Securities and Exchange Commission v. Nadel et al

Filing 980

MOTION to modify Order Disallowing Claim by Elendow LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit in Support of Claimant Ellendow, LLC's Motion for Reconsideration of Cliam, # 2 Affidavit in Support of Claimant Elendwo LLC's Motion to Modify Oder Disallowing Claim)(Bleil, Joshua)

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; and 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.
____________________________________/

BURTON W. WIAND, as Receiver for
Valhalla Investment Partners, L.P.;
Viking Fund, LLC; Viking IRA Fund, LLC;
Victory Fund, Ltd., Victory IRA Fund, LTD,
and Scoop Real Estate, L.P.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Related Case No. 8:10-cv-092-17MAP

DANCING $, LLC.,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
DECLARATION OF PHILIP STILLMAN IN SUPPORT OF CLAIMANT ELENDOW
LLC’S MOTION TO MODIFY ORDER DISALLOWING CLAIM

I, Philip H. Stillman, state under oath the following facts:
1.

I am counsel for Elendow, LLC and have been defendant Dancing $, LLC’s

counsel in the above-captioned related action, a member of the state bars of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts and California in good standing, and admitted pro hac vice in the related
action. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, and if called as a witness, I could
and would testify competently to them.
2.

On or about December 10, 2009, Dancing $ received a letter from the Receiver

dated December 4, 2009, stating that Dancing $ had received $107,172.11 in “false profits” from
the funds and demanded that it be repaid. After providing me with a copy of that letter, I spoke
with Michael Lamont, counsel for the Receiver, and among other things, explained that through
Elendow, the members of Dancing $ were “net losers,” rather then net winners, and gave Mr.
Lamont the specific amounts.
3.

In an effort to head off litigation, I offered a tolling agreement to Mr. Lamont and

I also agreed to have my client provide detailed spreadsheets for Mr. Lamont, showing the
members of Dancing $, their percentage of the alleged distribution, the dollar amount of the
alleged “false profits” that their percentage ownership in Dancing $ represented, their percentage
in Elendow, and the actual dollar amount of each Dancing $ member’s investment. A true and
correct copy of my emails to Mr. Lamont on February 9 and February 12, 2010 are attached
hereto as Exhibit 1.
4.

Those spreadsheets were provided by Dancing $ to Mr. Lamont in late February

2010. Those spreadsheets were also reproduced to Mr. Lamont in discovery in Wiand v. Dancing
$, LLC, Case. No. 10-cv-0092. Copies of the Excel Spreadsheets produced to Mr. Lamont are
-1-

attached hereto the as Exhibit 2.
5.

After the complaint was filed on January 13, 2010, this court issued an order dated

February 10, 2010 directing that no responses be filed at that time pending mediation. Mr.
Lamont forwarded a courtesy copy of this Order to me. The next action taken in the case was
when the Receiver contacted me via email on July 27, 2010 regarding the need to mediate the
case. Thus, as of July 2010, the Receiver clearly believed that I was representing Dancing $,
even though I had not yet filed an appearance in the case. Mr. Lamont also knew, through my
communications with him that I represented Elendow, LLC, and knew exactly the relationship
between Elendow and Dancing $ both from my communications with him directly and from the
Excel spreadsheets that had been produced to him earlier
6.

At some time during the summer of 2010, Mr. Waldman apparently received a

notice from the Receiver regarding the need to file a Proof of Claim with the Receiver regarding
Elendow prior to September 2, 2010. I did not receive either a copy of this notice nor did I
receive any type of informal notice from the Receiver’s counsel.
7.

Although the Receiver’s counsel had contacted me regarding arranging a

mediation, I was unable to reach my client to discuss the matter because Mr. Waldman was
traveling in Russia. However, on September 27, 2010, I received a panicked telephone call from
Mr. Waldman, who is the manager of both Elendow and Dancing $, LLC, telling me about some
sort of notice that Elendow was supposed to have filed some sort of claim on or before
September 2, 2010. Mr. Waldman further stated that he had just seen the notice with a huge
stack of mail when he had returned to his house. A true and correct copy of Mr. Waldman’s
September 27, 2010 email to me is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
-2-

8.

Mr. Waldman asked me whether I had filed the Elendow claim for it, because he

believed that I was receiving all notices from the Receiver dealing with Dancing $ and Elendow.
I explained that I was not receiving any notices regarding Elendow and had no knowledge of
either the claims bar date or the notice that he had received. Based on our discussion, Mr.
Waldman immediately completed the Claim and sent it overnight mail to the Receiver.
9.

On February 2, 2011, I received a January 21, 2011 Motion for Entry of Clerk’s

Default in Wiand v. Dancing $, LLC. I then obtained local counsel and appeared for Dancing $
in the action on February 11, 2011. After its Motion to Dismiss was denied, Dancing $ filed an
Answer, asserting as an affirmative defense that Dancing $ was in reality a “net loser,” given that
86% of it’s members had not only reinvested their distributions back into the Funds though
Elendow, but lost substantially more
10.

In or about April 2011, I learned from Mr. Waldman that the Receiver requested

further information on the Elendow claim, specifically asking why Elendow’s claim was filed 27
days late.
11.

On or about July 8, 2011, Mr. Stillman spoke with Gianluca Morello, another of

the Receiver’s attorneys, regarding scheduling issues in Wiand v. Dancing $. During that
conversation, I mentioned the letter that Mr. Waldman had received regarding the Elendow
claim. Mr. Morello gave me the name and telephone number of the attorney handling the claims
issues for the Receiver at that time, Maya Lockwood, and I contacted her soon afterwards
regarding the Elendow claim.
12.

In that conversation, I explained that I was calling on behalf of Elendow, LLC

regarding its late claim. I explained to Ms. Lockwood that Mr. Waldman had been out of the
-3-

country and had wrongly thought that I was being noticed on matters pertaining to Elendow and
was therefore taking care of any administrative tasks for Elendow. Ms. Lockwood stated that
there were no plans yet to make any distribution and there had not yet been a decision by the
Receiver regarding the treatment of late claims.
13.

I assumed that it was now common knowledge that I was representing Elendow,

given my several discussions with Mr. Lamont and then Ms. Lockwood. However, on August
11, 2011, I also wrote a letter to the Receiver’s law firm, “Attn: Claims Dept.” again setting forth
the reason for the late filing, and I mailed it to the firm by U.S. Mail by placing it in the U.S.
Post Office box on that date in Cardiff, California. A copy of the letter is attached hereto as
Exhibit 4.
14.

I received nothing further from the Receiver’s counsel regarding Elendow,

although the Receiver requested discovery from Dancing $ concerning Dancing $’s affirmative
defenses regarding Dancing $’s claim of offset by the Elendow losses, to which Responses and
then Supplemental Responses were served on April 10, 2012.
15.

On or about October 1, 2012, the parties arranged to hold a mediation on October

19, 2012, pursuant to this Court’s order to mediate all cases. As I was discussing settlement of
the Dancing $ litigation with Mr. Lamont, I casually asked Mr. Lamont about whether there
would be distributions from the Receiver, since that would have an effect on Dancing $’s
settlement proposal. For the first time, Mr. Lamont informed me that a distribution had been
made, and that Elendow’s claim had been denied, not allowed. He also told me that it was
denied because Elendow had never responded regarding why the claim had been filed late. I told
him that there must have been some mistake, because I personally had dealt with that issue over
-4-

a year ago.
16.

In any event, shortly thereafter, I spoke with Mr. Waldman and told him that the

Elendow claim had been denied. I asked him if he had received any communications from the
Receiver about Elendow, and I was told that the claim had been allowed. I told him to send me
whatever he had received.
17.

In response, I received a December 9, 2011 letter that I thought confirmed that the

Elendow claim had been allowed. A copy of the December 9, 2011 Letter is attached hereto as
Exhibit 5. ”
18.

Another letter that Mr. Waldman provided was a January 26, 2012 letter from the

Department of Justice, informing him that Elendow was entitled to $350,000 as restitution in
United States v. Nadel. Although as a lawyer, I was aware that there was a difference between
the restitution order and the allowance of Elendow’s claim, I had to explain to Mr. Waldman that
the restitution judgment was separate from Elendow’s claim in the Receivership.
19.

A copy of the DOJ Letter is attached to the Stillman Decl. as Exhibit 6.

20.

Although the December 9, 2011 Letter referenced a motion that the receiver had

filed that was available online, nothing in the letter indicated that the “allowed claim” was
actually a “denied claim” on the 22nd page of the Motion referenced in the letter. Therefore, from
a lay person’s perspective at least, there was nothing contained in the letter that would indicate to
Mr. Waldman that he needed to review a “motion.”
21.

Shortly before the mediation, and after discovering that Elendow’s claim had been

denied, I reviewed the Receiver’s Motion, which listed Elendow’s claim as “allowed” in the
amount of “$0.” In other words, the Receiver’s December 9, 2011 Letter to Elendow was
-5-

seriously misleading to a reasonable reader in stating that the claim was an “Allowed” claim, but
neglecting to say that the amount of the “allowed claim” was none.
22.

In the mediation, Dancing $ proposed that the alleged “false profits” received by

Dancing $ be offset against the $700,000 loss by Elendow and the Elendow claim be allowed.
After several discussions, that position was rejected. However, the Receiver’s motion for
summary judgment was then pending, and Dancing $ had asserted it’s affirmative defense that
one amount should fully offset the other. Ultimately, on November 29, 2012, after the
Thanksgiving holiday, the Magistrate issued his Report and Recommendation to this Court,
recommending that the Motion for summary judgment be granted. In particular, while
appreciating the equities involved, the Magistrate found as a matter of law that Dancing $ and
Elendow had to be treated as separate entities and could not offset the gains and losses.
23.

Dancing $ filed a timely objection to the Report, as did the Receiver. This Court

overruled both Objections and entered summary judgment for the Receiver on January 23, 2013.
Given the ruling that Dancing $ and Elendow had to be treated as totally separate entities, and
given that one of the grounds presented in support of denying Elendow’s claim was that the
members overlapped and the members of Elendow had received “false profits” from their
Dancing $ memberships, this motion was prepared.
I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Florida and the United
States that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed this 28th day of February, 2013 at Miami
Beach, Florida.

By:_________________________________
Philip H. Stillman
-6-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 1, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing document with
the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served
this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the attached Service List in the
manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF
or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to
receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.
Respectfully submitted, this 1st day of March, 2013.
/s/ Joshua Bleil
By:_____________________
Joshua Bleil
Florida Bar No. 11759
[e-mail]
THE TICKTIN LAW GROUP, P.A.
600 West Hillsboro Boulevard
Suite 220
Deerfield Beach, FL 33441-1610
[phone]
Fax [phone]

-7-

SERVICE LIST
Burton W. Wiand, et al. v. Dancing $, LLC
Case No.: 8:10-cv-092-17MAP
United States District Court/Middle District of Florida
Michael S. Lamont, Esquire
Wiand, Guerra, King, P.L.
[e-mail]
Counsel for Plaintiff/Receiver
BURTON W. WIAND
Served via CM/ECF

-8-

Exhibit 1

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Philip H. Stillman, Esq.
"[e-mail]"
Wiand v. Dancing$, LLC
Tuesday, February 09, 2010 6:05:00 PM

Mike, you and I and spoken several times about this case, culminating my agreement to give you a
tolling agreement so that you could see that all of the money received from Dancing $, LLC.  You
agreed to send me a tolling agreement via email and I gave you my email address.  You never did.  I
then called you twice to ask for it again and still never received the tolling agreement.  Now, I have
seen a copy of your complaint filed in the Middle District of Florida on PACER.  Since you have all of
the records from the various "funds," you can see and verify that Ellendow LLC re-invested
$92,989.97 of the "false profits" and never received any distribution making it a total loss.  Over
87% of the investors in Dancing $ are in Ellendow, the difference being $14,131.14 spread over 83
people.  Please dismiss this case against my client, or let me know precisely what information is
necessary for a dismissal.  Dancing $, LLC has no assets in any event and clearly had no knowledge
of any fraud.  Although I don't want to get into it at this point, personal jurisdiction over Dancing $,
LLC is dubious and will be challenged if we have to actually litigate this case.

Philip H. Stillman |  STILLMAN ▪ ASSOCIATES
508 Meadowmist Court | Suite B |
Olivenhain, CA 92024
V : 888.235.4279 | F : 888.235.4279
[e-mail] |
www.stillmanassociates.com  

NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential information and is intended only for the person(s)
named. Any use, copying or disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in
error, please delete this email and notify the sender via e-mail.

From:
To:
Cc:
Bcc:
Subject:
Date:

Philip H. Stillman, Esq.
"Michael Lamont"
"Gianluca Morello"
"Eric Narayan Waldman"
RE: Wiand v. Dancing$, LLC
Friday, February 12, 2010 10:12:00 PM

My client intends to execute the waiver of service.  My client is also preparing a tie-in spreadsheet
showing that all but $14, 131.14  of the allegedly "false profits" was reinvested by Ellendow by the
same people that participated in Dancing $, LLC.  However, we are providing this as an
accommodation.  If, after receiving this information, you do not dismiss my client, we will litigate
this case to resolution.  There will never be a payment made from Dancing $ to the receiver under
any circumstances, nor are there any funds with which to make such a payment, if Dancing $, LLC
had been so inclined, which it most certainly is not.   So if the information that is provided is
insufficient, see you in court.

Philip H. Stillman |  STILLMAN ▪ ASSOCIATES
508 Meadowmist Court | Suite B |
Olivenhain, CA 92024
V : 888.235.4279 | F : 888.235.4279
[e-mail] |
www.stillmanassociates.com  

NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential information and is intended only for the person(s)
named. Any use, copying or disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in
error, please delete this email and notify the sender via e-mail.

From: Michael Lamont [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 4:26 PM
To: Philip H. Stillman, Esq.
Cc: Gianluca Morello
Subject: RE: Wiand v. Dancing$, LLC

Philp:

Thank you for your email.   As we discussed, the Receiver does not have records illustrating that
Ellendow LLC “re-invested $92,989.97 of the ‘false profits’” from Dancing $.   Rather, the Receiver
has documents illustrating that Dancing $ invested a total of $675,000 and received $782,172.11 in
distributions.   Thus, it has a false profit of $107,172.11 and the Receiver has a court-imposed duty
to recover this amount from Dancing $.  Further, it appears that Ellendow deposited a total of
$700,000 (from December 2007 – August 2008) and did not receive any distributions.  Thus, based
upon the documents currently in the Receiver’s possession, it appears that it had a loss of
$700,000.           

I advised you that  Dancing $ and Ellendow are legally separate entities and there is no legal basis

to offset Ellendow’s losses against Dancing $’s gains.  You indicated to me, however, that some of
the investors that received monies from Dancing $ reinvested these dollars into Ellendow.  Based
upon your email below, you contend that this number is 87% and we are only talking about a
$14,131.14 difference in false profits with respect to 83 investors.   We previously discussed the
idea of your client providing documents to substantiate this claim, but none have been provided to
date.  You indicated that you would discuss this with your client again. 

We have sent your client a copy of the Complaint and Wavier of Service of Process.   As we
discussed, personal jurisdiction is proper here in the Middle District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C
754 and 1692, and the Receiver does not agree to dismiss the Complaint.  Please let me know if
you client is going to execute the Waiver.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Michael

From: Philip H. Stillman, Esq. [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 6:06 PM
To: Michael Lamont
Subject: Wiand v. Dancing$, LLC

Mike, you and I and spoken several times about this case, culminating my agreement to give you a
tolling agreement so that you could see that all of the money received from Dancing $, LLC.  You
agreed to send me a tolling agreement via email and I gave you my email address.  You never did.  I
then called you twice to ask for it again and still never received the tolling agreement.  Now, I have
seen a copy of your complaint filed in the Middle District of Florida on PACER.  Since you have all of
the records from the various "funds," you can see and verify that Ellendow LLC re-invested
$92,989.97 of the "false profits" and never received any distribution making it a total loss.  Over
87% of the investors in Dancing $ are in Ellendow, the difference being $14,131.14 spread over 83
people.  Please dismiss this case against my client, or let me know precisely what information is
necessary for a dismissal.  Dancing $, LLC has no assets in any event and clearly had no knowledge
of any fraud.  Although I don't want to get into it at this point, personal jurisdiction over Dancing $,
LLC is dubious and will be challenged if we have to actually litigate this case.

Philip H. Stillman |  STILLMAN ▪ ASSOCIATES
508 Meadowmist Court | Suite B |
Olivenhain, CA 92024
V : 888.235.4279 | F : 888.235.4279
[e-mail] |
www.stillmanassociates.com  

NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential information and is intended only for the person(s)
named. Any use, copying or disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in
error, please delete this email and notify the sender via e-mail.

Exhibit 2

FirstName
ONEness Project
ONEness Project
Christiane
Laakmann/
Beatrice
Andrew Laakmann
and Wendy
Laakmann
IRA Services /
Fremont Bank,
custodian FBO:
Martin
Toder Family
Kay & Tony
Dale W.
Jessipup Trust, U/A
05/04/95
James K.
Nancy

LastName
Endowment Fund
CHL Revocable Living Trust &
Agreement 12/15/99
Waldman
Co-Trustees of the Laakmann
Living Trust
dated August 21, 2002
Eric Waldman (IRA027169)
Whitmont
Trust
Rasch
Reiger

Kate Noble Trustee
Warner
Toder Trust
Barnett - as Trustees of the
William P. Barnett & Barnett Family Trust dated Aug.
Judith A.
30 2005
Peter & Judith
Reynolds
Dennis
Slonaker
Billie
Warford
IRA Services /
Fremont Bank,
custodian FBO:
Martin Whitmont (IRA030193)
Janet
Worthen
IRA Express Inc.
FBO
Margaret R. Jacoby #100163
IRA Express Inc.
FBO
Janis Estrada #100299
IRA Express Inc.
FBO
Ginger Lee IRA #100172
Steven J.
Gray
Ellen Fietz Hall &
Carl
Hall
IRA Services /
Fremont Bank,
custodian FBO:
Nancy Toder #IRA072321
Mark & Flay
Wahl
Joy
Moulton
Louise
Grout
Amy Bronstein
Revocable Trust Jan. 18 2005
IRA Express Inc.
FBO
Judith A. Barnett #100233
IRA Services /
Fremont Bank,
custodian FBO:
Billie Warford (IRA043023)
IRA Services /
Fremont Bank,
custodian FBO:
Amy Bronstein (IRA062637)
Margaret R
Jacoby
Cody
Sauer
Emil F. Fietz or
Ellen Fietz Hall

%ofD$12/31/07
10.78%
8.85%

1/24/08Dist$s
($280,399.74)
($230,202.61)

6.56%
5.97%

($170,484.35)
($155,314.58)

5.63%

($146,441.36)

5.33%
4.43%
3.71%
3.15%
3.01%

($138,693.59)
($115,262.24)
($96,596.01)
($81,806.37)
($78,375.77)

2.62%
2.16%
2.06%

($68,203.92)
($56,189.51)
($53,511.17)

2.00%
1.72%
1.65%
1.63%

($51,963.44)
($44,742.53)
($42,963.11)
($42,424.61)

1.51%
1.37%

($39,275.54)
($35,734.04)

1.33%

($34,716.11)

1.13%

($29,431.56)

1.12%
1.12%

($29,100.35)
($29,251.67)

1.03%

($26,671.87)

1.01%
0.73%
0.66%
0.57%
0.50%

($26,305.04)
($18,946.20)
($17,139.50)
($14,744.06)
($13,076.28)

0.49%

($12,628.10)

0.37%

($9,712.80)

0.34%
0.32%
0.28%
0.22%

($8,902.65)
($8,270.96)
($7,391.05)
($5,622.07)

The Samuel D. Lee
Trust
Ginger
IRA Express Inc.
FBO
Natalia
Ann Victoria
IRA Express Inc.
FBO
ONEness Project
IRA Services /
Fremont Bank,
custodian FBO:
Flay
Sarah M
Miriel
Kristina
Krupilnitskaya
IRA Services /
Fremont Bank,
custodian FBO:
Marty
IRA Services /
Fremont Bank,
custodian FBO:
Ginny & Russell
Eric & Natalia

Ginger Lee Trustee
Lee

0.15%
0.15%

($3,864.14)
($3,948.65)

Lauree E. Moss
Waldman
MacDonald

0.38%
0.10%
0.09%

($9,822.61)
($2,553.07)
($2,413.19)

Peter A. Reynolds IRA# 100245
The Tom Braveheart Fund

0.08%
0.07%

($2,067.59)
($1,856.51)

Kate Noble IRA061888
Wahl
Moulton
Waldman Trust; Eric Waldman
Trustee

0.07%
0.06%
0.06%

($1,697.67)
($1,548.55)
($1,542.46)

0.06%

($1,460.83)

Trustee: Natalia Krupilnitskaya

0.05%

($1,375.69)

Steve Gray #IRA049062
Podolsky

0.02%
0.02%

($594.62)
($563.26)

Martin E. Podolsky #IRA037680
Moulton
Waldman
TOTALS

0.02%
0.01%
0.00%

($528.78)
($334.50)
($85.60)

86.78%

($2,256,752.48)

Amount of full distribution to all 136 D$ accounts
% of 1/24/08 dist. given to D$ part./Elendow acct holders
Total Allegedly False Profits received by D$
Allegedly False Profits reinvested by same partners through Elendow Fund
Total not reinvested; distributed to 83 D$ only accounts

$2,600,621.66
86.78%
$107,121.11
$92,956.94
$14,164.17

Explanation:
Columns A&B
Column C
Column D
Column E
Column F
Column G

Shareholders in both Dancing $ LLC and Elendow Fund LLC
Dancing $ closed in November '07; capital account % of Dancing $ assets as of 12/31/07…and for all dist
Dancing $ did a pro rata cash distribution on 1/24/2008 totalling $2,600,621.66. All Nadel redemptions w
Actual $ distribution amounts for each member
Amount of Allegedly False Profits in the 1/24 distribution; calculated for each partner.
Elendow closed in December '08; capital account % of Elendow assets as of 12/31/08…and for all distribu
including the Nadel theft.
Amount of Nadel/Scoop loss for each partner

See totals in Row 54

#1
#2
#3
#4

IRA Services
Trust Company
Alternative acct name at Elendow:
CFBO:
Cody Sauer put his money with a lot more of his mother's, Jill Davis, in Marty Podolsky's Elendow accoun
Lauree Moss is married to Nancy Toder and had her money in Nancy's trust account at Elendow
Both Moulton children put their Dancing $ money in their mother's account, Joy Moulton at Elendow

$11,549.83
$9,482.18

10.70%
8.79%

EF$LostNadel
$74,873.08
$61,518.21

$7,022.35
$6,397.50

4.10%
6.34%

$28,695.90
$44,345.05

$6,032.00

5.99%

$41,942.80

$5,712.87
$4,747.72
$3,978.85
$3,369.65
$3,228.34

5.72%
4.42%
4.69%
3.12%
1.67%

$40,042.68
$30,966.47
$32,857.64
$21,810.52
$11,697.80

$2,809.36
$2,314.48
$2,204.16

2.18%
1.80%
3.02%

$15,278.90
$12,569.00
$21,139.85

$2,140.40
$1,842.97
$1,769.68
$1,747.49

1.54%
1.71%
1.65%
1.63%

$10,789.59
$11,954.87
$11,583.74
$11,400.22

$1,617.78
$1,471.91

1.61%
1.44%

$11,252.46
$10,092.57

$1,429.98

1.42%

$9,934.21

$1,212.30

1.20%

$8,430.73

$1,198.66
$1,204.89

1.19%
1.19%

$8,335.76
$8,324.53

$1,098.63

1.20%

$8,409.00

$1,083.52
$780.40
$705.99
$607.32
$538.62

1.09%
0.62%
0.78%
0.43%
0.74%

$7,604.08
$4,325.22
$5,492.34
$3,004.13
$5,174.13

$520.16

0.56%

$3,903.68

$400.08

0.81%

$5,677.94

$366.71
$340.69
$304.44
$231.58

0.40%
0.24%

$2,811.70
$1,712.35

Nadel"False"Profits %ofEF12/31/08

see #1

see #2
see #1

$159.17
$162.65

0.09%
0.04%

$618.39
$313.81

$404.60
$105.16
$99.40

0.11%
1.51%

$761.89
$10,602.30

$85.17
$76.47

0.10%
0.07%

$683.16
$515.78

$69.93
$63.79
$63.53

0.08%
0.09%

$554.60
$617.89

$60.17

0.02%

$151.46

$56.67

0.02%

$151.46

$24.49
$23.20

0.03%
1.09%

$229.92
$7,600.51

$21.78
$13.78
$3.53
$92,956.94

0.62%

$4,347.45

0.68%
88.55%

$4,743.33
$619,843.11

see #3

see #4

see #4

4.12% % of 1/24/08 dist.that was Nadel "false" profits
profits

of 12/31/07…and for all distributions thereafter
6. All Nadel redemptions were included in this distribution.

12/31/08…and for all distributions/losses/adjustments thereafter;

Carl Hall
(IRA054604)
Podolsky's Elendow account
ccount at Elendow
y Moulton at Elendow

Exhibit 3

From: Eric Narayan Waldman [ mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 11:46 AM
To: Philip H. Stillman, Esq.
Subject: Scoop/Wiand/Elendow Proof of Claim
Phil,
I hope you're well.
I came home to go thru old paperwork and found the Scoop claim forms from Wiand and I see I didn't
file a Proof of Claim, due by 9/2/2010 for Elendow (where we lost the 700k)....I hoping that either you
did or that our correspondence with them re the whole mess constitutes a claim or allows us some sort
of continuance?
Eric

.

Exhibit 4

STILLMAN & ASSOCIATES
2540 MANCHESTER AVENUE

CARDIFF, CALIFORNIA 92007
TELEPHONE [phone]
FACSIMILE [phone]
e-mail [e-mail]
Skype phstillman

PHILIP H. STILLMAN
ALSO ADMITTED IN MASSACHUSETTS

August 11, 2011
VIA U.S. MAIL
Claims Dept.
Wiand Guerra King, LLP
3000 Bayport Drive, Suite 600
Tampa, FL 33607
Re:

Nadel Receivership/Elendow Claim

Dear Sir/Madam:
I represent Elendow, LLC, a claimant in the Wiand Receivership. I am responding to
correspondence from your office regarding a late claim filed by my client. Please be advised that,
as I understand it, the claim was sent to you approximately 26 days after the Claims Bar Date. The
reason for the late claim was twofold. First, the manager of my client was out of the country when
the claim was supposed to have been filed. Second, because I represent the manager in connection
with another related case and have regular contact with your firm in connection with the related case,
my client assumed that I was receiving all notices and was responsible for any filings that were
necessary. When he discovered the Claim form and learned that I had no knowledge of it, he
immediately completed it and sent it to your firm. Accordingly, Elendow requests that the short
delay in getting the claim form to you be overlooked.
Very truly yours,
STILLMAN & ASSOCIATES

By:
Philip H. Stillman, Esq.
PHS:np

Exhibit 5

'!V.
BURTON WIAND,RDCDIVDR
-!h
.srC v. lflhrt \ad"l, ct at.,ct c Nu.8:0q-cv-87-t I B\4
United
Sbres
Dkhi.t Cour, Middl€Disiricr
orFtorid!

AccountNane:Elcndow
Fund,
ILC

I m wiiting 1oyou as the Conrt-aFpoinled
Receiverin thc abole maner. On Dcccmber
7. 2011, I liied a Motior to (l) ApproveDelemrnmriotr pnoity of Clains. {2) lool
dd
Receive$hip
Asseh md Liabililies,(3) Appllvc Plan ol Dislibuiion. md (4) Esrlblish
Objedion PrcccdureCne 'Motion"). A copy of this Motion is available on my \€bsite at
rs,..rdcl..,
rr ur'.l ro'dc'.dh" J..res lrr'bi
\o'nq!oi1. v /
Guraat (813):14?
5121lo €quesia copyofLheMotion. Thc Coudha nol yet el]tenda nLlins
or lhe Mdrion. The Coun nay sol a hc! rs on the ltotion bef.ft issuins a decGion. you aF
selconle to lnend llh hcadng.bul your aftendorcch not requircdro pr€scnc your.ldinr or aDy
objection you nay nave 1othe deremimrion of your ctann. If the Conn se$ a heains. I Rilt
pNride lolic. oflhe hedins onny wcbsile.Il is yourFsDonsibitirylo
donitorthh {cbsite il'
you sould like 10klrowwheticra hedi.g n setnr tlrh Darcr. tflouaF un.bleto do so,you
ndv,,idt V

C'F odi,'

..

.'p,

.ole.ad'Ac','

'ro

ninimize dre dGclosureof chinratrts nnancial afans. i assi$ed cach accounr!
, d n ' r b . m r l e -r b l i J , r
,l La.,
L e- . o ! ' a r or J , ! , J L . t \ \ ro r
e' rJ The claim bunb.r for rhc rbore rccounrn ( lsin .{umbcr 453. \,tr '. uri ,er.t,
ddte.nination of your clainr is set fofth in the Exhi6iis a dchedto the l,lotion and is addF$ed nl
the body ofrle Motion. My Econrmended
dctcrminationol you clatu will include!D Allowcd
Anrounr. Thc ^llowed Amount h the mount to which t hal€ dereunined retevantclain is
fie
entnled. lno AlloBed Amornt. ho*clcr is not indic.tiveofthc m.unr lou nav ultimdely
rcccivc. Ra$er I baaeprcposcd c&h investor
that
clainml holdinsan auoNed
claitr wnh a
I Allhough no Eceivoshit enlnies
naintained scparare
rnle$or accouns, the turtrored
stateDenls created disrribured
lhey
md
Efercd to tctiiiols'accou s.:i ForcaseotefeEnce.l
!se{l fie lern 'accounf ir dre Nlotion md its Exhibils 0llhoueh no such &counh rctually

positive Allow€d ,^monntlllimtely

receivea pcMniage of rheir Allowed Amout on a po rar!

I \ r \ e a l s p n r . , e J J p r o . e d mr \ r or g t r t

, ) o ' i . l l I o \ e the opponmityto dhpute
ny delerminalion
olyou clatu. Iftne Counapproves procedrc r hareproposed, vill
the
you
bercquired seNeon ne a winei objection
to
wnhin twenq/daysof lhe datelbat I mail you a
lener inlbmiDs you of the coudi Oder on rh€ Morion. You do
deletuinalion ofvou clain nntil aftq a Courtruline on rhe Morion.
In dreMotion, I hare alsost fonh a proposed
ple ofdisdturion which contenplatesm
inlerin disnibution ro be nade on a !rc rata basisdd subjecr10cenain exceprions
discused in
the Motion. At this rine md ll the Cour sranismy Molion i. irs entneq/,I uticipate & i.him
dislibuiion ofat least $18 Diuion. Ii is ny hopeto sek the Couris pernission lor Lhisinrernn
dislibutiotr shortiy lter lhe obje.tion !*iod sel lo h above and in the Modon has passed.
Howevr, ny plans for an interin dislribution may be delayedby dy objectionsrahich nay bc
made to ny clonr dereminations or plan of disrribution. In addirion, lhe amout of your
recovery (if you havc an allored clain with a losilive Allorved Amoun0 vill dependon ttre
outcone of my possibleobjectionsI reccivcduing the objeclionprocess.
I have rded ro nake the claiDs pro€ss as sinple and uinnnsive as lossible. I have
cdetully considcred
eachclain andbelicve ihat all clannsbavebeenaforded fiir a(] equilable
lleaincnr. My goal. of couN, h to traimize dre anounr of disdburions 1o victinizcd
invesloE wilh Allowed Clains. Ifyou have any quesrionsor Nish ro infonally discLEs
your
clain deteminarion.
please
feel liee io call or cnail rordanD. Mlslich at (813) t47 5115.
jmaglich@wiandla{.cotr.

?g-r.D*9

Exhibit 6

UnitedsraresAitoney s Off@
southemD slrict of NawYo*

Re:
Case
Numbr200sR00125
and

hounr $350 00io
of
o0o

Elendow LLc.Whire cou
Fund
rhe
bedisllibutedby|Mc|eAollheUnLledslalasDislddcoud'|lisyourE
rh3cbd( s offce advsedoranyaddress
ohanqes

em(vNS)w6w cod nuero prcvide
366DOI rvo!. .soo.rb5.963iaddiion, mayuserhecal cent
you
cuffent
emaI address, w
VNS
notificatonsiisyo[rcsrisibi|ityl

rcm4 m turredyonia Nd n vNs

ficat proq€m.tyou !pdaleyourc
on