BREAKING NEWS: Judge Orders Offshore Assets Of Firm Associated With Noobing Autosurf Repatriated; Broadens Authority Of Receiver To Pursue Recovery

In a ruling that may send shockwaves throughout the offshore autosurf “industry,” a federal judge has ordered the parent company of the Noobing autosurf to repatriate to the United States all assets and documents held on foreign soil.

U.S. District Judge Julie A. Robinson also cleared the way for any safe-deposit boxes to be opened and inspected. Meanwhile, the judge gave Larry Cook, the receiver in the case against Affiliate Strategies Inc., Brett Blackman and other defendants, broad powers to exercise authority over individual and corporate assets of the defendants.

At the same time, Robinson ordered assets not to be concealed or dissipated and records not to be destroyed.

The defendants acknowledged no wrongdoing, but agreed to the order in a stipulation with the Federal Trade Commission and the attorneys general of three states. The order appears to apply to Noobing, which is registered both in the United States and the Caribbean island of Nevis, but is not named a defendant in the case.

Noobing launched last year and was promoted by members of AdSurfDaily Inc., a surf firm from which the U.S. government seized tens of millions of dollars last year in a wire-fraud, money-laundering and Ponzi scheme probe.

“[W]ithin 5 business days following the service of this Order, each Corporate Defendant and Individual Defendant shall (emphasis added):

“A. Provide the Commission and the Receiver with a full accounting of all funds, documents, and assets outside of the United States which are (1) titled in the name, individually or jointly, of any Corporate Defendant or Individual Defendant; or (2) held by any person or entity for the benefit of any Corporate Defendant or Individual Defendant; or (3) under the direct or indirect control, whether jointly or singly, of any Corporate Defendant or Individual Defendant;

“B. Transfer to the territory of the United States and deliver to the Receiver all funds, documents, and assets located in foreign countries which are (1) titled in the name, individually or jointly, of any Corporate Defendant or Individual Defendant; or (2) held by any person or entity for the benefit of any Corporate Defendant or Individual Defendant; or (3) under the direct or indirect control, whether jointly or singly;

“C. Provide the Commission access to all records or accounts or assets of any Corporate Defendant or Individual Defendant held by financial institutions located outside the territorial United States by signing the Consent to Release of Financial Records attached to this Order as Attachment C.

In an extraordinary warning titled “NONINTERFERENCE WITH REPATRIATION,” the judge ordered the defendants to walk the straight-and-narrow when repatriating offshore assets.

She specifically banned “[s]ending any statement, letter, facsimile transmission, e-mail or wire transmission, or telephoning or engaging in any other act, directly or indirectly, which results in a determination by a foreign trustee or other entity that a ‘duress’ event has occurred under the terms of a foreign trust agreement, until all Assets have been fully repatriated . . .”

And the judge took it one step farther, specifically ordering the defendants not to advise “any trustee, protector or other agent of any foreign trust or other related entities of either the existence of this Order, or of the fact that repatriation is required pursuant to a court order, until all Assets have been fully repatriated . . .”

Robinson empowered Cook to assume full “control of the Receivership Defendants by removing, as the Receiver deems necessary or advisable, any director, officer, independent contractor, employee, or agent of any of the Receivership Defendants, including any Individual Defendant, from control of, management of, or participation in, the affairs of the Receivership Defendants.”

Cook also was empowered to use his discretion to separate alleged perpetrators from alleged victims.

The receiver “shall have full power to divert mail and to sue for, collect, receive, take in possession, hold, and manage all assets and documents of the Receivership Defendants and other persons or entities whose interests are now under the direction, possession, custody, or control of, the Receivership Defendants,” Robinson said.

In her order for assets not to be dissipated and records not to be destroyed, Robinson defined documents as “equal in scope and synonymous in meaning to the usage of the term in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a), and includes, but is not limited to, writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, audio and video recordings, computer records, and any other data compilations from which information can be obtained.”

Read the judge’s order.