Securities and Exchange Commission v. Nadel et al

Filing 1330

Unopposed MOTION for Attorney Fees Twenty-Second Interim by Burton W. Wiand. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Standardized Fund Accounting Report, # 2 Exhibit Rec's 1st Interim Report, # 3 Exhibit Prior Listing of Interim Motions, # 4 Exhibit Scoop Receivership - Representation of Scoop Receivership, # 5 Exhibit Scoop Receivership - Quest Energy Management Group, Inc, # 6 Exhibit Categorization and Summary of all WGK Costs, # 7 Exhibit Attorney Fee Schedule, # 8 Exhibit Scoop Legal Team - Scoop Capital, LLC Receivership, # 9 Exhibit Scoop Legal Team - Recovery from Investors, # 10 Exhibit James Hoyer, PA - Claims Administration and Objections, # 11 Exhibit James Hoyer, PA - Asset Analysis & Recovery, # 12 Exhibit Scoop Legal Team - Quest Energy Management Group, Inc, # 13 Exhibit PDR Certified Public Accountants, # 14 Exhibit E-Hounds, Inc., # 15 Exhibit The RWJ Group, LLC, # 16 Exhibit Stichter Riedel Blain & Postler PA, # 17 Exhibit Scott Douglas McConnico, # 18 Exhibit Proposed Order)(Lamont, Michael)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:09-cv-87-T-26TBM

ARTHUR NADEL;
SCOOP CAPITAL, LLC;
SCOOP MANAGEMENT, INC.
Defendants,
SCOOP REAL ESTATE, L.P.;
VALHALLA INVESTMENT PARTNERS, L.P.;
VALHALLA MANAGEMENT, INC.;
VICTORY IRA FUND, LTD;
VICTORY FUND, LTD;
VIKING IRA FUND, LLC;
VIKING FUND, LLC; AND
VIKING MANAGEMENT, LLC
Relief Defendants.
____________________________________/
UNOPPOSED RECEIVER’S TWENTY-SECOND INTERIM MOTION FOR
ORDER AWARDING FEES, COSTS, AND REIMBURSEMENT OF
COSTS TO RECEIVER AND HIS PROFESSIONALS
Burton W. Wiand, as Receiver, by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant
to Rule 66 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s Order Appointing
Receiver dated January 21, 2009 (the “Order Appointing Receiver”; Doc. 8), respectfully
moves this Court for the entry of an order awarding fees, costs, and reimbursement of costs
to the Receiver and his professionals. This motion covers all fees and costs incurred for the

eight month period from August 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017. The Standardized Fund
Accounting Report (“SFAR”) for this period is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.1 For the time
covered by this Motion, the Receiver and Wiand Guerra King P.A. (“WGK”) seek approval
to pay total fees and costs of $135,094.44 for their services (of which $86,973.48 will be paid
exclusively from Quest’s revenues and assets as detailed in the pertinent Sections below).
During this same time, the Receiver collected $416,283.80 in cash from business income and
interest/dividend income. From the inception of the Receivership through March 31, 2017,
the Receiver has collected the net amount of $66,834,605.77 in cash from these same
sources, as well as cash and securities, business asset liquidation, personal asset liquidation,
third party litigation income, and miscellaneous income which is less fees, expenses, and tax
payments paid during that time. To date, the Receiver has made seven distributions totaling
approximately $67 million.2 As of October 3, 2017, the total funds in all Receivership
accounts are approximately $4,458,281.14, which includes approximately $2.2 million in
seventh interim distribution checks which have not been negotiated yet.
Since the appointment of the Receiver, he and those he has retained to assist him have
engaged in substantial and continuing efforts for the benefit of the Receivership. As of the
date of this Motion, among other things, the Receiver and his professionals have done the
following:
1

The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) provided the
Receiver with detailed Billing Instructions for Receivers in Civil Actions Commenced by the
Commission (the “Billing Instructions”). The SFAR is one of the requirements contained in
the Billing Instructions.
2

This includes the seventh interim distribution which the Receiver mailed out to
claimants entitled to participate on September 22, 2017.

2



Pursued and/or continue to pursue litigation or post-judgment efforts for (1) the
recovery of false profits or other transfers from investors (i.e., from “Profiteers”);
(2) the recovery of transfers from Receivership Entities to Donald and Joyce
Rowe, and certain of their affiliated entities; (3) the recovery of other transfers,
such as commissions, from other individuals and/or entities; and (4) the recovery
of certain charitable contributions made with scheme proceeds;



Prevailed on six summary judgment motions in the District Court for the Middle
District of Florida resulting in the entry of judgments against Profiteers for a total
amount of $2,869,015.43;



Reached agreements to settle with 159 Profiteers and non-profit organizations and
obtained 19 judgments against Profiteers and non-profit organizations for a total
combined amount of $32,077,470.74 (plus additional non-cash assets) as of
October 3, 2017;3



Obtained two arbitration awards in favor of the Receiver in the total combined
amount of $2,417,979.83, which is included in the total amount of settlements and
judgments above;



Obtained full satisfaction of a judgment against a clawback defendant in the
amount of $2,290,865.60 through extensive collection efforts;



Prevailed on three appeals in which the Court had granted summary judgment in
favor of the Receiver but had denied the Receiver’s request for prejudgment
interest; the appellate court affirmed the granting of summary judgment in favor
of the Receiver and reversed and remanded the denial of prejudgment interest;



Reached an agreement to settle, provided notice of the settlement to all potentially
interested parties, and obtained an order approving a settlement with Holland &
Knight LLP (“H&K”), pursuant to which H&K paid $25,000,000 to the Receiver;



Reached an agreement to settle, provided notice of the settlement to all potentially
interested parties, and obtained an order approving the settlement between the
Receiver and Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing, L.P. (“GSEC”), pursuant to
which GSEC paid $9,850,000 to the Receiver;

3

This amount does not include a judgment in the amount of $4,028,385.00 the
Receiver obtained against Donald and Joyce Rowe and certain of their affiliated entities (the
“Rowe Judgment”).

3



Reached an agreement to settle, provided notice of the settlement to all potentially
interested parties, and obtained an order approving a settlement with Shoreline
Trading Group, LLC (“Shoreline”), pursuant to which Shoreline paid $2,500,000
to the Receiver;



After extensive negotiations, reached a settlement agreement with Donald and
Joyce Rowe and related entities (collectively the “Rowe Defendants”) pursuant
to which (1) the Rowes consented to entry of a joint and several judgment against
the Rowe Defendants in favor of the Receiver in the amount of $4,028,385 on all
claims; (2) the Rowe Defendants paid the Receiver $250,000; and (3) the
Receiver used his best efforts to enjoin two proceedings against the Rowe
Defendants brought by investors in Nadel’s scheme;



Engaged in significant collection efforts to collect on the Rowe Judgment, which
as of October 3, 2017, has resulted in the recovery of $2,892,315.39 on this
judgment.



Entered into an agreement with Bonds.com to retire all Bonds.com’s indebtedness
to the Receivership in exchange for payment of $2,250,000 (which has been
received) and allow Bonds.com to repurchase all approximately 7.5 million shares
of stock in exchange for a payment of $5,000 (which has also been received);



Sold or reached agreements in principle to sell Receivership assets that should
result in approximately $6,830,839.97 for the Receivership and the waiver or
resolution of more than $9.5 million in debt obligations of Receivership Entities;



Filed the appropriate federal tax forms on behalf of Arthur Nadel, Christopher D.
Moody, Neil V. Moody, Marguerite Nadel, and Sharon Moody and successfully
recovered the total amount of approximately $7,959,062.64 in federal tax refunds
issued for Peg and Arthur Nadel, Sharon Moody, Neil Moody, and Chris Moody,
which includes a refund for Arthur Nadel in the amount of $2,920,359.71
received on August 28, 2017;



Expanded the Receivership to include 14 additional business entities and one
trust, including Quest Energy Management Group, Inc.;



Obtained possession of additional property in Georgia, North Carolina,
Mississippi, Ohio, Colorado, Tennessee, and Florida bringing the Receivership’s
current real and personal property holdings to more than 426 acres; one residential
property; and other miscellaneous items, including artwork and furniture;



Assisted the Commission with obtaining the entry of judgments enjoining Neil
Moody and Christopher Moody (at times collectively referred to as the

4

“Moodys”) from further violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal
securities laws and allowing the Commission to seek disgorgement and/or civil
penalties from the Moodys by motion to the Court;


Finalized and obtained Court approval of a settlement agreement with Neil
Moody to settle claims brought by the Receiver against him individually and in
his capacity as Trustee of the Neil Moody Revocable Trust and the Neil Moody
Charitable Foundation, which provides in pertinent part, that all of the Receiver’s
claims are dismissed without prejudice and with an express waiver of any time
bar defenses by Neil Moody in exchange for (1) the transfer of all of Neil
Moody’s meaningful assets identified in the settlement agreement, along with a
sworn affidavit by Neil Moody verifying the extent of his assets; (2) transfer to
the Receiver of his tax refunds, which included a check for $365,284.99 received
March 12, 2012; and (3) cooperation with and assistance to the Receivership in
the Receiver’s ongoing efforts to recover monies on behalf of investors subject to
Neil Moody’s Fifth Amendment rights;



Worked on recovering assets in the possession of Neil Moody and Christopher
Moody; 



Instituted an action against Wells Fargo to recover damages and fraudulent
transfers relating to the bank’s activities in connection with the Ponzi scheme
underlying this case;



Successfully opposed Wells Fargo’s efforts to disqualify the Receiver and his
counsel from all Receivership matters;



Instituted the claims process and published notice of the same by (1) direct mail
of more than 1250 packages to known investors and their attorneys, if any, and
other known potential creditors of the Receivership estate; (2) global publication
on one day in The Wall Street Journal and publication on one day in the SarasotaHerald Tribune on June 15, 2010; and (3) web access to all pertinent claims
process documents on the Receiver’s website, www.nadelreceivership.com;



Reviewed and analyzed more than 500 Proof of Claim Forms, identified
deficiencies in numerous Proof of Claim Forms and sent more than 130 letters to
claimants notifying them of deficiencies in their respective Proof of Claim Forms
and allowing them an opportunity to timely return an amended Proof of Claim
Form to preserve their claims;



Filed the Receiver’s Motion to (1) approve determination and priority of claims,
(2) pool Receivership assets and liabilities, (3) approve plan of distribution, and
(4) establish objection procedure and included the Receiver’s recommended

5

determination and priority of each of the 504 claims submitted, which was
granted in all respects except for one claim submitted by Wells Fargo for which
the Court reserved ruling;


Sought and obtained approval of a first interim distribution of approximately $26
million which provided a 20% recovery of the Allowed Amounts of Claimants
entitled to participate in the first interim distribution; 343 checks were mailed to
these Claimants in the beginning of May 2012;



Sought and obtained approval of a second interim distribution of approximately
$22 million which provided a 16.75% recovery of the Allowed Amounts of
Claimants entitled to participate in the second interim distribution, bringing these
Claimants’ total recovery to 36.75% of their Allowed Amounts; 346 checks were
mailed to these Claimants in November 2012;



Sought and obtained approval of a third interim distribution of approximately $5
million which provided a 3.81% recovery of the Allowed Amounts of Claimants
entitled to participate in the third interim distribution, bringing these Claimants’
total recovery to 40.56% of their Allowed Amounts; 346 checks were mailed to
these Claimants in November 2013;



Sought and obtained approval of a fourth interim distribution of approximately $5
million which provided a 3.81% recovery of the Allowed Amounts of Claimants
entitled to participate in the fourth interim distribution, bringing these Claimants’
total recovery to 44.37% of their Allowed Amounts; distribution checks were
mailed to these Claimants in or about April 2014;



Sought and obtained approval of a fifth interim distribution of approximately $3
million which provided a 2.28% recovery of the Allowed Amounts of Claimants
entitled to participate in the fifth interim distribution, bringing these Claimants’
total recovery to 46.65% of their Allowed Amounts; distribution checks were
mailed to these Claimants in December 2016;



Sought and obtained approval of a sixth interim distribution of approximately $2
million which provided a 1.52% recovery of the Allowed Amounts of Claimants
entitled to participate in the sixth interim distribution, bringing these Claimants’
total recovery to 48.18% of their Allowed Amounts; distribution checks were
mailed to these Claimants in January 2017;



Sought and obtained approval of a seventh interim distribution of approximately
$5 million which provided a 3.81% recovery of the Allowed Amounts of
Claimants entitled to participate in the seventh interim distribution, bringing these

6

Claimants’ total recovery to 51.99% of their Allowed Amounts; distribution
checks were mailed to these Claimants in September 2017; and


Continued to operate ongoing businesses, and where possible, enhance the value
of those businesses resulting in the generation of more than $8,107,457.61 in
gross business income since the appointment of the Receiver.
Case Background and Status

As of the date of filing this Motion, the Court has appointed Burton W. Wiand as
Receiver over the following entities and trust:
a)

Defendants Scoop Capital, LLC; and Scoop Management, Inc.;

b)

Relief Defendants Scoop Real Estate, L.P.; Valhalla Investment Partners,
L.P.; Victory IRA Fund, Ltd.; Victory Fund, Ltd.; Viking IRA Fund, LLC;
and Viking Fund LLC; Valhalla Management, Inc.; and Viking Management,
LLC; and

c)

Venice Jet Center, LLC; Tradewind, LLC; Laurel Mountain Preserve, LLC;
Laurel Preserve, LLC; Laurel Mountain Preserve Homeowners Association,
Inc.; Marguerite J. Nadel Revocable Trust UAD 8/2/07; Guy-Nadel
Foundation, Inc.; Lime Avenue Enterprises, LLC; A Victorian Garden Florist,
LLC; Viking Oil & Gas, LLC; Home Front Homes, LLC; Traders Investment
Club; Summer Place Development Corporation; Respiro, Inc.; and Quest
Energy Management Group, Inc.

(See Docs. 8, 17, 44, 68, 81, 153, 172, 454, 911, 916, 1024.) The foregoing entities and trust
are collectively referred to as the “Receivership Entities.”
On May 12, 2017, the Receiver filed the Twenty-First Interim Report (Doc. 1289).
This Interim Report contains comprehensive and detailed information regarding the case
background and status; the recovery and disposition of assets; financial information on
Receivership Entities; the proposed course of action to be taken regarding assets in the
Receivership estate; the claims process; and related litigation involving Receivership
Entities. The Receiver incorporates the Twenty-First Interim Report into this Motion for

7

Fees and has attached a true and correct copy of the Twenty-First Interim Report as Exhibit
2 for the Court’s convenience. This Interim Report reports on all of the activity which
resulted in the fees and costs sought in this Motion. Throughout this Motion, the TwentyFirst Interim Report will be referred to as “Interim Report.”
Professional Services Rendered and Costs Incurred
Paragraph 4 of the Order Appointing Receiver authorizes the Receiver to
[a]ppoint one or more special agents, employ legal counsel, actuaries,
accountants, clerks, consultants and assistants as the Receiver deems
necessary and to fix and pay their reasonable compensation and reasonable
expenses, as well as all reasonable expenses of taking possession of the assets
and business of the Defendants and Relief Defendants, and exercising the
power granted by this Order, subject to approval by this Court at the time the
Receiver accounts to the Court for such expenditures and compensation.
Pursuant to this paragraph, the Receiver retained, among others,4 (1) PDR Certified Public
Accountants (“PDR”) to provide accounting services; (2) Riverside Financial Group
(“Riverside”) to provide financial analyses; (3) E-Hounds, Inc. (“E-Hounds”) to provide
computer forensic services; (4) Fowler White Boggs P.A. (“Fowler White”), and
subsequently WGK to provide legal services; and (5) RWJ Group, LLC (“RWJ”) to provide
asset management services (collectively, the “Professionals”).5 For a listing of prior Interim

4

The others retained in more limited capacities, which are pertinent to this motion,
include: (1) Stichter, Riedel, Blain & Prosser P.A. to provide assistance with a bankruptcy
proceeding initiated by judgment-debtor Vernon Lee and a matter involving Wells Fargo;
and (2) Scott Douglass & McConnico, L.L.P to assist with regulatory matters involving
Quest.
5

As noted in the Fourth Interim Report (Doc. 240 at n.2), the Receiver and certain of
his counsel of record in this case moved from Fowler White Boggs P.A. to Wiand Guerra
King P.A.

8

Motions for Fees and Costs, including the amounts sought and awarded by the Court, please
refer to Exhibit 3.
As described above and more fully in the Interim Report, the Professionals have
provided services and incurred expenses to investigate the affairs of the Receivership
Entities, preserve and sell Receivership assets, attempt to locate and recover additional
assets, administer the claims process, and institute and pursue litigation and post-judgment
collection efforts. These services are for the benefit of aggrieved investors, creditors, and
other interested parties of the Receivership Entities.
I.

The Receiver.
The Receiver requests the Court award him fees for the professional services rendered

for the eight months from August 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017, in the amount of
$20,545.00. The standard hourly rate which the Receiver charges clients is $460. However,
the Receiver agreed that for purposes of his appointment as the Receiver, his hourly rate
would be reduced to $350 per hour, representing nearly a twenty-four percent (24%) discount
off the standard hourly rate which he charges clients in comparable matters. This rate was
set forth in the Commission’s Emergency Motion for Appointment of Receiver and
Memorandum of Law (Doc. 6), which the Court granted on January 21, 2009 (Doc. 8).
The Receiver commenced services immediately upon his appointment. The Receiver
has billed his time for these activities in accordance with the Billing Instructions. The Billing
Instructions request that this Motion contain a narrative of each “business enterprise or
litigation matter” for which outside professionals have been employed.

The Billing

Instructions identify each such business enterprise or litigation matter as a separate “project.”

9

Further, the Billing Instructions request that time billed for each project be allocated to one of
several Activity Categories.6
A.

The Receivership.

During the relevant period of this Receivership, the work of the Receiver and WGK
focused on investigating, pursuing, and recovering additional assets for the Receivership;
selling or otherwise disposing of assets in a manner that is in the best interests of the
Receivership; administering the claims process and addressing objections; and pursuing
litigation and post-judgment efforts to recover false profits and other improper transfers and
damages. These activities of the Receiver are set forth in detail in the Interim Report. (Ex.
2.) A copy of the statement summarizing the Receiver’s services rendered and costs incurred
for the Receivership is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. The Receiver’s time and fees for
services rendered for each Activity Category for the eight months from August 1, 2016,
through March 31, 2017, are as follows:

6

The Activity Categories set forth by the Commission in the Billing Instructions are
as follows: (1) Asset Analysis and Recovery, which is defined as identification and review of
potential assets including causes of action and non-litigation recoveries; (2) Asset
Disposition, which is defined as sales, leases, abandonment and related transaction work
(where extended series of sales or other disposition of assets is contemplated, the Billing
Instructions provide that a separate category should be established for each major
transaction); (3) Business Operations, which is defined as issues related to operation of an
ongoing business; (4) Case Administration, which is defined as coordination and compliance
activities, including preparation of reports to the court, investor inquiries, etc.; (5) Claims
Administration and Objections, which is defined as expenses in formulating, gaining
approval of and administering any claims procedure; and (6) Employee Benefits/Pensions,
which is defined as reviewing issues such as severance, retention, 401k coverage and
continuance of pension plan. The Billing Instructions provide that time spent preparing
motions for fees may not be charged to the Receivership Estate. In accordance with these
instructions, the Receiver created an additional Activity Category for work on fees motions
and has accounted for time spent on such work but has not charged any amount for this work.

10

Receivership
Receiver’s Time and Fees for Services Rendered
Hours
Expended
1.00
18.30
1.10
1.30
3.60
25.30

Activity Category
Asset Disposition
Asset Analysis and Recovery
Business Operations
Case Administration
Claims Administration
TOTAL
B.

Fee Amount
$350.00
$6,405.00
$385.00
$455.00
$1,260.00
$8,855.00

Discrete Litigation Matters and Projects.

In conjunction with the Receivership, the following eight discrete litigation matters or
projects have been formally commenced by the Receiver.
1.

Home Front Homes Litigation.

This was a lawsuit against Brian C. Bishop, a former employee who also had an
ownership interest in Home Front Homes, LLC (“Home Front Homes”) an operating
business. This matter has been resolved. The Receiver did not charge any fees or incur any
costs for this matter for the time covered by this Motion.
2.

Carolina Mountain Land Conservancy Easement.

This was a project involving the recovery of a conservancy easement that Laurel
Mountain Preserve, LLC, had granted to the Carolina Mountain Land Conservancy. This
matter has been resolved. The Receiver did not charge any fees or incur any costs for this
matter for the time covered by this Motion.
3.

Recovery from Investors and Others Including False Profits.

This is a project involving the Receiver’s efforts to primarily recover profits from
investors whose purported accounts received monies in an amount that exceeded their

11

investments. (See also Ex. 2 § IV.E.1.) These purported profits were false because they
were not based on any trading or investment gain, but rather were proceeds of a Ponzi
scheme that consisted of funds of new and existing investors. This project also included the
Receiver’s efforts to recover charitable contributions made with scheme proceeds. (See also
Ex. 2 § IV.E.) The Receiver did not charge any fees or incur any costs for this matter for the
time covered by this Motion.
4.

Recovery of Assets from the Moodys.

This is a project involving the Receiver’s efforts to recover money and other assets
from the Moodys. (See also Ex. 2 § IV.D.) The Receiver did not charge any fees or incur
any costs for this matter for the time covered by this Motion.
5.

Recovery from Recipients of Commissions and Other Related
Transfers.

This is a project involving the Receiver’s efforts to recover commissions and/or other
related transfers from individuals and/or entities who received commissions or other
improper transfers from the Receivership Entities. (See Ex. 2 § IV.E.) The Receiver did not
charge any fees or incur any costs for this matter for the time covered by this Motion.
6.

Litigation Against Holland & Knight LLP.

This was a project involving the Receiver’s pursuit of malpractice and other claims
by the Hedge Funds against H&K which sought to recover the Hedge Funds’ losses that
occurred after January 1, 2003. The Receiver settled this action for payment of $25,000,000
by H&K to the Receiver. This matter has been resolved. The Receiver did not charge any
fees or incur any costs for this matter for the time covered by this Motion.

12

7.

Quest Energy Management Group, Inc.

This is a project involving the Receiver’s investigation, operation, and marketing of
Quest Energy Management Group, Inc. (“Quest”). (See Ex. 2 § IV.A.5; Docs. 1054, 1117,
and 1145.) Quest is an oil and gas exploration and production company based in Texas. The
Receivership was expanded to include Quest on May 24, 2013 (Doc. 1024). A copy of the
statement summarizing the Receiver’s services rendered and costs incurred for this project
for the eight months from August 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017, is attached hereto as
Exhibit 5. The Receiver will pay these fees exclusively from Quest’s assets and funds
generated by its operations.7 The Receiver’s time and fees for services rendered on this
matter for each Activity Category are as follows:
Quest Energy Management Group, Inc.
Receiver’s Time and Fees for Services Rendered
Hours
Expended
Fee Amount
6.60
$2,310.00
6.90
$2,415.00
12.70
$4,445.00
6.90
$2,415.00
.30
$105.00
33.40 $11,690.00

Activity Category
Asset Disposition
Asset Analysis and Recovery
Business Operations
Case Administration
Claims Administration
TOTAL
8.

Schneiderman Appeal.

This was a project involving the Receiver’s appeal of two orders entered in a
clawback action. See Wiand, as Receiver v. Roberta Schneiderman and Robert D. Zimelis, as

7

Since the expansion of the Receivership to include Quest, the Receiver has and will
continue to maintain a separate accounting of revenues and expenses for Quest. The
Receiver has been able to grow Quest’s revenues since that time and believes Quest likely
will generate sufficient revenues to cover its expenses.

13

Co-Executors of the Estate of Herbert Schneiderman and Roberta Schneiderman,
individually, Case No. 8:09-cv-87-T-26TBM (M.D. Fla.) (seeking recovery of $163,660); see
also Receiver’s Nineteenth Interim Report at § IV.E.1. This matter has been resolved. The
Receiver did not charge any fees or incur any costs for this matter for the time covered by
this Motion.
II.

Wiand Guerra King P.A. And Other Counsel.
The Receiver requests the Court award WGK fees for professional services rendered

and costs incurred for the eight months from August 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017, in the
amounts of $110,431.35 and $4,118.09, respectively. A categorization and summary of all
costs for which WGK seeks reimbursement is attached hereto as Exhibit 6.
As an accommodation to the Receiver, WGK agreed to reduce the hourly rates of the
Receiver’s counsel in accordance with the discounted fee structure that was in place at
Fowler White as provided in the Fee Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit 7. WGK began
providing services on November 8, 2009. The activities of WGK for the time covered by this
Motion are set forth in the Interim Report. (See Ex. 2.) WGK has billed time for these
activities in accordance with the Billing Instructions.
A.

The Receivership.

As discussed above, during the relevant period of this Receivership, the work of the
Receiver and WGK focused on investigating, pursuing, and recovering additional assets for
the Receivership; selling or otherwise disposing of assets in a manner that is in the best
interests of the Receivership; administering the claims process and addressing objections;
and pursuing litigation and post-judgment collection efforts as detailed in the Interim Report.

14

(Ex. 2.) A copy of the statement summarizing the services rendered and costs incurred by
WGK for the foregoing for the eight months from August 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017,
is attached hereto as Exhibit 8. WGK’s time and fees for services rendered on this matter for
each Activity Category are as follows:
Receivership
WGK’s Time and Fees for Services Rendered
Hours
Expended
Fee Amount
6.30
$882.00
5.20
$1,132.95
15.10
$2,114.00
39.60 $10,855.50
108.60 $22,441.05
174.80 $37,425.50

Activity Category
Asset Disposition
Asset Analysis and Recovery
Business Operations
Case Administration
Claims Administration
TOTAL
B.

Discrete Litigation Matters and Projects.

WGK professionals also provided services in connection with litigation matters
and/or projects discussed above.
1.

Home Front Homes Litigation.

This was a lawsuit against Brian C. Bishop, a former employee who also had an
ownership interest in Home Front Homes, LLC (“Home Front Homes”) an operating
business. This matter has been resolved. WGK did not charge any fees or incur any costs for
this matter for the time covered by this Motion.
2.

Carolina Mountain Land Conservancy.

This was a project involving the recovery of a conservancy easement that Laurel
Mountain Preserve, LLC, granted to the Carolina Mountain Land Conservancy. This matter

15

has been resolved. WGK did not charge any fees or incur any costs for this matter for the
time covered by this Motion.
3.

Recovery from Investors and Others Including False Profits.

This is a project involving the Receiver’s efforts to primarily recover profits from
investors whose purported accounts received monies in an amount that exceeded their
investments. (See also Ex. 2 § IV.E.1.) These purported profits were false because they
were not based on any trading or investment gain, but rather were fruits of a Ponzi scheme
that consisted of funds of new and existing investors.

This project also included the

Receiver’s efforts to recover charitable contributions made with scheme proceeds. (See also
Ex. 2 § IV.E.) A copy of the statement summarizing WGK’s services rendered and costs
incurred for the eight months from August 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017, for this project
is attached hereto as Exhibit 9. WGK’s time and fees for services rendered on this matter for
each Activity Category are as follows:
Recovery from Investors and Others Including False Profits
WGK’s Time and Fees for Services Rendered
Hours
Expended
.40
.40

Activity Category
Asset Analysis and Recovery
TOTAL
4.

Fee Amount
$91.00
$91.00

Recovery of Assets from the Moodys.

This is a project involving the Receiver’s efforts to recover money and other assets
from the Moodys. (See also Ex. 2 § IV.D.) WGK did not charge any fees or incur any costs
for this matter for the time covered by this Motion.

16

5.

Recovery of Commissions and Other Related Transfers.

This is a project involving the Receiver’s efforts to recover commissions and/or other
related transfers from individuals and/or entities who received commissions or other
improper transfers from the Receivership Entities. (See Ex. 2 § IV.E.) WGK did not charge
any fees or incur any costs for this matter for the time covered by this Motion
6.

Litigation Against Holland & Knight LLP.

This was a project involving the Receiver’s pursuit of malpractice and other claims
by the Hedge Funds against H&K which sought to recover the Hedge Funds’ losses that
occurred after January 1, 2003. The Receiver settled this action for payment of $25,000,000
by H&K to the Receiver. This matter has been resolved. WGK did not charge any fees or
incur any costs for this matter for the time covered by this Motion.
7.

Litigation Involving Wells Fargo.

The Receiver determined that it was prudent and necessary to retain separate counsel
to represent him in connection with all Receivership matters involving Wells Fargo. (See
Doc. 730.) The Receiver retained James, Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich, P.A. (“James
Hoyer”) to represent him in connection with matters involving Wells Fargo. These matters
include (1) responding to Wells Fargo’s objections and various other motions relating to the
claims process; (2) Wells Fargo’s asserted interests in real property held by the Receivership;
and (3) Wells Fargo’s attempts to disqualify the Receiver. In an April 25, 2012, Order, the
Court concluded that WGK could not represent the Receiver in “matters specifically
involving Wells Fargo Bank or its affiliates.” (Doc. 822.)

17

Further, the Receiver retained James Hoyer to pursue litigation against Wells Fargo
and Timothy Ryan Best, Nadel’s relationship manager with the bank, on a contingency fee
basis. On February 13, 2012, James Hoyer, on behalf of the Receiver, instituted an action
against Wells Fargo and Timothy Best seeking to recover damages in excess of $168 million
relating to the bank’s close and extensive relationship with the Ponzi scheme underlying this
Receivership. After extensive motion practice, on February 9, 2015, the District Court
granted summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo on all counts. This unexpected ruling
had a significant impact on this Receivership. On March 10, 2015, the Receiver filed a
motion to prosecute an appeal of this decision due to the nature of the ruling and its impact
on the Receivership to the detriment of innocent victims (Doc. 1162).
As part of that motion, the Receiver sought the Court’s permission to retain James
Hoyer to litigate the appeal. James Hoyer agreed to be compensated on an hourly fee basis at
the same rates as those charged by the Receiver’s primary counsel, WGK. As part of this
compensation arrangement, the Receiver and James Hoyer agreed that, should the Receiver’s
appeal be successful, and the Wells Fargo litigation result in either a favorable jury verdict or
settlement, any contingency fee James Hoyer was awarded would have been offset by the
hourly fees it was paid to represent the Receiver in the appeal. On March 27, 2015, the Court
granted the Receiver’s motion to appeal this decision and the retention of James Hoyer on an
hourly basis (Doc. 1167). Oral argument of the appeal was held on May 19, 2016. On
January 26, 2017, the appellate court issued an opinion affirming the District Court’s
granting of summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo.

18

The Receiver requests the Court award James Hoyer fees for professional services
rendered and costs incurred for the eight months from August 1, 2016, through March 31,
2017, in the amounts of $29,809.80 and $659.90, respectively.8 A copy of the statement
summarizing James Hoyer’s services rendered for the eight months from April 1, 2016,
through March 31, 2017, for general Receivership matters involving Wells Fargo is attached
as Exhibit 10. James Hoyer’s time and fees for services rendered on this matter for each
Activity Category are as follows:
Receivership Matters Involving Wells Fargo
James Hoyer’s Time and Fees for Services Rendered
Hours
Expended
Fee Amount
93.70 $28,864.80
93.70 $28,864.80

Activity Category
Claims Administration
TOTAL

A copy of the statement summarizing James Hoyer’s services rendered for the eight
months from August 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017, for pursuing the appeal is attached
hereto as Exhibit 11. James Hoyer’s time and fees for services rendered on this matter for
each Activity Category are as follows:
Wells Fargo Appeal
James Hoyer’s Time and Fees for Services Rendered
Hours
Expended
Fee Amount
3.00
$945.00
3.00
$945.00

Activity Category
Asset Analysis and Recovery
TOTAL

8

As the Receiver previously informed the Court (see, e.g., Doc. 730), although James
Hoyer is representing the Receiver in his prosecution of claims against Wells Fargo on a
contingency fee basis, in all other Receivership matters involving Wells Fargo, James
Hoyer’s representation is on an hourly fee basis.

19

8.

Quest Energy Management Group, Inc.

This is a project involving the Receiver’s investigation, operation, and marketing of
Quest. (See Ex. 2 § IV.A.5; Docs. 1054 and 1117.) Quest is an oil and gas exploration and
production company based in Texas. The Receivership was expanded to include Quest on
May 24, 2013 (Doc. 1024). A copy of the statement summarizing WGK’s services rendered
and costs incurred for the eight months from August 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017, is
attached hereto as Exhibit 12. The Receiver will pay these fees exclusively from Quest’s
assets and funds generated by its operations. WGK’s time and fees and costs for services
rendered on this matter for each Activity Category are as follows:
Quest Energy Management Group, Inc.
WGK’s Time and Fees for Services Rendered
Hours
Expended
21.30
116.20
132.20
6.70
100.70
377.10

Activity Category
Asset Disposition
Asset Analysis and Recovery
Business Operations
Case Administration
Claims Administration
TOTAL

Fee Amount
$3,715.40
$31,141.00
$18,545.45
$2,110.50
$17,402.50
$72,914.85

In addition, WGK incurred costs of $2,368.63 in connection with Quest.
9.

Schneiderman Appeal.

This was a project involving the Receiver’s appeal of two orders entered in a
clawback action: the order referring the matter to arbitration and the order denying the
Receiver’s motion to vacate the arbitrator’s erroneous award. See Wiand, as Receiver v.
Roberta Schneiderman and Robert D. Zimelis, as Co-Executors of the Estate of Herbert
Schneiderman and Roberta Schneiderman, individually, Case No. 8:09-cv-87-T-26TBM

20

(M.D. Fla.) (seeking recovery of $163,660); see also Receiver’s Nineteenth Interim Report at
§ IV.E.1. This matter has been resolved. WGK did not charge any fees or incur any costs
for this matter for the time covered by this Motion.
PDR Certified Public Accountants.
The Receiver requests the Court award PDR fees for professional services rendered
and costs incurred for the eight months from August 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017 in the
amount of $29,622.24. Of this amount, $8,428.75 was incurred in connection with work
related to Quest. The Receiver will pay fees approved by the Court which relate to Quest
from Quest’s assets and revenues. PDR started providing services for the Receivership on
January 22, 2009. PDR has billed time for these services in accordance with the Billing
Instructions. Because PDR’s work for the period covered by this motion could be allocated
to specific Receivership Entities and/or related entities, PDR has billed its time separately for
each entity and indicated the appropriate Activity Category for each time entry.9 Copies of

9

The Activity Categories that apply to PDR and Riverside as set forth in the Billing
Instructions for Financial Activities are as follows: (1) Accounting/Auditing, which is
defined as activities related to maintaining and auditing books of account, preparation of
financial statements and account analysis; (2) Business Analysis, which is defined as
preparation and review of company business plan; development and review of strategies;
preparation and review of cash flow forecasts and feasibility studies; (3) Corporate Finance,
which is defined as review financial aspects of potential mergers, acquisitions and disposition
of company or subsidiaries; (4) Data Analysis, which is defined as management information
systems review, installation and analysis, construction, maintenance and reporting of
significant case financial data, lease rejection, claims, etc.; (5) Status Reports, which is
defined as preparation and review of periodic reports as may be required by the Court;
(6) Litigation Consulting, which is defined as providing consulting and expert witness
services relating to forensic accounting, etc.; (7) Forensic Accounting, which is defined as
reconstructing books and records from past transactions and bringing accounting current,
tracing and sourcing assets; (8) Tax Issues, which is defined as analysis of tax issues and
preparation of state and federal tax returns; and (9) Valuation, which is defined as appraising
or reviewing appraisals of assets.

21

the statements summarizing the services rendered and costs incurred for the pertinent period
are attached as composite Exhibit 13. The total hours billed by each PDR professional and
their respective total amount of billing are set forth on composite Exhibit 13.

PDR’s

statements also include a summary of the total time spent on each relevant Activity Category
in connection with each Receivership Entity (or “project” as identified in the Billing
Instructions).

For a discussion of entities delineated in the statements, please refer to

Sections IV.A and IV.B of the Interim Report.
III.

E-Hounds, Inc.
The Receiver requests the Court award E-Hounds fees for professional services

rendered and costs incurred for the eight months from August 1, 2016, through March 31,
2017, in the amount of $195.00. All of these fees were incurred in connection with work
related to Quest. The Receiver will pay fees approved by the Court which relate to Quest
from Quest’s assets and revenues. E-Hounds is a computer forensics firm which assists the
Receiver in securing and analyzing electronic data. E-Hounds started providing services for
the Receivership on January 22, 2009. A copy of the statement summarizing the services
rendered and costs incurred for the pertinent period is attached as Exhibit 14.
IV.

The RWJ Group, LLC.
The Receiver requests the Court award RWJ fees for professional services rendered

and costs incurred for the eight months from August 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017, in the
amount of $9,603.46. Of this amount, $2,938.41 was incurred in connection with work and
costs related to Quest. As noted above, the Receiver will pay fees and costs approved by the
Court which relate to Quest from Quest’s assets and revenues. RWJ, which is owned and

22

operated by Roger Jernigan, is an asset manager for the Receivership Entities. Mr. Jernigan
assists the Receiver with overseeing ongoing business operations and property recovered by
the Receiver, including aiding with efforts to sell such businesses and property. His efforts
are designed to ensure that Receivership assets are maintained and/or enhanced to allow for
maximum recovery for the Receivership estate. RWJ started providing services for the
Receivership on February 1, 2010. Copies of the statements summarizing the services
rendered and costs incurred for the pertinent period are attached as composite Exhibit 15.
V.

Miscellaneous Others.
To assist with the protection and recovery of assets in a bankruptcy proceeding

initiated by Vernon Lee, the Receiver determined that it would be in the Receivership’s best
interest to retain the services of counsel specializing in bankruptcy law. The Receiver also
determined it would be beneficial to use this same firm to assist with the Wells Fargo matter
as it related to its claims against certain property. Accordingly, the Receiver requests the
Court award Stichter, Riedel, Blain & Prosser P.A. (“Stichter Riedel”) fees and costs for
professional services rendered and costs incurred for the eight months from August 1, 2016
through March 31, 2017, in the amounts of $9,861.00 and $7.28, respectively. Copies of the
statements summarizing the services rendered and costs incurred for the pertinent period are
attached as composite Exhibit 16.
To assist with regulatory matters involving Quest and the Texas Railroad
Commission, the Receiver determined that it would be helpful and more cost-effective to
retain the services of Texas counsel specializing in oil and gas regulation. Accordingly, the
Receiver requests the Court award Scott Douglass & McConnico, L.L.P. (“Scott Douglass”)

23

fees and costs for professional services rendered and costs incurred for the eight months from
August 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017, in the amounts of $4,653.00 and $9.22,
respectively to be paid by Quest.

Copies of the statements summarizing the services

rendered and costs incurred for the pertinent period are attached as composite Exhibit 17.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
It is well settled that this Court has the power to appoint a receiver and to award the
receiver and those appointed by him fees and costs for their services. See, e.g., SEC v. Elliott,
953 F.2d 1560 (11th Cir. 1992) (receiver is entitled to compensation for faithful performance
of his duties); Donovan v. Robbins, 588 F. Supp. 1268, 1272 (N.D. Ill. 1984) (“[T]he
receiver diligently and successfully discharged the responsibilities placed upon him by the
Court and is entitled to reasonable compensation for his efforts.”); SEC v. Custable, No. 94C-3755, 1995 WL 117935 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 15, 1995) (receiver is entitled to fees where work
was of high quality and fees were reasonable); SEC v. Mobley, No. 00-CV-1316, 1317RCC,
2000 WL 1702024 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2000) (court awarded reasonable fees for the receiver
and his professionals); see also (Doc. 8, Order Appointing Receiver, at p. 14).

The

determination of fees to be awarded is largely within the discretion of the trial court. See
Monaghan v. Hill, 140 F.2d 31, 34 (9th Cir. 1944). In determining reasonable compensation
for the services rendered by the Receiver and his Professionals, the Court should consider the
circumstances surrounding the receivership. See Elliot, 953 F.2d at 1577.
Here, because of the nature of this case, it was necessary for the Receiver to employ
attorneys and accountants experienced and familiar with financial frauds, federal
receiverships, securities laws, banking, finance, and trusts and estates. Further, in order to

24

perform the services required and achieve the results obtained to date, the skills and
experience of the Receiver and the Professionals in the areas of fraud, securities, computer
and accounting forensics, and financial transactions were indispensable.
As discussed above, the Receiver and WGK have discounted their normal and
customary rates as an accommodation to the Receivership and to conserve Receivership
assets. The rates charged by the attorneys and paralegals are at or below those charged by
attorneys and paralegals of comparable skill from other law firms in the Middle District of
Florida.
This case has been time-intensive for the Receiver and his Professionals because of
the need to resolve many issues rapidly and efficiently. The attached Exhibits detail the time,
nature and extent of the professional services rendered by the Receiver and his Professionals
for the benefit of investors, creditors, and other interested parties. The Receiver anticipates
that additional funds will be obtained through the Receiver’s negotiations or litigation with
third parties.
Although the Commission investigated and filed the initial pleadings in this case, the
Receiver has assumed the primary responsibility for the investigation and forensic analysis of
the events leading to the commencement of the pending lawsuits, the efforts to locate and
gather investors’ money, the determination of investor and creditor claims and any ultimate
payment of these claims.

While the Receiver is sensitive to the need to conserve the

Receivership Entities’ assets, he feels that the fees and costs expended to date were
reasonable, necessary, and benefited the Receivership. Notably, the Commission has no
objection to the relief sought in this motion. Custable, 1995 WL 117935, *7 (“In securities

25

law receiverships, the position of the SEC in regard to the awarding of fees will be given
great weight.”).
CONCLUSION
Under the terms and conditions of the Order Appointing Receiver, the Receiver,
among other things, is authorized, empowered, and directed to engage professionals to assist
him in carrying out his duties and obligations. The Order further provides that he apply to
the Court for authority to pay himself and his Professionals for services rendered and costs
incurred. In exercising his duties, the Receiver has determined that the services rendered and
their attendant fees and costs were reasonable, necessary, advisable, and in the best interest
of the Receivership.
WHEREFORE, Burton W. Wiand, the Court-appointed Receiver, respectfully
requests that this Court (1) award the following sums and direct that payment be made from
the Receivership assets:
Burton W. Wiand, Receiver
Wiand Guerra King P.A.
James, Hoyer, Newcomer &Smiljanich, P.A.
PDR Certified Public Accountants
RWJ Group, LLC
Stichter Riedel Blain & Postler, P.A.

$8,855.00
$39,265.96
$30,469.70
$21,193.49
$6,665.05
$9,868.28

and (2) further awards the following sums and direct that payment be made from Quest’s
assets and revenues:10
Burton W. Wiand, Receiver
Wiand Guerra King P.A.
PDR Certified Public Accountants
RWJ Group, LLC
E-Hounds, Inc.
10

A proposed order is attached as Exhibit 18.

26

$11,690.00
$75,283.48
$8,428.75
$2,938.41
$195.00

Scott Douglass McConnico LLP

$4,662.22

LOCAL RULE 3.01(g) CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL
The undersigned counsel for the Receiver is authorized to represent to the Court that
the SEC has no objection to the Court’s granting this motion.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 3, 2017, I electronically filed the
foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system.
s/Michael S. Lamont
Michael S. Lamont, FBN 0527122
Email: [e-mail]
WIAND GUERRA KING P.A.
5505 West Gray Street
Tampa, FL 33609
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorney for the Receiver Burton W. Wiand

27

RECEIVER’S CERTIFICATION
The Receiver has reviewed this Twenty-Second Interim Motion for Order Awarding
Fees, Costs, and Reimbursement of Costs to Receiver and His Professionals (the “Motion”).
To the best of the Receiver’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after
reasonable inquiry, the Motion and all fees and expenses herein are true and accurate and
comply with the Billing Instructions provided to the Receiver by the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
All fees contained in the Motion are based on the rates listed in the Fee Schedule,
attached as Exhibit 7. Such fees are reasonable, necessary, and commensurate with (if not
below the hourly rate that is commensurate with) the skill and experience required for the
activity performed.
The Receiver has not included in the amount for which reimbursement is sought the
amortization of the cost of any investment, equipment, or capital outlay (except to the extent
that any such amortization is included within the permitted allowable amounts set forth in the
Billing Instructions for photocopies and facsimile transmission).
To the extent the Receiver seeks reimbursement for any service which the Receiver
justifiably purchased or contracted for from a third party (such as copying, imaging, bulk
mail, messenger service, overnight courier, computerized research, or title and lien searches),
the Receiver has requested reimbursement only for the amount billed to the Receiver by the
third-party vendor and/or paid by the Receiver to such vendor. The Receiver is not making a
profit on such reimbursable service.
s/Burton W. Wiand
Burton W. Wiand, as Receiver