FTC not happy with BK Boreyko dissipating assets
On September 18th, 2015, BK Boreyko was slapped with a preliminary injunction.
The injunction, among other things, prohibited Boreyko from ‘assigning, concealing, converting, disbursing, dissipating, encumbering, liquidating, loaning, pledging, selling, spending, transferring, or otherwise alienating any real estate asset(s)’ under his control.
After a series of filings by Boreyko probing the limits of the injunction (AZPack and the “underwater property“), the FTC has finally had enough.
In a February 12th filing, the FTC accuse Boreyko (right) of contravening the preliminary injunction via significant dissipation of assets.
- the liquidation of Boreyko’s interest in Arizona Production & Packaging, ‘a purportedly profitable and growing venture‘
- the liquidation of Boreyko’s interest in AZLAB ‘under potentially unreasonable terms‘
- Boreyko cashing out the full value of his retirement account
- Boreyko’s attempt to ‘sell his interest in AZPACK Properties LLC (denied by the court last month)
- the ongoing process of current short-selling of “certain residential property”
- attempts to sell ‘valuable real property that – unbeknownst to the FTC until February 2, 2016 – has been in escrow since October 2014‘
- Boreyko loaning $1.2 million dollars to Vemma, ‘which continues to operate at a loss‘
To use the Arizona Production & Packaging liquidation as an example, before the FTC filed their lawsuit against Vemma Boreyko sold 18.58% of his interest in the company for five times what he sold his remaining 10.17% interest for.
Boreyko sold the remaining 10.17% interest after the FTC’s Vemma lawsuit was filed, with only a nine-month gap between both sales.
To remedy Boreyko’s evident ploys to dissipate his assets, the FTC have requested the court apply “enhanced asset preservation obligations” to the current injunction order.
The continuing decline in the value of Defendant Boreyko’s assets and the actions he has undertaken since entry of the Order indicate that he may be wasting significant assets to put them out of reach for any consumer redress.
Such waste thwarts the purpose of the Order and should be prohibited.
If granted, the FTC’s proposed obligations would see Boreyko required to
(1) preserve the value of his real estate assets and not engage in waste
(2) notify the Court and FTC of any proposed transfer or disposition of material assets, and if the FTC objects, be proscribed from proceeding with such disposition absent Court approval; and
(3) notify the FTC if the value of any assets set forth in his financial disclosure form materially differ from what was previously disclosed.
If the FTC’s request is granted, Boreyko will have to notify the regulator if he transfers or dissipates assets in excess of $3000 in value. The FTC will then have the opportunity to object, if they feel the action contravenes the terms of the preliminary injunction.
Footnote: Our thanks to Don@ASDUpdates for providing a copy of the FTC’s February 12th “Motion to Modify Asset Preservation Section Of Preliminary Injunction As To Defendant Benson K. Boreyko” filing.
He apparently sucked out $19 million over the prior years so the question is how much is left in visible assets ?
And it seems the FTC always settles for a fraction of the harm caused anyway.
Loaning $1.2 million to that money losing business doesn’t seem like a good idea but I guess he figures its better than giving it to the FTC.
Is the FTC just trying to hurry settlement talks to clear their books so they can go after the bigger scammers like HLF ?
I think he might be trying the Sann Rodrigues defense of selling everything off to other people at great deals to try and hide the assets from the authorities instead of paying what they owe.
does anyone have the actual filing ? I checked at TIA and this one isn’t listed yet.
This might help: twitter.com/TruthinAd/status/699965532200529921
That’s my point. The latest action isn’t listed at the TIA sight where all the others are.
Ah I see. Maybe send them a tweet?
I myself don’t host legal docs due to bandwidth concerns.
On May 11th the FTC ‘served its Deposition Notices of Benson K. Boreyko, Tom Alkazin, and Bethany Alkazin‘.
Could be interesting…