Securities and Exchange Commission v. Nadel et al

Filing 41

AFFIDAVIT of Roger Wright Jernigan re: #39 Response in opposition to motion in Support of Opposition to Motion to Modify Order Appointing Receiver by Burton W. Wiand. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D)(Nelson, Carl)

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Nadel et al

Doc. 41

lJNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAM1)A lUVlSiON

Plaintiff,

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

Defendants,
SCOOP REAL ESTATE, L.P. VALHALLA INVESTMENT PARTNERS, L.P., VALHALLA MANAGEMENT,

VlCTOR1' IRA FUN, LTD,
VICTORY FUND, LTD,

VIKING IRA F . C,

V'I' IG ,." . K ' ' FUND.' .
VJKlNGMANA

ER WRIGHT JERN AN IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO
TO MODIFY ORD :., APPOINTING RECEIVER

)

COUNTY OF SARASOTA
the undersigiied authority, personally appeared Roger Wright Jerhigaii, who

being duly sworn, states
1.

I

the General Manager of Venice Jet
of the facts

LLC (the "FacUlty"). I. havt:
of age and competent

personal knowledge

I

Mel authorized to

tf
Dockets.Justia.com

2. I understand that this Affidavit is being submitted in Opposition to the Motion to

Modify Order Appointing Receiver and Memorandum Law (the '~Motion to MoGlffy") which
deuiands that Receiver inunediatcly "turn over possession" of Cessna Model 550, Serial

Number N153TH (the "Cessna"; and Lear Jet Model 31 A-13 i,

Jet") (collectively the "Aircraft").

are attached hereto as Composite
documentation evidencing Mr, Galuska's initial type rating

Exhibit H A."

The Airraft are cuncntly secure at the Facility and housed imüde of a hangar
under my supervision. Both Aircmft are located in the same sec'.ire hangar. The only individuals

cunent

2

in

flght time, I regularly removie the Aircraft from the

hangar and pers'Ûtially operate the

the äpprox.imátely every fourteen (14)

days.
9. With respect to Maint-enance Service Plan C'MSP") Gold (the

applicable to the Lear Jet, ¡he Plan is not immediately "subject :0 cancellation, at a tremendous
potential

loss to the Secured Parties" as alleged in the Lenders' Motion. On the contrary, even if

the Aircraft were not operated regularly, meaSures to reinstate Plan can be taken requiring

10. The Smar Part Policy referenced in the

Motion to

2008 and was renewed since the Smart Policy only covered payment for parts and was not

13.

Aircraft is ci.irrently on 135 charter service. The Cessna has never been

on charter service. If the Receiver directed me to return the Lear Jet to revenue service, it is my

3

¡ifl

Approved Aircraft Inspection Program, which foHo\'\'S the

manufacturer exactly, is stil approved and would be acceptable to Fair Wind upon
returning the Lear Jet to Fair Wind's certificate. A true and correct copy of conespondence from

Fair is attached hereto as
Ex1iibit "C."
14. is a lìcensed FAA airplane dealer (Ceititlcate J11l1ber D003097,
In conjunction with my efforts to identify

a potential buyer for

the Aircraft for the Ret.:eiver to explore methods of generating additional revenue, i learned

that a prospective who Was negotiating an offer to purchase the Lear Jet now intends to

a\vait the resolution of the Lenders' legal efforts to obtain possession the Aircraft in an
attempt to pmchase the Aircraft at a lower price directly from the Lenders.

It is my understanding that the Lenders already have a significant inventory of
approximutely 100 ttlrcralt currently listed for sale.

1/

1+

tt

tt
If

4

if

16. 1n the alternative, if the Aircraft are not sold, based on my past experience, the

Lear can placed into revenue service with Fair Wind and wil generate revenue above and

beyond thefixed ànd variable costs of the Aircraft.
FUL1her your Affant sayeth not.

..'-'"

SWO!'''lô AJll SUBSCfUED befote'l1é tbis 1 Otb'day OfFt\ai~'~09' by

Rog Wright Jllign. He is personally knowu to me or has produced ¡i/f

~

5

fr