Notice: Ripoff Report VIP Arbitration Decision: A neutral and independent Arbitrator has determined that the following Report contained one or more false statements of facts. The false statements have been redacted as ((Statement REDACTED as false pursuant to Ripoff Report VIP Arbitration)). | ((Statement REDACTED as false pursuant to Ripoff Report VIP Arbitration)) San Francisco, California
RIPOFF REPORT VIP ARBITRATION
SUMMARY OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION
The Reliant Group, Inc., Complainant
v.
Anonymous, Author of Report #735272,
________________________________________________________________________
Complainant The Reliant Group (the “Complainant”) has challenged the truthfulness of certain specific statements (each, a “Statement”) posted by Author Anonymous (the “Author”) on the Ripoff Report website at www.ripoffreport.com as Ripoff Report #735272 (the “Report”). The Author accused the Complainant of refusing to make certain distributions based on interests in several limited liability companies. Complainant has denied the allegations. Both the Complainant and the Author have agreed to submit the dispute to the Ripoff Report VIP Arbitration. By submitting a Report and a Complaint on the Ripoff Report websites, both the Complainant and the Author have agreed to submit the dispute to the Ripoff Report VIP Arbitration Program.
In accordance with the Rules, the Arbitrator was asked to decide whether the challenged Statements were an opinion or a fact. If, and only if, the Statement was determined to be a statement of fact, the Arbitrator was asked to further decided if, by a preponderance of the evidence, to determine if the Statement was true or false. If the statement identified by the Complainant is determined to be an opinion, no determination will be made as to that particular Statement because an opinion cannot be determined to be true nor false.
In this case, the Arbitrator had only the evidence submitted by the Complainant to consider. The evidence submitted included Ripoff Report #735272, Complainant’s Arbitration Statement, Complainant’s Witness Statements, and supporting documentation.
Each Statement challenged by the Complainant has been considered, together with any Witness Statements and Documents provided by the Complainant for determination of the truth or falsity of the Statement. The Author did not provide a response to the Complaint.
The Arbitrator determined that the certain statements challenged in the Report were false. Therefore, according to the VIP Arbitration Rules, those statements have been redacted.
Decided April 7, 2012
Bruce E, Meyerson, Arbitrator
* A copy of the full Arbitrator’s Decision is available upon request. Please e-mail arbitration@ripoffreport.com with the name of the Complainant and Report number.
________________________________________________________________________
((Statement REDACTED as false pursuant to Ripoff Report VIP Arbitration)).
((Statement REDACTED as false pursuant to Ripoff Report VIP Arbitration)).
((Statement REDACTED as false pursuant to Ripoff Report VIP Arbitration)).
((Statement REDACTED as false pursuant to Ripoff Report VIP Arbitration)).
((Statement REDACTED as false pursuant to Ripoff Report VIP Arbitration)). ((Statement REDACTED as false pursuant to Ripoff Report VIP Arbitration)).
((Statement REDACTED as false pursuant to Ripoff Report VIP Arbitration)).
1 Updates & Rebuttals
J. L. Sherman
san francisco,California,
United States of America
False Allegation From an Investor Seeking to Defraud Creditors
#2REBUTTAL Owner of company
Tue, November 22, 2011
The accusation is from Carl Wescott, an investor in three Reliant Group Reg D investment funds, called the CAP series. Wescott defaulted on his CAP VI LLC funding obligations in 2008. As the President of the The Reliant Group, I made a decision to cover his defaulted capital calls in CAP VI. It was a difficult time financially for many investors and it was my decision to help him by funding his capital calls until he could resolve his financial predicament. Wescott told us many times he would remedy the defaults, so we waited patiently for him to keep his word. After six months of continued defaults, Wescott told us he would not be able to meet his obligations. We brought in another investor to buy his interest. Wescott received a return of 100% of his capital, even though he was in default and the LLC agreement had remedies that would have produced a loss to him.
Shortly after we arranged the buy out of his interest in the CAP VI fund, we were served with an order of attachment in connection with an action titled Feitcher v Wescott, Case no CGC 10-496091, San Francisco Superior Court. Wescott was sued by a third party who alleged that Wescott fraudulently transferred his ownership interests in CAP IV and CAP V to an entity called Pook, Snook and Dook, LP to avoid payments to creditors. The partners of the Pook Snook and Dook were his three children (ages approximately 2-6 years old). The Feitcher application asked the court for a temporary protective order to preclude Wescott and /or his wife from, as general partners of Pook Snook and Dook, from alienating any interests in the CAP IV and CAP V funds. The party that sued Wescott (Feitcher) also threatened to sue Reliant if we made a distribution, charging us with constructive knowledge of a fraudulent transfer. We retained counsel in the matter, since both parties were threatening to sue us and advised them that we would wait until the court ruled on the order of attachment before we made any distributions. Wescott then began his campaign to intimidate us into making distributions in violation of the court order, using threats of internet postings, small claims law suits and contacting other investors in the funds. We were unaware that he actually had posted on the internet. He was the only investor (out of several hundred) who was affected by withholding of the distributions until the matter was adjudicated. The order of attachment was issued on May 18, 2011. The matter was heard on May 26, 2011. A ruling was issued the first week in June, denying the motion to attach assets. The internet posting is dated May 31, 2011. We distributed to Wescott the quarterly payments for CAP IV and CAP V on June 8th. We incurred significant legal fees in the matter and did not offset any distributions to Wescott by the costs we incurred. Simply put, Mr. Wescott placed us in the middle of his law suit with a third party creditor. We elected not to distribute fund proceeds until the order of attachment had been adjudicated. Funds were withheld from Mr. Wescott for approximately 20 days and then distributed. His accusations on Ripoff.com are false and defamatory. Counsel has been retained in the matter to seek redress.