IBJNews

Fair Finance investors object to Brizzi settlement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A group of Fair Finance Co. investors are objecting to a settlement the company’s bankruptcy trustee reached with former Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi, arguing that the deal might extricate Brizzi from lawsuits they’ve filed against him.

Under the deal filed Nov. 21 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Akron, Ohio, Brizzi agreed to pay the trustee $195,881—by far the largest settlement with a politician who received campaign contributions from Fair Finance’s CEO, indicted Indianapolis financier Tim Durham.

But an attorney for the investors on Thursday filed an objection to the settlement, charging that Trustee Brian Bash’s proposed compromise with Brizzi, a former director of Fair Finance, could prevent them from “having their day in court.”

To recover their lost investments, the group has filed claims against Fair Finance and its affiliated entities, as well as various officers and directors, including Brizzi, for violations of Ohio securities laws.

The trustee since early 2010 has been trying to recover money for Fair Finance’s investors—Ohio residents who purchased unsecured certificates with interest rates as high as 9.5 percent. Bash alleges Durham “utterly looted” Akron-based Fair after buying it in 2002, stripping the business of the financial wherewithal to repay more than 5,000 investors who are owed more than $200 million.

The lawsuits the investors have filed against Brizzi are separate from the settlement agreement, a point their lawyer emphasizes in the objection in which the investors are referred to as the “Wayne County litigants.”

“The broad language in [Bash’s] proposed settlement agreement could be construed to release [Brizzi] from all claims, including the Wayne County litigants’ claims,” their lawyer wrote in the objection. “This would prevent the Wayne County litigants from having their day in court with respect to their claims against Brizzi for his role in the sale of the Fair Finance investment certificates and his role as a director of Fair Finance.”

The investors argue that Bash lacks the authority to release Brizzi from pending litigation and that doing so would be unfair because the proposed settlement does not require Brizzi to compensate any investors for his alleged liability as a director of Fair Finance.

Bash’s settlement with Brizzi calls for the Brizzi for Prosecutor Committee to repay all $170,881 donated by Durham, Fair Finance and affiliated companies.

In addition, Bash alleged that Fair Finance and Durham provided Brizzi with personal loans and financial assistance totaling $55,735 for trips and miscellaneous expenses. Brizzi disputed the amount, according to the settlement, but agreed to pay $25,000.

Brizzi didn’t seek re-election in 2010 following criticism over his ties to Durham, a friend who served as his 2006 campaign finance chairman. Brizzi now is in private law practice.

Durham and two business partners, James Cochran and Rick Snow, were arrested in March after being indicted on 12 felony counts, including conspiracy to commit wire and securities fraud. They deny wrongdoing.

More of IBJ's coverage of Durham and Fair Finance can be found here.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Who Is The Crook?
    Who is the Crook- or are they All Crooks?
    Wearing a Tie (or Not)- these guys all stink like a four-day old dead fish.
  • Shame
    Carl Brizzi is a thug, that's right "thug" the only difference is he wears a suit and tie. He and Charlie White should both be serving time with Plowman.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT