- 12/17/2001 – Bar-K assigns loan to RE Reno LLC (Walter Ng).
- 12/19/2001 – 10 mechanic’s liens totaling $2,056,070 filed by the general contractor and subcontractors. One was released, the others are uncertain.
- 8/8/2004 – RGJ reports on Siena Streamlines Operation, Tires to Move From Red to Black.
- 5/31/2005 – Siena (Wild Game Ng) receives $1,700,000 judgment against Acres Gaming / IGT.
- 7/7/2007 – Siena (Wild Game Ng) receives $643,726 judgment against WMS Gaming.
- 8/8/2008 – IGT award of at least $4,079,261 judgment against Siena (Wild Game Ng). Recorder’s Document 3677435.
- 12/14/2009 – Notice of Default filed based on missed 12/1/2008 payment.
- 1/21/2010 – RSCVA files its first of 3 liens against the Siena for $40,304.
- 4/21/2010 – Nevada Department of Taxation files a $115,992 lien.
- 5/3/2010 – Sierra Meat Company receives a $17,139 judgment against the Siena, who did not appear to contest the claim. Where’s the Beef?
Some thoughts:
- The timing of the opening and the $50M loan don’t make sense. The liens all cited construction delays due to permit issues and numerous design changes along the way.
- What does it cost to open a hotel casino beyond construction costs? Maybe $10,000 per room in fixtures and furnishings – $2.1M. Fixtures and furniture for the rest of the Siena, including commercial kitchens + maybe $5M. Slot machines at $10,000 per (2007 estimates) x 800 at opening = $8M. Acres software and hardware, maybe $3M. Fees, bankroll and licenses maybe $2M. That only accounts for about $20M of the $30M increase from the construction loan to permanent financing.
- The Acres / IGT software was a dud, and the Siena got $1.7M of the $97M they were seeking for it. But Siena also tried to hose IGT on other agreements, and got hit with a $4M judgment. The Siena effectively went out of business in August 2008 when they lost this law suit, and it is miracle that they have lasted this long.
- More money was poured into the Siena since opening. I know the physical plant was expanded and renovated. Slots had to be replaced when they banned IGT machines.
- Why can’t the RJG or anyone else figure out that this is a family feud between Barney Ng (Siena Hotel and Casino, Wild Game Ng, One South Lake Street, Five Way, and a couple others I need to check out) and daddio Walter Ng (Golden Mountain, Bar-K, RE Reno)? Dad basically fired his son and put in new management, who are puling and whining that it was the old management’s fault even as they continued to divert funds to cover operating expenses. They eliminated the gaming tables not to streamline operations, but because they couldn’t afford the bankroll required by Nevada Gaming.
- The demise of the Siena has been going on for a really long time. Why has it been kept do quiet?
- I don’t get that Siena paid a portion of their back room taxes to RSCVA and gaming taxes. They are DEAD. There is absolutely no hope for them without Daddy continuing to bleed cash. Can profits from full bookings for Hot August Nights make up for the investment, or is this just another stupid financial decision?
- RGJ sure is rubbing Siena’s nose into the ground over all this. Old grudges? It is serving no public purpose at this time. Shame on them.
Hey, on the bright side, I hear that Lakemill Lodge is interested in expanding their holdings West!
http://rereno2.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/siena-following-the-money-train/#comments
Posted by REreno in Uncategorized
≈ 3 Comments
- 8/11/1999 – Five-Way Development (Barney Ng) bought the Holiday Hotel. The approximate cost for the hotel and adjacent land was $2,000,000. The lender was Gold Mountain Financial, a now shuttered entity owned by Walter Ng. (apparently shut after tax fraud charges in southern Cal)
- 6/30/2000 – Five-Way received a $20,000,000 construction loan from Golden Mountain Financial.
- 7/31/2001 – Siena opens.
- 8/21/2001 – General Contractor completes work on the project.
- 8/24/2001 – All the entities change names. Five-Way becomes One South Lake Street LLC. Golden Mountain assigns the construction loan to Bar-K (Walter NG). Original purchase loan and $20,000,000 construction loan paid off. New $50,000,000 loan from Bar-K.
- 12/17/2001 – Bar-K assigns loan to RE Reno LLC (Walter Ng).
- 12/19/2001 – 10 mechanic’s liens totaling $2,056,070 filed by the general contractor and subcontractors. One was released, the others are uncertain.
- 8/8/2004 – RGJ reports on Siena Streamlines Operation, Tires to Move From Red to Black.
- 5/31/2005 – Siena (Wild Game Ng) receives $1,700,000 judgment against Acres Gaming / IGT.
- 7/7/2007 – Siena (Wild Game Ng) receives $643,726 judgment against WMS Gaming.
- 8/8/2008 – IGT award of at least $4,079,261 judgment against Siena (Wild Game Ng). Recorder’s Document 3677435.
- 12/14/2009 – Notice of Default filed based on missed 12/1/2008 payment.
- 1/21/2010 – RSCVA files its first of 3 liens against the Siena for $40,304.
- 4/21/2010 – Nevada Department of Taxation files a $115,992 lien.
- 5/3/2010 – Sierra Meat Company receives a $17,139 judgment against the Siena, who did not appear to contest the claim. Where’s the Beef?
Some thoughts:
- The timing of the opening and the $50M loan don’t make sense. The liens all cited construction delays due to permit issues and numerous design changes along the way.
- What does it cost to open a hotel casino beyond construction costs? Maybe $10,000 per room in fixtures and furnishings – $2.1M. Fixtures and furniture for the rest of the Siena, including commercial kitchens + maybe $5M. Slot machines at $10,000 per (2007 estimates) x 800 at opening = $8M. Acres software and hardware, maybe $3M. Fees, bankroll and licenses maybe $2M. That only accounts for about $20M of the $30M increase from the construction loan to permanent financing.
- The Acres / IGT software was a dud, and the Siena got $1.7M of the $97M they were seeking for it. But Siena also tried to hose IGT on other agreements, and got hit with a $4M judgment. The Siena effectively went out of business in August 2008 when they lost this law suit, and it is miracle that they have lasted this long.
- More money was poured into the Siena since opening. I know the physical plant was expanded and renovated. Slots had to be replaced when they banned IGT machines.
- Why can’t the RJG or anyone else figure out that this is a family feud between Barney Ng (Siena Hotel and Casino, Wild Game Ng, One South Lake Street, Five Way, and a couple others I need to check out) and daddio Walter Ng (Golden Mountain, Bar-K, RE Reno)? Dad basically fired his son and put in new management, who are puling and whining that it was the old management’s fault even as they continued to divert funds to cover operating expenses. They eliminated the gaming tables not to streamline operations, but because they couldn’t afford the bankroll required by Nevada Gaming.
- The demise of the Siena has been going on for a really long time. Why has it been kept do quiet?
- I don’t get that Siena paid a portion of their back room taxes to RSCVA and gaming taxes. They are DEAD. There is absolutely no hope for them without Daddy continuing to bleed cash. Can profits from full bookings for Hot August Nights make up for the investment, or is this just another stupid financial decision?
- RGJ sure is rubbing Siena’s nose into the ground over all this. Old grudges? It is serving no public purpose at this time. Shame on them.
Hey, on the bright side, I hear that Lakemill Lodge is interested in expanding their holdings West!
http://rereno2.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/siena-following-the-money-train/#comments
RE Reno Seven Months Later…Posted on December 14, 2010 by John Robie
On May 14, 2009 Barney Ng wrote the following to RE Reno investors:
I recognize and appreciate the trust that you as an investor have placed in me in originally providing this Loan to the Siena, and because of this I am committed to the pay-off of the loan.
Barney’s commitment to paying off the loan should be lauded. His follow-through, however, is laughable (so is yours, Walter – you, too, signed the personal guarantee). Barney continues…
In addition, the Hotel was sold faulty and untested slot machines by International Gaming Technology (“IGT”), a major slot machine manufacturer. The introduction of these games into the casino floor has similarly negatively impacted the Casino’s operations. We have been litigating against IGT for over four years. The matter finally proceeded to trial in August of 2007. During trial a witness for IGT testified that the Siena was damaged in the sum of $160,000,000 dollars. However, before the case was allowed to go to the jury for deliberation, the judge inexplicably dismissed the jury and summarily decided the case in favor of IGT. Upon motion for retrial, the judge admitted that he abused his discretion in deciding the case against us and granted our motion for a new trial. However, IGT has appealed this order and we are now proceeding to the Nevada Supreme Court to argue the appeal.
As a result of the persistent problems associated with the faulty equipment, the Siena has been materially disadvantaged since its opening and has never been able to operate as a fully functioning Casino. The net effect of this is that the Siena has never been able to generate the projected profits necessary to debt-service the loan made to it by R.E. Reno, LLC. This is why I have been personally making the interest payments on the One South Lake Street Loan. We are confident in our case against IGT and should there be a successful outcome, whether by winning at trial or through settlement, it is my intent to use the funds obtained from one of these outcomes to pay down or payoff the One South Lake Street Loan.
This is all well and fine, but then we received THIS DOCUMENT today.
It’s all over RE Reno folks. There really is no money coming. Ever.
On May 14, 2009 Barney Ng wrote the following to RE Reno investors:
I recognize and appreciate the trust that you as an investor have placed in me in originally providing this Loan to the Siena, and because of this I am committed to the pay-off of the loan.
Barney’s commitment to paying off the loan should be lauded. His follow-through, however, is laughable (so is yours, Walter – you, too, signed the personal guarantee). Barney continues…
In addition, the Hotel was sold faulty and untested slot machines by International Gaming Technology (“IGT”), a major slot machine manufacturer. The introduction of these games into the casino floor has similarly negatively impacted the Casino’s operations. We have been litigating against IGT for over four years. The matter finally proceeded to trial in August of 2007. During trial a witness for IGT testified that the Siena was damaged in the sum of $160,000,000 dollars. However, before the case was allowed to go to the jury for deliberation, the judge inexplicably dismissed the jury and summarily decided the case in favor of IGT. Upon motion for retrial, the judge admitted that he abused his discretion in deciding the case against us and granted our motion for a new trial. However, IGT has appealed this order and we are now proceeding to the Nevada Supreme Court to argue the appeal.
As a result of the persistent problems associated with the faulty equipment, the Siena has been materially disadvantaged since its opening and has never been able to operate as a fully functioning Casino. The net effect of this is that the Siena has never been able to generate the projected profits necessary to debt-service the loan made to it by R.E. Reno, LLC. This is why I have been personally making the interest payments on the One South Lake Street Loan. We are confident in our case against IGT and should there be a successful outcome, whether by winning at trial or through settlement, it is my intent to use the funds obtained from one of these outcomes to pay down or payoff the One South Lake Street Loan.
This is all well and fine, but then we received THIS DOCUMENT today.
It’s all over RE Reno folks. There really is no money coming. Ever.
RELATED Barney's "Hobby" RevisitedIn "432 Estudillo Ave."
Heads They Win Tails We LoseIn "432 Estudillo Ave."
Siena Update In "432 Estudillo Ave."
This entry was posted in Ad-Hoc Creditor's Committee, Allen Cone, Andy "King" Kong, Aram Ordubegian,Arent Fox, B-4 Partners, Bar-K, Barney J. Ng, Barney Ng, Bruce Horwitz, Chapter 11, Default, Elliott Abrams, Five Way Development, Gene Rapp, Hi-Five Enterprises, International Gaming Technology (IGT),Judge Randall J. Newsome, Kelly Ng, Loan Number S0238-LL, Matthew Kelly, One South Lake, Pearl Tom, Personal Guarantee, RE Loans, RE Reno, Ronald Nahas, S0238-LLC, Siena, Siena Hotel Casino,Stephanie NG Kelly, Tri-Ng, Walter Ng, Wild Game Ng by John Robie. Bookmark the permalink.5 THOUGHTS ON “RE RENO SEVEN MONTHS LATER…”
- Obtuse Blogger on December 14, 2010 at 7:50 pm said:
I seem to recall that REreno (the blog, no relation to the fund) called this one several months ago and was called a heretic, a grave stomper, an Ng plant and worse. For what it’s worth, there is certain level of thought in Reno that the Siena’s new owners overpaid for the property at $3.9M.
So if RE Reno’s net return was $.00 on the gem in the tiara of the fund, what does it say about the prospects of the rest of the RE Loans portfolio? It was already valued at $.12 on the dollar even before the Siena fiasco.
Bar-K, RE Loans, Walter, Kelly, Barney and all their entities are going to go BK sooner or later. FORCE IT NOW while there still might be some assets that do not have negative valuations when legal costs are considered.
How do you take a $675M fund and grind it down to zero (if you don’t act)? Little retarded Timmy down the street could have made better real estate decisions by throwing darts, so the RE Loan’s MO was definately skew everything to maximize fees and transacton costs. Why can’t you investors catch these thieves? Are their legal unerpinnings that immaculate that they avoid challenge, or are you just out of funds and sinew to fight them?
Reply ↓ - snippie on December 17, 2010 at 2:10 pm said:
I think one problem with attempting any action is that most of the affected investors have no means for communicating with each other to compare notes or share ideas and strategies. This blog is a helpful start, but at best, people can only comment on a particular post, and whoever finds it next week or next month may not see those comments. There is no way to build a critical mass, or angry mob, as the case may be.
Maybe it’s time to start a discussion group, where people can start their own threads with things that concern them, and comments from others would be easier for everyone to find. Would the moderators of this blog be willing to start a Google group, or similar, and link it to this blog so resources can be pooled?
Reply ↓- John Robieon December 17, 2010 at 2:36 pm said:
Yes. Please share ideas on the best message boards and we will figure out a way to integrate. So far when we’ve given people the opportunity to discuss topics of interest to them nobody has taken advantage of the opportunity.
Reply ↓
- John Robieon December 17, 2010 at 2:36 pm said:
- bluemoonagency on December 17, 2010 at 6:51 pm said:
John Robie, have you read the complaint filed in Contra Costa County by Dixon Collins? Do you have access to the document? I’ve caught wind of a few details. It may be an interesting topic.
Reply ↓- John Robieon December 17, 2010 at 9:33 pm said:
We’d love to hear about the Collins case bluemoon – what can you tell us?
- John Robieon December 17, 2010 at 9:33 pm said:
Did RE Loans “Park” Money?
Posted on February 28, 2011 by John Robie
It has come to our attention that RE Loans may have allowed some of its investors the ability and/or option to “park” money in the fund. “Parking” is a term used to describe money that is deposited into a fund, but not necessarily invested in the fund. Rumor has it that R.E. Loans offered a parking service for some of its preferred investors who wished to place their money somewhere on a temporary basis. The interest earned may or may not be reported to the IRS, some have speculated.
For example, it seems possible that the $5,000,000 returned to J. Robert (“Eddie”) Orton, III, on March 30, 2007, just a day or two before the “freeze” letter was mailed to investors, was money that had been “parked.” Same with Len “Austin Val Verde” Epstein’s return, perhaps?
Does anyone have any further insight into this issue, whether or not it’s true and what it means? If so, please share what you know.
3/1/2007 MCG Investments 2,000,000.00 wire
3/1/2007 Gifford Fong 677,008.00 29875
3/9/2007 Len Epstein 1,250,000.00 wire
3/15/2007 Kenneth Ambrose 1,600,000.00 29988
3/30/2007 J. Robert Orton, III 5,000,000.00 wire
4/9/2007 MCG Investments 6,691,300.00 30619
4/16/2007 Kelly Ng 495,000.00 30728
4/23/2007 Gifford Fong 3,365,569.00 30801
4/23/2007 Tim Fong 661,419.00 30802
4/23/2007 Steven Fong 661,416.00 30803
6/13/2007 Bruce Horwitz (16B) 100,000.00 31703
7/17/2007 Hudson Lending 1,000,000.00 32206
8/23/2007 Bruce Horwitz (16B) 164,000.00 32760
9/12/2007 Bruce Horwitz 300,000.00 33174
11/8/2007 Michael Ziegler 2,900,000.00 34108
11/9/2007 Kenneth Nelson 1,000,000.00 34127
12/7/2007 CP Trofie 450,000.00 34624
12/20/2007 Steven Fong 1,250,000.00 wire
12/20/2007 Tim Fong 1,250,000.00 wire
1/23/2008 Walter Ng Investors 300,000.00 35443
2/1/2008 MCG Investments 1,576,817.94 wire
2/1/2008 Kenneth Nelson 963,267.70 35825
2/1/2008 Kenneth Nelson 394,710.82 35826
2/11/2008 James Peterson 500,000.00 35863
3/31/2008 Walter Ng Investors 50,000.00 36794
5/23/2008 Carrie Johns 16,670.10 37421
5/30/2008 Bruce Horwitz (16B) 100,000.00 37620
5/23/2008 Warren Snodgrass 900,000.00 37430
5/30/2008 Bruce Horwitz (16B) 100,000.00 37620
6/2/2008 Walter Ng Investors 400,000.00 37781
6/23/2008 Bruce Horwitz (16B) 380,000.00 37875
6/23/2008 Bruce Horwitz (16B) 250,000.00 37878
6/30/2008 Walter Ng Investors 120,000.00 38232
6/30/2008 Richard Bedayn (015) 247,771.36 38462
6/30/2008 Richard Bedayn (016) 247,771.36 38463
7/31/2008 Bruce Horwitz (16B) 250,000.00 38706
7/31/2008 Walter Ng Investors 140,000.00 38779
8/8/2008 Tyler Hofinga 330,000.00 38877
8/8/2008 Tyler Hofinga 300,000.00 38878
8/12/2008 Ed Blumenstock 250,000.00 38894
8/12/2008 Jeri Sacks 227,921.11 38903
8/14/2008 Walter Ng Investors 150,000.00 38918
8/15/2008 James Peterson 1,000,000.00 38923
8/21/2008 Robert Montgomery (IRA) 150,000.00 38946
Posted on February 28, 2011 by John Robie
It has come to our attention that RE Loans may have allowed some of its investors the ability and/or option to “park” money in the fund. “Parking” is a term used to describe money that is deposited into a fund, but not necessarily invested in the fund. Rumor has it that R.E. Loans offered a parking service for some of its preferred investors who wished to place their money somewhere on a temporary basis. The interest earned may or may not be reported to the IRS, some have speculated.
For example, it seems possible that the $5,000,000 returned to J. Robert (“Eddie”) Orton, III, on March 30, 2007, just a day or two before the “freeze” letter was mailed to investors, was money that had been “parked.” Same with Len “Austin Val Verde” Epstein’s return, perhaps?
Does anyone have any further insight into this issue, whether or not it’s true and what it means? If so, please share what you know.
3/1/2007 MCG Investments 2,000,000.00 wire
3/1/2007 Gifford Fong 677,008.00 29875
3/9/2007 Len Epstein 1,250,000.00 wire
3/15/2007 Kenneth Ambrose 1,600,000.00 29988
3/30/2007 J. Robert Orton, III 5,000,000.00 wire
4/9/2007 MCG Investments 6,691,300.00 30619
4/16/2007 Kelly Ng 495,000.00 30728
4/23/2007 Gifford Fong 3,365,569.00 30801
4/23/2007 Tim Fong 661,419.00 30802
4/23/2007 Steven Fong 661,416.00 30803
6/13/2007 Bruce Horwitz (16B) 100,000.00 31703
7/17/2007 Hudson Lending 1,000,000.00 32206
8/23/2007 Bruce Horwitz (16B) 164,000.00 32760
9/12/2007 Bruce Horwitz 300,000.00 33174
11/8/2007 Michael Ziegler 2,900,000.00 34108
11/9/2007 Kenneth Nelson 1,000,000.00 34127
12/7/2007 CP Trofie 450,000.00 34624
12/20/2007 Steven Fong 1,250,000.00 wire
12/20/2007 Tim Fong 1,250,000.00 wire
1/23/2008 Walter Ng Investors 300,000.00 35443
2/1/2008 MCG Investments 1,576,817.94 wire
2/1/2008 Kenneth Nelson 963,267.70 35825
2/1/2008 Kenneth Nelson 394,710.82 35826
2/11/2008 James Peterson 500,000.00 35863
3/31/2008 Walter Ng Investors 50,000.00 36794
5/23/2008 Carrie Johns 16,670.10 37421
5/30/2008 Bruce Horwitz (16B) 100,000.00 37620
5/23/2008 Warren Snodgrass 900,000.00 37430
5/30/2008 Bruce Horwitz (16B) 100,000.00 37620
6/2/2008 Walter Ng Investors 400,000.00 37781
6/23/2008 Bruce Horwitz (16B) 380,000.00 37875
6/23/2008 Bruce Horwitz (16B) 250,000.00 37878
6/30/2008 Walter Ng Investors 120,000.00 38232
6/30/2008 Richard Bedayn (015) 247,771.36 38462
6/30/2008 Richard Bedayn (016) 247,771.36 38463
7/31/2008 Bruce Horwitz (16B) 250,000.00 38706
7/31/2008 Walter Ng Investors 140,000.00 38779
8/8/2008 Tyler Hofinga 330,000.00 38877
8/8/2008 Tyler Hofinga 300,000.00 38878
8/12/2008 Ed Blumenstock 250,000.00 38894
8/12/2008 Jeri Sacks 227,921.11 38903
8/14/2008 Walter Ng Investors 150,000.00 38918
8/15/2008 James Peterson 1,000,000.00 38923
8/21/2008 Robert Montgomery (IRA) 150,000.00 38946
The Rich Get Richer
Posted on March 19, 2014 by John Robie
5
I need to vent.
Remember Len Epstein and Phil Tagami?
No? They’re the guys who got a primo piece of property from Walter in exchange for $10.00. The property was valued at $13,000,000. That’s $13 million.
This post might jog your memory:
Austin Val Verde
Turns out Tagami is behind the blight you see while driving across the Bay Bridge. And he’s making MILLIONS doing so.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Giant-Bay-Bridge-billboards-light-up-debate-in-5329284.php?t=de8c86e56a3c100abe#/0
Thanks Walter. Thanks for taking all of our money. And thanks for making sure that the ultra-wealthy, people like Epstein and Phil Tagami, could have some of our money.
Thank you for listening. I wish I felt better, but I don’t.
Do you?
Posted on March 19, 2014 by John Robie
5
I need to vent.
Remember Len Epstein and Phil Tagami?
No? They’re the guys who got a primo piece of property from Walter in exchange for $10.00. The property was valued at $13,000,000. That’s $13 million.
This post might jog your memory:
Austin Val Verde
Turns out Tagami is behind the blight you see while driving across the Bay Bridge. And he’s making MILLIONS doing so.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Giant-Bay-Bridge-billboards-light-up-debate-in-5329284.php?t=de8c86e56a3c100abe#/0
Thanks Walter. Thanks for taking all of our money. And thanks for making sure that the ultra-wealthy, people like Epstein and Phil Tagami, could have some of our money.
Thank you for listening. I wish I felt better, but I don’t.
Do you?
Loan #A0110
Posted on December 13, 2010 by John Robie
We believe THIS DOCUMENT is very important. We posted it on the old site. Researcherand AnotherNgVictim batted it back-and-forth. We’ve posted it on this site. Now we’re posting it again. Why? Because we believe this is the single most important document we have discovered to date. Do you think it’s important? If so, why? Please share your thoughts.
RELATED
Assignments to Wells Fargo Foothill
In "Austin Val Verde"
Keep Your Eye On The Ball
In "432 Estudillo Ave."
RE Loans # C0390 - Canyon Club (9% of REL portfolio)
In "Ad-Hoc Creditor's Committee"
This entry was posted in Ad-Hoc Creditor's Committee, Allen Cone, Austin Val Verde Loan No. A0110, B-4 Partners, Bar-K, Barney Ng, Bruce Horwitz, Default, Elliott Abrams, Gene Rapp, Kelly Ng, Len Epstein,Pearl Tom, Phil Tagami, RE Loans, Well B Ng, Wells Fargo Foothill by John Robie. Bookmark thepermalink.7 THOUGHTS ON “LOAN #A0110”
Posted on December 13, 2010 by John Robie
We believe THIS DOCUMENT is very important. We posted it on the old site. Researcherand AnotherNgVictim batted it back-and-forth. We’ve posted it on this site. Now we’re posting it again. Why? Because we believe this is the single most important document we have discovered to date. Do you think it’s important? If so, why? Please share your thoughts.
RELATED
Assignments to Wells Fargo Foothill
In "Austin Val Verde"
Keep Your Eye On The Ball
In "432 Estudillo Ave."
RE Loans # C0390 - Canyon Club (9% of REL portfolio)
In "Ad-Hoc Creditor's Committee"
This entry was posted in Ad-Hoc Creditor's Committee, Allen Cone, Austin Val Verde Loan No. A0110, B-4 Partners, Bar-K, Barney Ng, Bruce Horwitz, Default, Elliott Abrams, Gene Rapp, Kelly Ng, Len Epstein,Pearl Tom, Phil Tagami, RE Loans, Well B Ng, Wells Fargo Foothill by John Robie. Bookmark thepermalink.7 THOUGHTS ON “LOAN #A0110”
- Equitatus on February 22, 2011 at 1:34 pm said:
I am intrigued by this post. No one ever followed up on it.
As far as I can tell the loan number does not show up on any spread sheet or list.
I was even more intrigued when I found this news story and the blog comments connected to it.
What happened here?
http://www.independent.com/news/2009/aug/13/banker-eyes-val-verde/
Reply ↓- John Robieon February 22, 2011 at 3:00 pm said:
What likely happened here is that two big developers with millions or more invested in REL and, perhaps, hard money loans from Bar-K on other deals and developments wanted to get their cash out before the funds shut down. We think REL said the fund was illiquid, so they negotiated a property or two (or more, perhaps) as repayment of principal/interest/goodwill to a preferred investor. That’s what we think. But we’re not really privy to the details. Someone is, though. Are you out there?
Reply ↓
- John Robieon February 22, 2011 at 3:00 pm said:
- equitatus on February 22, 2011 at 3:56 pm said:
I posted 3 key documents on this loan on my blog.
One of them is same as above.
Got them from PACER bankruptcy of Val Verde
http://equitatus.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/val-verde-documents/
The question is who is behind California Capital Group and Len Eptsein?
Any idea?
Reply ↓- monagesqueon February 22, 2011 at 5:13 pm said:
Isn’t Phil Tagami Epstein’s partner in CCC?
Reply ↓
- monagesqueon February 22, 2011 at 5:13 pm said:
- equitatus on February 22, 2011 at 5:15 pm said:
http://www.californiagroup.com/
http://www.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2008/01/14/newscolumn1.html
http://equitatus.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/len-epstein-diagram/
Reply ↓ - monagesque on February 22, 2011 at 5:19 pm said:
You can read Tagami’s biography online at http://philtagami.com/bio.htm
Reply ↓- Robert W. Broweron February 22, 2011 at 5:50 pm said:
The Austin Val Verde transaction might have been “parked” money.
Here is our analysis.
Because their fee was based upon a percentage of the entire
investment pool, Walter Ng and Bruce Horwitz were motivated
to make that pool as large as possible. We know of three ways
they illegally increased the pool.
First, Walter Ng encouraged investment from out-of-state investors.
All of these out-of-state investments were intentional violations of
the rules and regulations of the SEC.
Second, Walter Ng and Bruce Horwitz intentionally violated the State
of California investor suitability rule that an investor restricted the total
investment to no more than 10% of his or her net worth. The 10% investor
suitability rule recognized that the investment was unsafe. However, most
investors were encouraged to send in the money. The refrain: Your money
is safe, safe, safe with us.
Third, Walter Ng and Bruce Horwitz invited “parking.” “Parking” is a term
for money deposited with R.E. Loans, but not truly invested. R.E. Loans had
a “parking” service for money that someone wanted to place somewhere to
earn interest without having that deposit reported to the IRS. The money
was just “parked.”
It is likely that most, but not all, of the large distributions mentioned in
Barney Ng’s December 2009 letters was returned because it was money
merely “parked” with R.E. Loans and Walter Ng and Kelly Ng did not want
the SEC and/or the IRS to discover it.
For example, it seems clear that the $5,000,000 returned to J. Robert
Orton, III, on March 30, 2007, just a day or two before the “freeze” letter
was mailed to investors, was money that had been “parked.”
The Len Epstein (California Capital, Phil Tagami) and Rotunda Partners
disbursements, mentioned in the letter, may have been “parked” money
as well. This is not as clear-cut as the disbursement to “Eddie” Orton.
And a significant amount of the Len Epstein and Rotunda Partners disburse-
ments also occurred in December 2007.
The disbursements tend to suggest that the Austin Val Verde transaction
may not have been a preferred disbursement of “parked’ money, but at
this point, no one seems to know for sure.
- Robert W. Broweron February 22, 2011 at 5:50 pm said:
