Zeek top pimps demand almost $1 million from Receiver
It’s almost unfathomable, that the top net-winners in a global $800M Ponzi scheme would dare to ask for more – but here we are.
In a last-ditch attempt to intimidate the Receivership charged with recovering the money they stole, Jerry Napier, Darren Miller and Trudy Gilmond are collectively demanding the Receivership pay them $947,000.
The trio, who are represented by the law firm Nexsen Pruett, have filed counterclaims against the Receiver alleging a breach of contract.
Napier, Miller and Gilmond contend that they “completely performed all of their responsibilities and obligations to RVG under the contract”. That contract in question being the investment of money and then advertised ROI Zeek promised them.
Effectively arguing that there is nothing Ponzi-like about hoarding virtual bids that nobody uses to cover the transfer of money from new investors to those who have already invested, the trio, reasoning that the Receivership is now “standing in the shoes of RVG”, is responsible for a breach of contract.
Trudy Gilmond withdrew over $1.75 million and is demanding that a further $140,000 of stolen funds be paid out to her. Darren Miller withdrew $1.6 million and is asking for a further $113,000. Jerry Napier withdrew $1.7 million and wants another $140,000.
All three defendants have additionally asked for interest on the payments and that their legal costs be covered.
The counter-claims were filed in respective amended answers to the Receivership filing clawback litigation against the trio. The response itself is full of the denials and “I don’t know” answers we’ve come to expect from those who inhabit the MLM underbelly, but the counterclaims ratchet up the evidently nefarious attitude Napier, Gilmond and Miller are towards the proceedings considerably.
One would hope when the dust settles and they are ordered to pay back what they stole, that the Judge remembers that not only did they collectively steal millions of dollars from their victims, that these were the three who then had the gall to demand they be paid even more.
Unbelievable doesn’t even begin to cut it…
Footnote: Our thanks to Don @ ASDUpdates for providing a copy of Gilmond, Napier and Miller’s counter-claim responses.
I had a quick look at Trudy Gilmond’s defense arguments, and they didn’t impress me much. Her attorney’s defense strategy seems to be about “add as many defense arguments as you can, in the hope that one of them will work”.
The arguments typically revolved around law interpretations, what I normally will call “constructed law theories”, e.g. many of them revolved around the “standing in the same shoes” theory, e.g. that the Receiver has unclean hands because he has been appointed as a receiver.
Another defense argument was that SEC could have shut RVG down much earlier, or it could have warned people about it.
A good defense strategy should primarily reflect something in the reality, something that can be accepted as “true” or “highly believable” (or at least “reasonable enough”).
Defense argument “laches” (eight defense, page #35, Doc-54):
That argument can probably be used by net winners in other countries. A creditor can reasonably be assumed to have waived his claim if he doesn’t come forward with it within reasonable time, if he doesn’t inform the debtor about the claim when he normally should have been expected to do so.
For Trudy Gilmond, the “laches” defense was rather constructed, it doesn’t reflect the realities.
* It should normally reflect a complete failure by the creditor to inform the individual debtor about the claim through “normal channels” (e.g. email).
* It should normally reflect that the creditor himself is the cause of the failure to inform, that the debtor can’t be blamed for the creditor’s failure to inform him (e.g. the debtor making himself become highly unavailable for claims).
* It should normally reflect “reasonable time”. The creditor must have known about the claim for some time but have failed to inform the debtor about it when he reasonably should have been expected to do so.
This is the same theory that you espoused when claiming that Darr was restrained by the Telexfree Consent Order.
If you recall I said that Darr did not step into the Debtors shoes in all respects and now perhaps you can see why….such an interpretation leads to what most people (including the courts) view as absurd and unjust outcomes.
Here Gilmond’s defense arguments perfectly illustrate the point (unless you are a follower of the Reverend Craddock)
She is arguing variations of in pari delicto, a line of reasoning and argument which has been ineffective as to court appointed receivers-trustees in the past. How it applies in North Carolina and in this case is to be determined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_pari_delicto
If reflects reality from the standpoint that the SEC suspected or had proof of the scheme for some period of time before it acted, thus according to Gilmond, contributing to her expenses or loss.
The laches defense speaks to the reasonableness of the interval between knowledge and action and calling that into question is a timeworn defensive strategy.
The laches defense concerns the SEC failure to put an end to the scheme in a timely fashion (thus costing Gilmond money in taxes etc.).
Its an offset argument to clawback claims. It does not argue that Bell failed to timely assert the estates claim against the net winners, and it most definitely does not have anything to do net winner/losers (creditors?) waiving their claims or failing to come forward in a reasonable time. ?
Net winners are not
@M_Norway
I didn’t even bother to go into them in any detail. Anyone would think Nexsen Pruett are being paid by the word.
Sorta feel sorry for the Judge not just being able to write off the filings as waffle.
Neither did I. I concluded it in post #1, “it didn’t impress me”.
A fraudulent contract was invalid to start with. Asking the court to enforce such is bull****, esp. when faced with clawback lawsuit. This is merely a delaying tactic.
For grins, look up “contrafreeloading”. Usually done by zookeepers to its animals, Zeek managed to employ this on its minions to keep them feel they actually ‘worked’ to deserve such rewards. Hahahahaha.
That just proves that these folks are being played for fools long AFTER the scheme closed down.
Those three must need wheelbarrows in order to cart around their massive balls.
Isn’t one of them a woman?
Women can’t be pimps now?
He was probably talking about balls.
BTW, I have looked at the defense arguments, and here’s the list of Darren Miller’s defense claims:
1 is about general lack of jurisdiction, “such claim does not exist under North Carolina laws”.
2 is about the Receiver’s right to sue on behalf of and as a representative for the net losers.
3 is about that net winners in other countries haven’t been joined in the lawsuit.
4 is about the general “Failure to state a claim”. It’s probably about that the details for transactions haven’t been included in the Complaint, it has been included as evidence.
5 is about answers to the complaint, 177 paragraphs.
6 is about North Carolina Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. “The Receiver is not a creditor, Defendant is not a debtor, any transfers from RVG to Defendants were not fraudulent transfers”.
7 is a 28 paragraph description of RVG’s, ZeekRewards’, the Receiver’s, the Defendant’s respective roles and how the business worked, including the frozen NXpay accounts.
8 is about laches = unreasonable delays from SEC and the Receiver.
9 is about that the Receiver has waived all claims against the Defendant bcause of his own actions or omissions.
10 is about Estoppel (similar to 8 and 9, but different remedy).
11 is about Conflict of Interest between the Receiver’s role as a Receiver and as a representative for the net losers.
12 is about Unclean Hands = that the Receiver is standing in the shoes of RVG.
13 is about Good fait / For value = the Defendant was simply paid for his work.
14 is about Breach of Contract = the Receiver illegally terminated lawful contracts paying people for the value they delivered.
15 is about Tortious Interference = the Receiver interfered in the relation between NXpay and the Defendant, and seized the Defendant’s property.
16 is about NXpay = the Receiver exercised an unlawful and improper right to ownership of the NXpay funds, without authorization from the Defendant.
17 is about setoff for legal expenses / other expenses (if the court rule in favor of the Plaintiff, then at least expenses should be excluded).
———–
That was a “quick overview”, not covering any details. Some of the arguments for points 1-4 and 8-17 can be found in points 6 and 7.
Well I don’t know Gilmond in person but anything’s possible hey :).
Doesn’t matter… It takes massive balls for someone who made over a million dollars in a ponzi scheme to demand even more money, even if it’s a woman.
Great Overview. Thanks
The lawyer is obviously holding up every possible issue that could help his/her clients. I doubt any of them will work.
The purpose of the defense arguments is probably to confuse his opponent.
I had a quick look at it initially, in post #1, but I decided rather immediately that it wasn’t worth spending much time on it. The legal logic wasn’t very clear in any of the arguments.
THE RECEIVER’S LOGIC GOES LIKE THIS:
1. Zeek Rewards didn’t have much income from legitimate business activities, but it pretended to have. That claim is backed up by facts.
2. It used money coming in from new investors when it paid money out to the old ones, both for the Ponzi profit and for the recruitment rewards. That argument is backed up by the factual arguments in point #1.
3. Then he has some legal logic about insolvency and fraudulent transfers, e.g. that Zeek used money it didn’t legally own to pay out the profit, the purpose of the payouts was to keep the scheme running and make it able to attract money from new investors.
4. Because of those 3 points, the transfers can be avoided (clawbacks), referring to various laws.
The main argument will then be “Zeek was fraudulent and insolvent, and the profit can be clawed back because of that”. There’s no claim about that the individual net winners acted fraudulently, only about the transfers.
THE DEFENSE LAWYER HAS A DIFFERENT LOGIC:
1. His clients acted in good faith and provided value in exchange for the money they received. They knew nothing about the alleged Ponzi scheme. They had valid contracts which were breached when Zeek Rewards was shut down.
2. Then he has some theories about SEC and the Receiver and how they have caused losses for his clients, e.g. that the Receiver and SEC could have warned his clients.
3. Then he has some theories about RVG and the Receiver, that the Receiver is legally “standing in the shoes of RVG” and will profit from the breach of contract and the clawbacks.
Almost all arguments seemed to revolve around those ideas.
* He was vague where he should have been clear, e.g. he should have been specific about the value his clients provided in exchange for the profit.
* He was very detailed where it didn’t make much sense, e.g. in the “standing in the shoes of RVG” theory. I believe he has tried to impress his clients, “give them what they ask for” rather than building up a valid strategy.
My initial conclusion after a few minutes reading was simply that I wasn’t able to fully understand his ideas, and that I would only be wasting my time. I didn’t need to READ the whole document to come to that conclusion, it was enough to look at the type of arguments.
(post #3)
I corrected that statement and specified “INDIRECTLY”. Darr was indirectly affected by the restraining order, he needed to have it modified to be able to perform his duties as a Trustee.
The idea that he had been DIRECTLY restrained derived from your own interpretation. I didn’t specify anything like that in my comment.
When I already have specified it clearly a couple of times then I won’t need to repeat it in each and every post. The main question wasn’t about whether he had been restrained directly or indirectly, it was about whether we could expect clawback actions in the near future because of those modifications.
I have pointed out some similar flaws in the current defense strategies used by Trudy Gilmond’s / Darren Miller’s attorney. He is extremely focused on his own interpretations, but he mostly fail to see the reality.
Yeah, the SEC and Bell will never know what hit them.
There’s missing logic in some of his arguments, i.e. he makes statements without supportive arguments. Arguments like that can be met with counter arguments about mootness (“no identifiable relevance”), e.g. because there isn’t any dispute about the facts.
EXAMPLE: “3. Failure to join party”
There’s no dispute about that net winners in other countries haven’t been joined in the lawsuit. There’s a potential dispute about whether or not the 9,000 net winners in the U.S. have been joined as parties, but the attorney failed to explain what that dispute is about.
The dispute will need to be about the legal aspects, e.g. “failed to join an indispensible party” rather than “failed to join a party”. That logic could have been applied if the lawsuit was about collective damages, but the lawsuit isn’t about that.
There’s probably some other uses too, but the attorney failed to explain why net winners in other countries should be joined in that particular lawsuit. He didn’t explain “necessary”.
It was because of logical flaws like that I decided not to waste too much time on it. It was much easier to say that I didn’t fully understand his legal arguments rather than trying to understand them.
My layman’s defense argument, “double standard”?
Participants walked the same fence and some fell on the net-winner side, some on the loser side. Why should affiliates be treated differently i.e., treating losers as victims and essentially rewarding them by returning their money and punishing winners with clawbacks which is the money that rewards losers yet both groups participated in the scheme.
Reverse logic to support my personal belief. I don’t advocate returning any money to “most” of the participants including losers who actively recruited even one person into the scheme.
Clawback the money and educate with it. Criminally charge top dogs and repeat offenders.
The legal presumption is that “everything is presumed to have been lawfully done, until the contrary is proven”.
* Net winners are presumed to lawfully have invested money and received profit from Zeek Rewards.
* Net losers are presumed to lawfully have invested money in Zeek Rewards, but they haven’t received any profit.
* The profit paid out is alleged to have been fraudulently transferred from Zeek Rewards.
There’s no “double standard” here? Both the net winners and the net losers are presumed to have acted lawfully. They’re both victims of a fraud, but in slightly different ways.
I should probably have explained that better. The net winners haven’t been accused of anything illegal, the dispute is simply about the ownership to the profit they have received.
The fact that they have RECEIVED the money doesn’t mean they legally OWN the money. Ownership isn’t about that.
The fact that they have acted more or less lawfully when they received the money isn’t the issue here. It’s about the ownership to the money.
If Zeek paid out money it didn’t legally own, the ownership may still belong to the original owners. There’s some exceptions from that rule, e.g. the money can have been paid out in a “fair exchange of values” in a completely legal transaction. Ponzi profits and pyramid scheme rewards are not classified as that.
“I didn’t do anything wrong” isn’t a valid argument for ownership, and neither are arguments about contracts. “I provided something of value in exchange for the money I received” is usually a valid argument.
One problem with the last argument is that charities may be hit harder by Ponzi scheme clawbacks than investors or trade partners. They receive money as GIFTS, and don’t provide any measurable value in exchange for the money they receive. Charities will need to be protected by other rules than investors or trade partners.
A major difference between the Zeek Rewards (RVG) case and the TelexFree case is that the TelexFree case has INCLUDED some named promoters in the complaint, “for knowingly, recklessly or negligent having done something illegal = violating specific rules in 2 different laws”.
The Zeek Rewards case was about a shutdown of the company itself, about assets freeze and the appointment of a temporary Receiver. None of the net winners have been accused of anything illegal (if they have, then it has been about something else than the Ponzi profit).
Robert Craddock may have been accused of something. T Lemont Silver may have been accused of something. Insiders like Dawn Wright-Olivares have clearly been accused of something. Net winners in general haven’t been accused of anything illegal.
OWNERSHIP TO MONEY
The class action lawsuit against the net winners is indirectly about the ownership to the profit they received. It’s about whether or not Zeek Rewards was a Ponzi/pyramid scheme, and whether it paid out money it didn’t legally own in order to keep the scheme running for as long as possible.
Defense arguments should normally be about ownership to the money. It shouldn’t be about Ponzi profit or recruitment rewards, i.e. we can’t legally claim ownership to anything like that. People should focus on whether they have provided something of value in exchange for the money they received.
Every zeeker you talk to will claim they provided “something of value in exchange for the money they received.” After all didn’t they post ads, and promote the company? Isn’t that the whole ruse that is adopted by this type of scheme?
It won’t stand. The defense is illusory. Its a Craddockism.
Most people would have tried to find better examples if they wanted to use “I provided something of value” as an argument. Posting 1 ad per day is a rather meaningless activity if it doesn’t attract any retail customers.
Value is normally about the RESULT of the activity, i.e. you must first show that the activity actually generated SOME value before the activity itself can be accepted as “valuable”.
Some people acted as voluntarily forum moderators on a Zeek Rewards support forum. That type of activity can be recognized as “valuable” if it’s about general support and they got paid directly or indirectly for doing it.
Some people sold a few retail bids. That type of activity is valuable, it will bring in legitimate revenue.
But people should avoid listing any meaningless activities or anything directly related to the fraud (e.g. recruitment or reinvestment). It’s about what the court can recognize as “valuable”, not about what people personally feel was valuable to them.
Doing “good faith” to fraud won’t go anywhere.
If a guy promise you post 100 flyers all over town and 10000 dollars is your, and you posted 100 flyers, and the guy said “ha, just kidding, you ain’t worth that much”, you can TRY to sue him for $10000, but the court won’t enforce this contract because this is a ridiculous contract to start with.
Bull corn. You sound like Robert Craddock.
“Good faith” isn’t a very good argument to use, but “good faith and for a reasonably equivalent value” is repeated over and over again in the “Defenses” section of North Carolina Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act.
NOLINK://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_39/Article_3A.html
Most Zeek affiliates didn’t provide any significant value, but SOME probably did.
Try to offer a better explanation yourself?
“Value, as a court may be able to recognize it, will normally be about …”.
I only pointed out that posting 1 ad per day was a rather meaningless activity, unless people are able to show some RESULTS of that activity.
Nope. They’ve been mislead into believing they did. Only by being an accomplice, i.e. help Zeek recruit at events, can they actually provide “reasonably equivalent value” for that they’ve been paid. Then they’d be charged alongside TelexFree 8.
Maybe the trustee can hold that over their head: provide proof that you’re accomplices instead of just posting ads.
I specified “value, as a court may be able to recognize it” in 2 of my posts. I also pointed out some arguments people should avoid to use.
Post #26.
Value isn’t solely about financial value, but it should clearly be about a type of value the court can be able to recognize as valuable. Most of my posts in this thread will survive a test like that (they are about legal logic, and a court should be able to recognize that as “valuable” even if it isn’t perfect).
A court may also be able to recognize the example of “voluntarily forum moderators, offering general support” as valuable, e.g. if people got paid something directly or indirectly from that type of activity.
The value and the reward doesn’t need to be DIRECTLY connected to each other. Life itself doesn’t work that way, people will usually be rewarded indirectly for value they already HAVE generated or are EXPECTED to generate.
That’s where most people will fail. They will get the message about value, but then they will apply their own ideas to it. It will become “value, as they see it themselves” rather than “value, as a court may be able to recognize it”.
Value as people see it themselves may not pass the test. A court will not easily accept arguments about recruitment or reinvestments of Ponzi points, or arguments about “I assisted the management on recruitment meetings”.
Remember Ira Sorkin? He argued on behalf of Gilmond that the work she performed was so significant that the SEC had no jurisdiction. Denied
Now here she is, back with a new lawyer who claims that under North Carolina law selling and promoting illegal securities equates to good faith value.
If she thought she was promoting a legal business then she should be awarded an amount based on the legal profits her efforts generated….in other words about $10. Anything beyond that is unjust enrichment. She owes the estate.
She was a party to an illegal contract. Its unenforceable against the estate. The estate owes her nothing.
Ira Sorkin was vague and unspecific in his claims. He tried to legitimize the recruitment.
I have clearly specified that people’s own ideas about value may not pass the test for “value, as a court may be able to recognize it”. A court can’t be expected to recognize recruitment of investors as legitimate work.
I have clearly said that none of Trudy Gilmond’s claims did impress me, in post #1. I only found the “laches” argument to have a potential use for net winners in foreign countries, e.g. to reduce the claims through negotiations.
Laches: the SEC knew Zeek was an illegal pyramid scheme but did not inform Gilmond who continued to promote, declare income and pay taxes on her total net winnings.
Now Bell, as “agent” of the SEC is trying to clawback her total net winnings and its not equitable because its the SEC’s fault that Gilmond paid taxes on all the money she received in the first place.
If the SEC had acted sooner, Gilmond argues, she would not have paid the taxes and she should receive credit for that if the Court sets a clawback figure.
Why this argument has any more use to net winners from foreign countries is not apparent.
They, like Gilmond have already had ample opportunity to negotiate settlements on terms better than what she is arguing for.
Your entitled to your opinion but Sorkin argued the SEC had no jurisdiction and lost the argument.
The SEC is under no obligation to reveal either its’ suspicions or its’ investigation to anybody, especially not to someone directly involved in the investigation.
In fact, that’s all they were, “suspicions” until the court ruled on the(SEC) complaint.
Laches
A legal defense to a claim for equitable relief asserting that the plaintiff’s long delay in bringing the claim has prejudiced the defendant (as a sort of legal ambush).
For example, if a homeowner watches while the neighbor builds a house over their property line, and only then brings a suit to have the house removed, the encroaching neighbor may raise the defense of laches.
Don’t confuse laches with “statutes of limitations,” which set forth specific periods of time within which plaintiffs must file certain types of lawsuits.
Of course not. This is why the laches defense as asserted here is a Craddockism. That is should have greater value to foreign net winners than to anyone else is an even bigger hoot.
You have a very onesided interpretation of it. Laches is normally used as a defense argument against claims from a creditor, when the creditor have had unreasonable long delays informing the debtor about the claim (e.g. when the debtor reasonably can expect the creditor to have waived his claim).
It’s about Bell’s communication to/with net winners.
* 1,200 net winners received subpoenas after 2.5 months
* 16,000 net winners received email in April 2013
* a number of U.S. net winners received 1099 tax forms
Other than that, his information to net winners have been rather poor, especially for the net winners in foreign countries. Many of them can reasonably expect that he has fallen asleep and has waived his potential claims against them.
If they receive any claims, they can use the laches defense argument to negotiate reductions.
He will probably meet arguments like that with counter arguments about “statutory limits”, e.g. pointing to a 4 year deadline, but that doesn’t mean the laches argument won’t be respected.
You have posted the correct explanation in post #39, but your explanation in post #36 was rather onesided.
You should probably look at how I initially identified it in post #2. I identified Trudy Gilmond’s use of the argument as “constructed”. You have accepted the same idea as Trudy Gilmond = “constructed theories”.
I have identified the laches defense argument to be an equitable defense against claims from creditors, when the creditor seems to have fallen asleep and have failed to inform the debtor about the claim.
It’s about unreasonable delays, not about reasonable ones. It can be used even if statutory limits do exist (it’s about “reasonable versus unreasonable behavior” from a creditor).
Norwayisms are not appropriate. If you don’t know the words to describe the legal concepts used and argued then look them up.
Feel free to add a better description? I identified it as an equitable defense to be used against creditors. “To be used against creditors” was partially because of the TYPE of case.
Post #2:
It doesn’t make much sense for net winners in foreign countries to blame SEC. It did make some sense for Trudy Gilmond, but it also made her argument look rather “constructed”.
Net winners in foreign countries should probably blame the Receiver for poor communication rather than trying to blame the SEC for not warning them.
To argue that Bell has been dilatory in asserting the estate’s rights to the prejudice of foreign net winners borders on the absurd in my book. Its another Craddockism.
What harm have these “foreign net winners” suffered by any Receivership induced delay?
None.
I’m less focused on “details and rules” than you are, but focus on details and rules are not something specific for nations.
I will normally use the “quick look / quick overview” method. It’s usually about identifying the main aspects of something before diving into details. “Quick look” may include “sample details”, i.e. looking at a sample in more details to analyse the logic used.
You will find “quick look at” in posts #1 and #2, “quick overview” in posts #12 and #17. You will also find the same or similar methods used in several other posts.
Bang the gavel.
That’s what laches normally is about:
“SEC failed to warn us against the alleged Ponzi scheme” is a rather constructed defense argument. I would never have suggested anything like that, constructed theories are much closer to your field of expertise.
The laches defense argument is not about harm, it’s about unreasonable delays caused by the plaintiff.
Take it up with Gilmond. Its the argument SHE chose to make. You remember that the original topic WAS Gilmond’s respononse to the Receiver’s Complaint don’t you?
Of Course its about harm. The harm caused by unreasonable delay. If no harm was caused by the delay there is no need for an equitable remedy is there?
Of course not, and no court would grant any.
Look you have taken this discussion way off track. Gilmond never argued that Bell’s claims against her had anything to do with his delaying of filing the Complaint and it has nothing to do with any delay in informing foreign net winners.
I have adequately explained what she was getting at. If you can not understand it I am sorry because I think you have completely misconstrued how laches pertain to this case and to Gilmond’s defensive strategy.
…..but I could be wrong
M Norway and Hoss… you two…seriously. Can’t ya both just agree to disagree over the whole ins and outs of Zeek and just mutually conclude that the whole thing and all the people involved are A*holes and be done with it?
I’ll second that 🙂
Their constant “nitpicking” at each other got old a long time ago.
The expression, “Don’t feed the Trolls” comes to mind when I see them taking over a thread…
The problem is, these two are like a pair of Trolls that feed off each other 🙂
Thom
Huh? You mean the rules in Yemen are the same as in Yugoslavia as they are in Indonesia. I think even “Thom” would nitpick that one. Wouldn’t you “Thom?”
Not only are the rules different in different countries, they are SIGNIFICANTLY different.
Here’s the original statement (post #46) …
Here’s Hoss quoting a part of the same (post #53) …
It will be rather meaningless for me to get involved in that discussion. The two of you can probably discuss it?
Troll
The Receiver has responded to the Jerry Napier / Darren Miller / Trudy Gilmond answers to the Complaint. It didn’t contain anything interesting, most of it was about the classical “lacks knowledge or information to sufficient form any belief”.
In particular, I was curious about how he would handle the theories about “standing in the shoes of RVG” and “SEC appointed Receiver”, i.e. that he both were responsible for breach of contract (as a “successor” to Paul Burks), and also were responsible for the delays in shutting down RVG and warning the investors (i.e. that he is a type of “hired professional” working for SEC).
He DID respond, by admitting that the Order appointing him was initiated by SEC, but otherwise denying the claims.
He also had some arguments in “Third Defense” (against the counter claims).
* Gilmond have not suffered any compensable injury or loss.
* If Gilmond have suffered any such damage, injury or loss, they were not proximately caused by the Receiver.
Pre-trial documents are usually not very interesting. They’re about formalities rather than substance.