PatrickPretty.com

Tag: Kellie King

  • URGENT >> BULLETIN >> MOVING: New Filings By SEC Suggest Zeek Probe Began In April 2012 Or Earlier; Agency, Receiver Oppose Motions To Intervene By Possible Clawback Targets

    breakingnews72UPDATED 9:46 A.M. ET (JAN. 13, U.S.A.) New court filings by the SEC in the Zeek Ponzi scheme case in the Western District of North Carolina strongly suggest that the Zeek probe was under way at least by April 17, 2012. On that date, according to the filings, an IT specialist for the SEC was tasked by the agency’s Division of Enforcement to “conduct Website/video capture” of ZeekRewards.com.

    Four months to the day later — on Aug. 17, 2012 — the SEC alleged in federal court that Zeek was a $600 million Ponzi- and pyramid fraud operating from Lexington, N.C.  Left unanswered in today’s filing is the question about precisely when Zeek operator Paul R. Burks first was contacted by the agency and when he began to cooperate by providing records.

    Burks consented to judgment in the case, without admitting or denying wrongdoing.

    Separately, the SEC and court-appointed receiver Kenneth D. Bell both argued today that petitions to intervene and to dissolve the receivership by alleged Zeek “winners” Trudy Gilmond and Kellie King should be denied by Senior U.S. District Judge Graham C. Mullen.

    Court filings suggest that Gilmond has clawback exposure of more than $1.364 million. King’s potential exposure may exceed $205,000.

    “Gilmond and King seek to improperly interfere with a settled SEC enforcement action against defendants Rex Venture Group and Paul Burks to deny the Receiver the ability, as directed by the Court, to marshal the estate’s assets for the benefit of all aggrieved ZeekRewards investors,” the SEC argued. “The Motion to Intervene is a transparent attempt to obtain prospective relief in an improper forum with respect to clawback litigation the Receiver has yet to initiate.”

    For his part, Bell said Gilmond and King were engaging in “delaying tactics.”

     

  • URGENT >> BULLETIN >> MOVING: Ira Lee Sorkin, Bernard Madoff’s Attorney, Files Motion For Clients Who Are Potential Clawback Targets For More Than $1.56 Million In Zeek Case

    URGENT >> BULLETIN >> MOVING: (3RD UPDATE 11:33 P.M. ET (U.S.A.) Famed defense attorney Ira Lee Sorkin is seeking pro hac vice admission to practice in U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on behalf of two prospective clawback targets in the Zeek Rewards Ponzi scheme case.

    Sorkin is with Lowenstein Sandler PC in New York. He perhaps is best known as Ponzi schemer Bernard Madoff’s defense counsel. Sorkin also is the former head of the SEC’s New York regional office.

    Sorkin’s clients are Zeek affiliates Trudy Gilmond and Kellie King, and Sorkin is arguing that Zeek did not sell securities and that the receivership should be dissolved.

    Gilmond is the prospective target of a clawback action for more than $1.364 million, with receiver Kenneth D. Bell asserting she put in only $3,105, according to Sorkin’s motion. King potentially faces a claim from Bell for more than $205,180 after paying in only $1,492, Sorkin said in the filing.

    Sorkin, according to a separate motion, also contests how the receiver issued subpoenas and is opposing a motion late last month by Dallas attorney Michael J. Quilling to be appointed “examiner.”

    Quilling sought “to represent the collective interests of the Affiliates and all creditors of the receivership estate” and desired to “be compensated out of the receivership estate,” Sorkin argued.

    But that should not be permitted to happen, Sorkin contended.

    From Sorkin’s motion (italics added):

    It is quite clear from the Receiver’s Preliminary Liquidation Plan and the defective subpoena issued to Ms. Gilmond that Qualified Affiliates have inherently conflicting positions as to one another, and thus cannot be jointly represented. To illustrate, it is in the interests of a Qualified Affiliate who is a “net-winner” to challenge the Receiver’s authority to clawback funds because the Receiver intends to use the “net-winner’s” money to pay net-losers. To the contrary, it is in the interests of a Qualified Affiliate who is a net-loser to support the Receiver’s efforts because the Receiver will take money from the “net-winner” and distribute it to the “net-loser” Qualified Affiliate. As such, an Examiner cannot be appointed to represent all of the Qualified Affiliates because the Examiner would have clients with inherently contradictory positions as to one another.

    The motion by Sorkin potentially puts Gilmond and King at odds with positions taken by Quilling clients and potential Zeek clawback targets Dave Kettner, Mary Kettner and David Sorrells. The Kettners and Sorrells, for example, moved to have Quilling appointed examiner.

    The Kettners and Sorrells potentially have a combined clawback exposure of nearly $2 million, according to court filings.

    Zeek records, according to letters from Bell cited by the trio, suggest Sorrells received $945,539 from Zeek while paying in only $1,695. Dave Kettner received $537,577.95 while paying in only $1,378, and Mary Kettner received $465,866.67 while paying in only $1,495.