Gordon Silver “shamelessly” handled TelexFree bankruptcy
That the filing of bankruptcy proceedings to escape criminal liability for the running of a billion dollar Ponzi scheme was absurd, is and always will be a given.
Absurder still are the fee claims submitted by firms hired by TelexFree to orchestrate the bankruptcy circus.
Despite being approached and hired only after TelexFree learned a regulatory shutdown was imminent, these firms are now collectively demanding they be paid millions of dollars in fees for their services.
One such firm is Gordon Silver, who the SEC claim do not deserve any of the $230,000 in fees they believe they are owed.
At the core of the SEC’s objection is that the services provided to Gordon Silver were ‘were not necessary to the administration of the estate (TelexFree)‘, which ‘is required for a court to approve an application under Bankruptcy Code Section 330(a)‘.
I don’t know what Silver’s response to this charge might be, but it’s a hard case to make that your bankruptcy filing was in any way required as part of the administration of TelexFree, a billion dollar Ponzi scheme.
Gordon Silver was hired on April 13 and filed TelexFree’s Chapter 11 petition late that evening.1
On April 15 – less than 48 hours later – the FBI seized all of TelexFree’s computers and books and records as well as $38 million in cashier’s checks, and the Commission filed an enforcement action in the District of Massachusetts charging that TelexFree was an enormous pyramid scheme.
The next day, the court in the Commission’s case entered a preliminary order freezing all of TelexFree’s assets and prohibiting it from raising more money from actual or prospective investors.
At that point, TelexFree was effectively out of business, and it was obvious that no reorganization was feasible.
Stephen Darr, the Chapter 11 Trustee put in charge of TelexFree, recently confirmed as much. Putting an end to the ongoing speculation by TelexFree affiliates that the Ponzi scheme might come back, Darr stated in July that he had ‘no intention of reorganizing or reactivating‘ TelexFree.
One would think that trying to push ahead with bankruptcy proceedings to subvert joint action from the SEC, Massachusetts Securities Division and Department of Justice was wholly futile, but Gordon Silver instead chose to milk the situation for all it was worth:
Nevertheless, Gordon Silver continued to churn the case – racking up nearly $192,000 in fees after April 15.
The firm now wants TelexFree’s unsecured creditors – virtually all of whom are innocent victims of the pyramid scheme – to foot the bill for its extravagance.
Just how outrageous was Gordon Silver’s extravagance?
First, the firm filed and argued a frivolous motion charging that the asset freeze entered in the Commission’s enforcement case violated the automatic stay in Bankruptcy Code Section 362(a).
Second, the firm should never have been hired at all. It collaborated in the unjustified decision to file for bankruptcy in Las Vegas, even though the only link to Nevada was a mailing address for TelexFree, LLC, and it wasted substantial attorney time opposing the Commission’s inevitable – and successful – motion to transfer venue to Massachusetts.
Third, the firm shamelessly overstaffed the case, using four partners and five associates and billing excessive amounts for
That a professional law firm failed to check (or simply ignored) that their client was showboating in Nevada on nothing more than a mailing address, is called out for what it is: the epitome of unprofessionalism.
By that point Gordon Silver had to have known TelexFree were trying to escape billion dollar Ponzi regulatory problems, but they went ahead with the proceeding (and fought the SEC over it no less) anyway.
Under Section 330(a)(1), a court may award a professional employed under Section 327 “(A) reasonable compensation for actual, necessary services rendered … and (B) reimbursement for actual, necessary expenses.” 11 U.S.C. §330(a)(1).
Section 330(a)(3) identifies factors for a court to consider when determining what to award, including “(A) the time spent …; (B) the rates charged …; [and] (C) whether the services were necessary to the administration of, or beneficial at the time at which the service was rendered toward the completion of, a case under
this title.” 11 U.S.C. §330(a)(3).
Under Section 330(a)(4)(A), a court “shall not allow compensation for – (i) unnecessary duplication of services; or (ii) services that were not –(I) reasonably likely to benefit the debtor’s estate; or (II) necessary to the administration of the case.”
In assessing the reasonableness of a fee application under Section 330(a), courts have considered, among other things, whether the services were necessary or beneficial, whether the services were adequately documented, whether the professional exercised proper billing judgment; and whether the fees were reasonable taking into account the statutory factors referenced above.
Bear in mind of course that Gordon Silver’s requested fees relate to services provided when TelexFree first filed their Chapter 11 bankruptcy application.
In other words, courts evaluating fee applications look at:
(1) whether the work represents actual compensation rather than overhead; (2) whether the work was necessary; and (3) whether the charge is reasonable.
Courts should eliminate time that was unreasonably, unnecessarily, or inefficiently devoted to the case.
The burden of proof for demonstrating the reasonableness of fees is ultimately on the applicant.
Here, Gordon Silver intones the standard language about how its services were necessary and beneficial to the estate.
As it has done throughout these proceedings, however, it ignores the grim reality that any reorganization of TelexFree was doomed at the start.
The firm also fails to address the unnecessary cost of filing a frivolous motion challenging the TRO as a violation of the automatic stay, the unnecessary cost of filing the case in Nevada, and the substantial amount of overstaffing and duplication of effort.
In relation to any services provided by Gordon Silver after the regulatory shutdown of TelexFree, the SEC really drive the point home:
As of April 15 – when the FBI seized its computers, its books and records, and $38 million of cashier’s checks – and certainly as of April 17 – when the District Court froze all its assets and prohibited it from recruiting new investors – TelexFree was out of business, and there was nothing to reorganize.
After all, how could TelexFree possibly hope to develop a viable reorganization plan when it had no access to its computers and its books and records, when all its assets were frozen, and when it was prohibited from soliciting new promoters?
At that time, the only prudent way to preserve TelexFree’s assets for the benefit of its unsecured creditors, virtually all of whom were innocent investors in AdCentral, was a liquidation.
The mention of a liquidation (Chapter 7) by the SEC is prudent, as we’ve long suspected that’s ultimately what Darr will end up converting the current Chapter 11 bankruptcy into.
As of yet though no timetable or draft plan indicating an actual conversion has been made public.
Back to Gordon Silver and their capitalizing on the shutdown of the business,
Instead, Gordon Silver proceeded with the purported reorganization and continued to treat TelexFree as a license to generate substantial fees.
The firm has billed nearly $192,000 for work performed after April 15, when the FBI seized TelexFree’s computers, books and records,
and $38 million of cashier’s checks on April 15.
It has billed more than $177,000 for work performed after April 17, when the TRO freezing TelexFree’s assets and prohibiting the solicitation of new AdCentral promoters became public.
I mean really, at what point do you hold a law firm accountable for their actions? I’m not suggesting Gordon Silver in any way be held responsible for TelexFree’s Ponzi scheme, hell you might even argue they were in the dark prior to the regulatory action against TelexFree being made public on August 17th… but requesting payment for services rendered after April 17th?
Come on now. You guys did that on your own, why should TelexFree victims foot the bill?
Drawn into the accusations against Gordon Silver are fellow-firm Greenberg Traurig, who the SEC all but accuse of colluding with Gordon Silver to overcharge TelexFree:
When the petitions were filed on April 13, TelexFree’s offices were in Massachusetts, the two founding officers and sole shareholders and the interim CEO were in Massachusetts, all employees on the payroll were in Massachusetts, the computers and books and records were in Massachusetts, Alvarez & Marsal was planning to do its work in Massachusetts, and the MSD was investigating TelexFree in Massachusetts.
By contrast, the only connection to Nevada was that one of the three entities (TelexFree, LLC) was incorporated there and had a mailbox there.
Gordon Silver’s collaboration in the strategic decision to file in Nevada – far from TelexFree’s actual operations and from the existing and foreseeable government enforcement activity – led to a duplication of effort with Greenberg Traurig.
For example, the two firms billed virtually identical amounts (approximately $45,000 each) for work on the frivolous automatic stay motion.
In addition, given TelexFree’s strong presence in Massachusetts and lack of contacts with Nevada, it was inevitable that someone – the Commission, as it turned out – filed a motion to transfer venue to Massachusetts.
Nor is it surprising that the transfer motion was successful. The amount billed for opposing the motion is difficult to determine, because Gordon Silver included it within a more general “Litigation” category.
A review of the firm’s billing detail suggests that three partners, two associates, and one paralegal worked nearly fifty hours on the opposition, for which it has billed approximately $20,000.
The SEC also highlight examples of Gordon Silver’s excessive billing (“billing overkill” and overstaffing, citing three instances where Gordon Silver’s staffing and billing was disproportionate to the work being carried out by the firm.
In summary the SEC conclude,
the Court should disallow all fees and expenses incurred after Gordon Silver knew or should have known that the reorganization was doomed.
All time and expenses incurred on the automatic stay motion were unnecessary because the motion was frivolous.
As part of its scorched-earth approach to this bankruptcy, Gordon Silver filed a motion that the TRO in the Commission’s enforcement case violated the automatic stay under Section 362(a).
In its brief, the law firm relied on case law interpreting the prior version of Section 362(b) – before adoption of the 1998 amendment that explicitly excepted governmental and regulatory actions from Section 362(a)(3).
At the May 2 hearing, its attorney argued at length that the TRO constituted the improper “enforcement of a money judgment” against TelexFree.
That argument was nonsense.
The TRO was obviously not a money judgment – it was a preliminary equitable order intended to halt the wrongdoing and preserve TelexFree’s assets for the benefit of injured investors.
The Court should disallow compensation for all of Gordon Silver’s work performed after the FBI raid on April 15 (or after the TRO became public on April 17).
Trustee Stephen Darr has additionally filed his own objection to Gordon Silver’s compensation request. He writes
After the Restraining Order was issued and the Asset Seizure conducted, the Debtors had no cash or access to cash, no operations, and no employees. Most of the time spent after April 15, 2014 related to futile litigation with governmental authorities.
Gordon (Silver) participated in the preparation and filing on April 23, 2014 of the motion (the “Stay Motion”) requesting that the Nevada Bankruptcy Court, among other things, modify or vacate the Restraining Order issued by the District Court.
The Stay Motion had no merit and services rendered in connection therewith were not reasonable, necessary, nor reasonably likely to benefit the Debtors’ estates at the time such services were rendered.
The fees and expenses sought by Gordon should be substantially disallowed because a substantial portion of the services rendered by Gordon was neither reasonable, necessary, nor reasonably likely to benefit the Debtors’ estates at the time such services were rendered.
A hearing for Gordon Silver application for fees is currently scheduled for September 23rd. It should be interesting to hear them try to explain why they are entitled to hundreds of thousands of dollars of TelexFree victim’s money.
Footnote: A full copy of the SEC’s “Objection To The Fee Application Of Gordon Silver” can be read over at Kurtzman Carson Consultants.
There is only one thing more predatory than Pyramid Scams: Lawyer Firms defending Pyramid Scams 🙂
Well, technically speaking they are not in the business of “giving back” all the retainer money… Remember, they were paid a substantial sum, up to a million or more if I remember right, or somebody was. It’s in one of the earliest documents at KCC.
And lawyers go where the money is.
I just wonder if there’s any sort of backroom deal that should the bankruptcy go through (without SEC/HSI’s “meddling”) they’d refund a chunk of the money directly to the principals (Wanzeler / Merrill) rather than to the company?
Greenberg Taurig received the lion’s share ($4.2 mill), Gordon Silver were paid $750,000.
I don’t think so those funds were in Joe Craft’s briefcase, in addition to whatever Wanzeler had already laundered out of the US.
That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a “if you win we’ll pay you $XXX more” type arrangement.
I guess my point was they had to dissipate the assets before bankruptcy SOMEHOW, and one of the ways they did it was to pay down a HUGE retainer on the lawyers and consultants. But they can’t do it to ridiculous amounts, thus all those cashier’s checks.
I wonder if the issuing banks tipped off HSI? Any one remember what were the dates on the Craft checks?
I suppose if they flush with cash that’s one way to do it.
Still think these slimy buggers would have just paid themselves the extra though :).
Costa obviously didn’t find his campaign funds under a rock.
april, they’re all dated april 2014.
here you go:
i like the one made out to TELEXFREE DOMINICANA, the company created in dominican republic, my home country, to launder/hide ponzu money.
Most of those checks were dated Friday April 11, the most significant ones. One or two were dated earlier in April, but they were not important enough to remember the date.
Greenberg Traurig seems to be negotiating a settlement. Darr has asked for yet another short extension of time.
* The first one was Friday –> Monday (last week, this week)
* The second one was Monday –> Wednesday (this week)
Experienced people will often calculate their chances before fighting, inexperienced ones will often blindly “fight for their rights” (trying to win ALL battles).
It will most likely lead to a settlement here.
Doc-451, paragraph 36:
I pointed out the same thing. The Nevada Bankruptcy Court didn’t have the correct jurisdiction to modify or vacate the Massachusetts District Court’s TRO.
It was “the wrong type of court” for a decision like that, and Bankruptcy Rules wouldn’t have been the correct types of rules to apply.
So if we worked it out, why the f… weren’t lawyers being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars able to?
Dun dun dun, conspiracy!
Probably because they were trying to interpret written rules (Bankruptcy Laws) rather than the reality. People will often misinterpret written rules, e.g. they will often interpret them too literally or add some weird ideas.
According to bankruptcy rules, ancilliary cases should automatically be stayed. But the rules don’t specify anything about the TYPE of cases. In reality it won’t cover all types of cases.
A TRO is clearly outside the jurisdiction of a Bankruptcy Court = the Stay rule can’t be applied to that type of case.
A bankruptcy court will normally detect its own lack of jurisdiction. The Nevada Bankruptcy Court didn’t analyse that issue, since the Change of Venue was listed before those other issues. But Darr has clearly analysed it, he was actually forced to analyse it to be able to open bank accounts.
There is just no way money meant for victims of this scheme should go to pay law firms, especially ones that were actively trying to work with TF management to screw over their promoters via maneuvers such as bankruptcy and delays in legal action.
IMO, they shouldn’t get a penny. And any money they already took from retainers should be paid back. For example, Gordon Silver already took $55,235.50 out of a $750,000 retainer leaving a balance of $694,764.50.
Now Gordon Silver wants an additional $229,712.85 out of the retainer balance, including $750/hour charges for Mr. Gordon. TF victims should not foot the bill for these ridiculous charges.
I suspect these law firms knew the scum they were dealing with and they took a risk. Their risk failed and they should not get a nice payday as a reward. In fact, they should be the ones returning their fees back to the TF estate.
Two stipulations have appeared today ahead of next week’s hearing.
Alvarez and Marsal:
Significant reductions in both instances.
Pending a stipulation appearing for Gordon Silver, it would appear they aren’t playing ball and wish to keep all the money paid to them.
The other two major fee claimants negotiating drastic reductions isn’t likely to reflect too well on Gordon Silver in court next week.
Just want to point out that these law firms are asking for money above and beyond what they have already taken out of the retainer. For example, in the case of Greenberg, the retainer was $4,000,050 (based on Exhibit B of Doc 382). They have already been paid $273,445.11 out of the retainer leaving a retainer balance of $3,726.604.89.
From this retainer balance, they want an additional $1,044,813.95 in fees and expenses, including $1000/hour fees for one of their lawyers. Based on the Stipulation submitted in Doc 459, they are “generously” reducing these fees to $396,073.82.
Plus they may have other fees paid to them already outside the retainer.
I’m not sure what a Stipulation is, but I’m suspicious that it is a written representation of an already done deal between the trustee and the law firms for a reduced payment to the law firm that just has to be approved by the judge. Or is it simply a “generous” proposal to the judge and trustee for reduced fees for the law firms that has to be argued in court?
IMO the trustee should continue to fight to lower or eliminate these fees, considering 1) their exorbitant and unreasonable fees, 2) what they have already been paid, 3) the fact that they were fundamentally working against the estate/future victim fund, 4) they were negligent and greedy in taking on TelexFree as a client, trying to squeeze whatever monies they could from a dying fraudulent business via litigation (often duplicate), and 5) victims should be paid first out of the TelexFree estate prior to law firms hired to protect the fraudsters (law firms can be paid from non-TF money)
Although this is probably just wishful thinking, I hope that the judge takes the trustee’s and the “ad hoc committee’s” oppositions to lawyer payments into account and not only deny them these payments, but have them pay back what they already collected.
(post #10 / #11 / #12)
They spent 90.20 hours ($45,547) researching exceptions to automatic stays, probably without finding what they were looking for.
(Doc-382, Greenberg Traurig’s Application)
I looked at the LIMITATIONS of the Bankruptcy Code, e.g. I tested it against “What will happen if the case involve other factors, e.g. like criminal charges?”. The Bankruptcy Code simply isn’t designed to handle ANY type of legal issues, it clearly has some limitations.
If the “Motion to lift TRO” had been handled by the Nevada Bankruptcy Court, it would first have needed to analyse its own jurisdiction, and it would most likely have detected a lack of jurisdiction (it will need to look at BOTH laws, it can’t solely look at the one where it has the correct jurisdiction). Lack of subject matter jurisdiction = automatic dismissal.
Similarily, when the Trustee was negatively affected by the May 9th Restraining Order (he couldn’t freely open bank accounts), he had to address the original court to resolve that issue. The Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court didn’t have the correct jurisdiction to modify the other court’s Restraining Order.
I’m pretty sure Greenberg Traurig didn’t find any relevant answers. They researched the wrong types of sources looking for the wrong types of answers.
I don’t have the filing in front of me but a Stipulation denotes understanding between adversarial parties. The judge must approve such agreements and third party creditors (such as the ad hoc committee) may be in a position to object.
I think you are assuming way too much. Greenburg spent considerable time researching it (senior partner, law school grad, large international firm and twenty years of experience, and 90 +/- hours etc,) and went ahead with the argument.
If as has been reported there is now a stipulated settlement between the SEC, Darr and Greenburg it means only one thing. The SEC attorneys disagreed with the Greenburg Trauer attorney and they settled.
No legal conclusions can be drawn from a negotiated settlemt though you seem hell bent on doing so.
And Gordon Silver spent 115.30 hours ($44,949) doing the same. Rule 362 of the Bankruptcy Code is clearly a lengthy one, “many words to read” (and TTT “That Takes Time”).
Gordon Silver tried to bend the rules in favor of his client. They tried to MAKE the Motion fit the rules by describing it in a specific way. So they have probably detected that the Nevada Bankruptcy Court would face some jurisdiction problems:
Total time spent = 205.50 hours (2 lawfirms).
From my understanding of it, the Bankruptcy Code has some limitations. The automatic stay rule can’t be applied against ANY type of legal action, it can generally only be used against certain “claims” (creditor claims, tax claims, administrative claims, etc.).
It can also be used against the enforcement of some court orders but not against others.
The legal issue was never decided by any Bankruptcy Court. It resolved itself when the TRO was replaced by a more permanent Order.
Greenberg Traurig probably made a wise decision when they decided to negotiate their fees and heavily reduce the final amount. Alvarez & Marsal made a similar decision.
….and when it comes right down to it the SEC probably made a wise decision when they decided to negotiate the fee issue as well. This is a no decision.
I would hope so since the opposition was doing the same thing.
I didn’t use that as an argument either? I have probably mentioned that settlement in another context as a “wise decision”, but I haven’t used it as an argument here.
I pointed out some jurisdiction issues BEFORE the May 2nd Hearing in the Nevada Bankruptcy Court, probably between April 23 and April 30. So it isn’t a “new” conclusion based on the settlement.
I have analysed the TIME those 2 lawfirms have spent. I probably had some conclusions about that. It points in the direction of a flawed case more than a solid case.
Really? What if you found that the SEC spent equal to or more time? Would you then assume that the SECs case was MORE flawed?
What you “pointed out” were uproven allegations that approximated your unproven opinions.
I have the feeling that I have been involved in one of your imaginary discussions, that you’re focusing on some specific idea relatively unrelated to my 2 posts (#16, #19), and that you have interpreted my 2 posts as replies to something.
Post #16 isn’t part of any discussion. I simply tried to analyse the time spent by Greenberg Traurig on the TRO, and their own description of the work done.
Post #19 isn’t part of any discussion. I simply tried to analyse the time spent by Gordon Silver on the TRO, and their own description of the work done.
The fact that you have 2 posts between those two posts doesn’t make the last one become a reply to your posts.
You have got a reply in post #21 (a reply to a small part of your post #18). The main point there was that I haven’t focused on the source you BELIEVE I have, indirectly telling you that your argument didn’t make much sense:
I didn’t draw any legal conclusions from that settlement.
Here’s a few replies to your comments …
I used the time spent as an argument to support “not a clear case”. 2 lawfirms spent 205 hours trying to build up a case. Normally that means they couldn’t easily identify the arguments to use, so they didn’t really have a solid case.
That tells us about the time he spent, his position, education, experience. He may have over-estimated his own skills.
A settlement should normally be that (a wise decision from both parties), so I didn’t respond to it initially.
Greenberg Traurig reduced their fees with 67%, from $968,000 to $320,000, but it may still be a wise decision.
I don’t think I have analysed SEC’s work in my posts. They didn’t object to the TRO, they didn’t try to get an Order against it. Posts #16 and #19 focused on the TRO, they didn’t focus on time used in general.
I’m not sure what you have been smoking, but it has affected your logical skills.
That comment tried to identify that I didn’t draw any legal conclusions based on the settlement between SEC/Darr and Greenberg Traurig.
You’re citing the complete post #10, and that’s relevant enough. But your comment doesn’t make much sense. It would potentially have made any sense if I have made any claims about “verified and proven facts, established by the Court”.
But I didn’t claim that. So it IS of course unproven, and I have indirectly told that in post #19:
WRONG. Your comment was made on the 16th two days before the settlement agreement was even announced.
Nice theory though.
The FIRST comment, the one you INITIALLY cited in your post. And I know posts #10 and #12 were posted 3 days earlier than #16 and #19 (I posted all of them myself).
“You cited the complete post #10, and that’s relevant enough. But your comment didn’t make much sense.”
A comment about “uproven allegations that approximated your unproven opinions” will first make any sense if I have tried to claim the opposite, i.e. there should be some sort of “logical connection” between the statements in the quote and the comment replying to it. That logical connection either didn’t exist or was hard to find.
— Back to topic / stand alone / not a reply —
The U.S. Trustee has filed its responses to the different fee applications.
“Accepted, but reserve the right to object if new information becomes available”
Alvarez & Marsal:
“Accepted, but reserve the right …”
“Objection, the amount has to be decided by the Court”
Stuart A. MacMillan (Doc-469):
“Objection, the application for administrative expenses should be denied”.
I focused mostly on Doc-469, UNITED STATES TRUSTEE’S OBJECTION TO APPLICATION FOR ALLOWANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CLAIM, but I had a quick look at all of them.
TelexFree’s bankruptcy plan, as it initially was designed to work, seems to have failed completely. In that situation, those reduced fees are probably wise decisions.
The settlement sets aside all theories and arguments … particularly those you claimed to have “pointed out” in Post #10.
I didn’t understand that conclusion.
“Lack of jurisdiction” is simply one of the reasons for why a legal action can fail. It doesn’t need to fail exactly because of that. The “TRO Motion” resolved itself when the TRO was replaced by a Preliminary Injunction Order (if I remember it correctly). It didn’t happen exactly like that, but that’s not important.
Darr identified it in a similar way:
He doesn’t point to the exact reason for why it failed. He identifies one of the reasons for why it most likely would have failed. Jurisdiction is simply one of the very first factors a court will have to test. It must establish that it actually has the right to make decisions.
The jurisdiction for the “TRO Motion” was highly questionable (the Court’s rights to make those types of decisions). It couldn’t CLEARLY be identified in the Bankruptcy Code § 362 (what the Motion was about).
I’m pretty sure it couldn’t clearly be identified in case law either, those 2 lawfirms spent 205 hours trying to build up a case. They ended up with a very specific Motion:
I didn’t check the complete Motion, only the first argument. The logic there was rather thin (“it can’t be found in the exceptions”).
The general rule for court orders is that they are “final”. They can be reviewed and modified by the court itself or by a higher court.
Bankruptcy courts have the right to deny (stay) the enforcement of some court orders from other courts, but the TRO couldn’t be identified within that scope either.
Another general rule is that you can’t put 2 courts up against each other, i.e. you can’t ask a court to rule against another court’s decision. That’s what they tried in this case, to declare portions of the TRO void. That should clearly be outside the Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdiction.
Do you know the difference between arguments and rulings?
All you have cited are arguments, base on your opinions and interpretations. In some instances they are similar to statements made by the Trustee or the SEC and other times they are not.
You and Darr and the SEC are entitled to your various opinions but there is only one that matters…the Court’s and it has not expressed one.
Under such circumstances it is incredibly presumptious of you to argue (as you have) that Darr was compelled to do Y because he, or the SEC argued X when no ruling has ever confirmed the rightness of X.
What you “pointed out” was an argument made by the SEC/Trustee that you liked. Whether it would have prevailed is anybody’s guess, but you assumed it would and began to draw further conclusions based on that assumption.
Do you know the difference between a blog and a court? 🙂
The rest of your comment revolves around that, around that you have used some SPECIFIC ideas about “proof”, “evidence” etc.
That’s why some of your comments have been difficult to understand. You have probably replied to your own ideas about what you EXPECT to find in a blog (or in my comments), and have pointed out that the comments don’t meet your own expectations?
It’s difficult to write something specifically for someone’s expectations, so I will usually not try to do it either. So you can stop looking for it.
“Colorless green ideas sleep furiously”