Securities and Exchange Commission v. Schooler et al

Filing 1486

ORDER Granting #1475 Sale of Valley Vista Property and Authority to Pay Broker's Commission. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 6/14/17. (dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,

15
16
17

ORDER APPROVING:

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No.: 3:12-CV-02164-GPC-JMA

v.

SALE OF VALLEY VISTA
PROPERTY AND AUTHORITY TO
PAY BROKER’S COMMISSION

LOUIS V. SCHOOLER and FIRST
FINANCIAL PLANNING
CORPORATION d/b/a WESTERN
FINANCIAL PLANNING
CORPORATION,

18

[ECF No. 1475]

Defendants.

19
20
21
22
23
24

Before the Court is the Receiver’s Motion for Approval of Sale of Valley Vista

25

Property (“Motion”). ECF No. 1475. No opposition was filed. Based upon a review of

26

the moving papers and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS the Receiver’s motion.

27
28

////
////
1
3:12-CV-02164-GPC-JMA

1

BACKGROUND

2

A. The SEC Enforcement Action

3

On January 21, 2016, the Court granted the SEC’s motion for final judgment

4

against Defendant Louis V. Schooler. ECF No. 1170. The SEC had initiated this civil

5

action against Defendant Schooler and Western Financial Planning Corporation

6

(“Western”) four years earlier, on account of their practice of defrauding investors into

7

purchasing unregistered securities. Id. (citing Second Summary Judgment Order, ECF

8

No. 1081). To carry out the scheme, Defendant Western bought undeveloped real estate,

9

with cash or through financing, and simultaneously formed one or more General

10

Partnerships (“GPs”) to own the land. First Summary Judgment Order, ECF No. 1074 at

11

10. Western then sold General Partnership units to investors and sold the undeveloped

12

real estate to the General Partnerships. Id. at 10. In total, Western raised approximately

13

$153 million from almost 3,400 investors through implementing this scheme. Id.

14

B. The Decline of the General Partnership Assets

15

In 2013, the Court-appointed Receiver, Thomas Hebrank, engaged licensed

16

appraisers to value the 23 properties owned by the General Partnerships. ECF No. 203 at

17

2. Those professionals determined that the land was worth $16,328,000 and that the net

18

appraised value (appraised value less outstanding balances on all mortgages) of the

19

properties was $12,860,661. Id. The net appraised value represented just 8.41% of the

20

total funds that the general partners had invested in the land. Id. The Receiver further

21

estimated that, based on the then-current appraised values of the land, the average GP

22

investor would suffer an 88.40% loss if the GP properties were sold in 2013. Id.

23

Three years later, soon after final judgment was entered, the Receiver moved for

24

authority to conduct an Orderly Sale of the General Partnership Properties (“Orderly

25

Sale”). Motion for Orderly Sale, ECF No. 1181-1. In the Motion, the Receiver indicated

26

that the aggregate value in the GP accounts had been steadily decreasing while litigation

27

was ongoing. See id. In September 2012, the Receivership had assets of $6.6 million.

28

Id. at 1. By the end of 2015, the assets had dropped to $3.5 million, and the Receiver had
2
3:12-CV-02164-GPC-JMA

1

reason to believe that the value of the Receivership would continue to drastically

2

decrease through the end of 2016.1 This decline, he noted, was due to three main factors:

3

(1) 14 of the 23 properties were not appreciating in value2; (2) the properties were not

4

worth enough to cover the costs of the GPs carrying the properties; and (3) low levels of

5

investor contributions to pay GP administrator fees, tax preparation fees, property taxes,

6

property insurance premiums, and notes owed to Western. See id. at 1-2. In other words,

7

the Receiver concluded, because the money being spent to hold the GP properties was

8

disproportionately high in relation to the value of the GP’s real estate assets, the

9

Receivership was in a steady decline. Id.

10

In order to prevent the value of the Receivership from falling into further decline,

11

the Receiver proposed that the GP properties be sold in accordance with Court-approved

12

orderly sale procedures. Id. The Receiver’s proposal explained that the best way to

13

maximize the value of all of the GP assets for the benefit of all investors, irrespective of

14

any given investors’ direct property interest, was to initiate an orderly sale of the GP

15

properties. Id. The Receiver estimated that the Receivership, after conducting sales of

16

the GP properties, Western’s properties and asset recovery, would be worth $21,804,826.

17

Id. at 16.

18

C. The Receiver’s Motion for Orderly Sale

19

On May 20, 2016, the Court held a hearing on the Receiver’s Motion for Orderly

20

Sale, at which time the Court heard from the SEC, Defendant, the Receiver, and the

21

investor-interveners — that is, those investors who were granted permission under Rule

22

23 to intervene to oppose the Receiver’s Motion. See ECF No. 1298. A short time

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Receiver provided the Court with projections that the Receivership would further decline to $1.8
million by the end of 2016. Indeed, the Receiver’s projection has since proved to be accurate. The
Eighteenth Interim Status Report submitted by the Receiver indicates that the Receivership’s current cash
balance is $1,546,447. ECF No. 1441 at 20.
2
By way of example, the Receiver notes that the value of these 14 properties in 2016, $3,732,815, was about
$400,000 less than their value in 2013, $4,137,000. Id. at 2.
3
3:12-CV-02164-GPC-JMA

1

thereafter, on May 25, 2016, the Court approved, in part, the Receiver’s Orderly Sale

2

process.3 ECF No. 1304.

3

In approving the Orderly Sale, the Court addressed and evaluated the concerns

4

expressed by the Receiver, the SEC, and myriad investors, all of whom held differing

5

positions on whether the Orderly Sale would benefit the Receivership estate. See

6

generally ECF Nos. 1181 (Motion for Orderly Sale), 1232 (SEC Response), 1234 (Dillon

7

Investors’ Response), 1235 (Graham Investors’ Response); see also, e.g., ECF Nos. 1240,

8

1242, 1244, 1249-1257 (Letters from Investors). The Court also took into consideration

9

the recommendations of the investors’ experts, as set forth in the Xpera Report. See ECF

10

No. 1304 at 16. The Xpera Report, the Court noted, substantially agreed with the

11

Receiver on how to maximize the value of the Receivership estate and, for the most part,

12

agreed on the appraised value of the various GP properties. Id. As such, the Court

13

directed the Receiver, where feasible, to incorporate the recommendations of the Xpera

14

Report into his ultimate Orderly Sale proposal. Id. at 19.

15

On July 22, 2016, the Receiver moved for permission to engage CBRE, a real

16

estate brokerage firm, as a consultant in order to weigh the pros and the cons of the Xpera

17

Report. ECF No. 1341-1. The Court granted the Receiver’s motion on August 30, 2016.

18

ECF No. 1359. CBRE presented its findings on the GP properties on October 24, 2016.

19

ECF No. 1419 (filed under seal). On November 22, 2016, the Receiver submitted a

20

report evaluating the Xpera Report recommendations. ECF No. 1405. The Court

21

reviewed the Receiver’s report and adopted the recommendations contained therein on

22

December 12, 2016. ECF No. 1423.

23

////

24

////

25
26
3

27
28

The Court directed the Receiver to file a Modified Orderly Sale Process that incorporated the public sale
process consistent with the requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2001. ECF No. 1304. The Receiver filed a modified
proposal on June 8, 2016 (ECF No. 1309) and the Court approved the modified proposal on August 30, 2016
(ECF No. 1359).
4
3:12-CV-02164-GPC-JMA

1

D. Valley Vista Property

2

The Valley Vista is one of three parcels in the Bratton Valley property, along with

3

the Honey Springs and Bratton View properties. ECF No. 1475 at 2. The Bratton Valley

4

properties are located in the City of Jamul in San Diego County. Id. at 3.

5

On January 14, 2016, the Court approved the Receiver to engage a broker to list

6

the three Bratton Valley properties for sale. Id. at 2; see also ECF No. 1168. The Court

7

approved the sale of one of the Bratton parcels, the Honey Springs property, for $240,000

8

on March 20, 2017. Id.

9

In 2013, the Receiver valued the Valley Vista property at $68,667 and all three

10

Bratton Valley properties at a combined total of $206,000. ECF No. 1405, Ex. A at 11.

11

Two years later, in 2015, the Broker Opinion Value (BOV) of the Valley Vista property

12

was $243,218 and the BOV of the combined Bratton properties was $756,548. Id.

13

Although the Xpera Report did not value the Valley Vista property standing alone, it did

14

value the property as one of the three Bratton Valley properties, and the value that Xpera

15

ascribed to all three properties corresponded to the BOV value of the properties.4 Id.

16

The Xpera report, moreover, concurred in the Receiver’s recommendation that the

17

Bratton Valley properties be sold now. See id.

18

In October 2016, the Receiver received an offer from Jose De Jesus Ramirez Tovar

19

to buy the Valley Vista property for $220,000.5 ECF No. 1475-1 at 3. The Receiver

20

countered at $255,000 and the parties eventually settled on a purchase price of $240,000.

21

Id. The Receiver and Buyer executed a Vacant Land Purchase Agreement and the Buyer

22

completed due diligence and contingency removals on April 25, 2017. Id.

23
24
25
26
27
28

4

The Xpera Report valued the Valley Vista property, along with Honey Springs and Bratton View
properties, between $629,878 (low valuation) and $944,816 (high valuation). ECF No. 1405, Ex. A at
11. The Receiver’s appraisal of Valley Vista, together with Honey Springs and Bratton View, totaled
$756,548, placing the Receiver’s appraisal within the range proposed by Xpera. See id.
5
Tovar subsequently assigned the purchase and sale agreement to Franco Ramirez and Carolina
Ramirez. ECF No. 1475-1 at 3.
5
3:12-CV-02164-GPC-JMA

1

In accordance with the Court-approved modified Orderly Sale procedures, see

2

generally ECF No. 1309, 1359, the Receiver sent notice of the offer to investors, but no

3

substantive response addressing the offer was received.6 ECF No. 1475-1 at 4. After

4

executing the purchase agreement, the Receiver laid out a timeline for the submission of

5

qualified overbids pursuant to the modified Orderly Sale procedures. Id. at 7-10. On

6

June 1, 2017, the Receiver notified the Court that no qualified overbids had been received

7

for the Valley Vista property. ECF No. 1482.

8

E. Conclusion

9

The Court finds that the purchase price of $240,000 is reasonable in light of the

10

Receiver’s 2015 appraisal of the Valley Vista property and the Xpera Report. The BOV

11

value obtained by the Receiver estimated that the property was worth $243,218, which is

12

just $3,218 greater than the purchase price. With this sale, two-thirds of the Bratton

13

Valley properties have been sold for $480,000, which is on-track to meet the BOV value

14

and fall within the Xpera valuation of the combined Bratton Valley properties.

15

The Court is also satisfied that the Receiver has complied with the modified

16

Orderly Sale procedures. The Receiver’s notice of the sale adhered to the modified

17

Orderly Sale procedures, which require that notice of the sale be published “in the

18

county, state, or judicial district of the United States wherein the realty is situated.” 28

19

U.S.C. § 2002 (emphasis added), by publishing notice in the San Diego Union Tribune

20

and by providing notice to the investors. Accordingly, and given that no opposition to

21

the present Motion has been filed or raised and that no qualified overbid was received,

22

the Court GRANTS Receiver’s motion for approval of sale (ECF No. 1475).

23

////

24

////

25
26
27
28

Four investors responded to the Receiver’s notice of the offer to buy the Valley Vista property. ECF
No. 1475-1 at 4. One said “unreal,” another thanked the Receiver for the update, and two indicated they
did not understand why they had been contacted. Id.
6

6
3:12-CV-02164-GPC-JMA

1

ORDER

2

The Receiver's Motion for Approval of Sale of Valley Vista Property and

3

Authority to Pay Broker's Commission ("Motion") of Thomas C. Hebrank ("Receiver"),

4

the Court-appointed receiver for First Financial Planning Corporation d/b/a Western

5

Financial Planning Corporation ("Western"), its subsidiaries and the General Partnerships

6

listed in Schedule 1 to the Preliminary Injunction Order entered on March 13, 2013

7

(collectively, "Receivership Entities"), having been reviewed and considered by this

8

Court, the Receiver having notified the Court that no qualified overbids were received

9

(Dkt. No. 1482), and for good cause appearing therefore, the Court finds as follows:

10

1.

The Motion is granted;

11

2.

The sale of the Property known as the Valley Vista property, as described on

12

Exhibit A to the Declaration of Thomas C. Hebrank in support of the Motion

13

("Property"), by Thomas C. Hebrank, as receiver for Valley Vista Partners, to Franco

14

Ramirez and Carolina Ramirez is confirmed and approved;

15
16

3.

The purchase price of $240,000.00 for the Property is confirmed and

approved;

17

4.

The Receiver is immediately authorized to complete the sale transaction,

18

including executing any and all documents as may be necessary and appropriate to do so;

19

and

20
21

5.

The Receiver is authorized to immediately pay, upon closing of the sale, a

commission of 6% of the final purchase price to broker Real Estate Results.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated: June 14, 2017

26
27
28
7
3:12-CV-02164-GPC-JMA