IBJNews

Fair Finance trustee sues Dan Laikin for $19M

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Fair Finance Co. bankruptcy trustee has sued Carmel businessman Dan Laikin, saying he used his position as a Fair director to borrow more than $19 million from the company that he now must pay back.

The suit, filed late Friday in northern Ohio, is the first major legal move by Fair Trustee Brian Bash to untangle the morass of related-party loans that propelled the Akron, Ohio-based company into insolvency. By last year, the suit says, Fair “had been utterly looted through insider loans.”

The case represents another setback for Laikin, the former CEO of Los Angeles-based National Lampoon Inc., who pleaded guilty last fall to manipulating the stock price of that company and is awaiting sentencing.

Laikin, 48, is a longtime friend of Fair co-owner and CEO Tim Durham, an Indianapolis businessman who’s the target of criminal securities fraud probe. Laikin served as director of Fair Finance, a consumer-loan company, from 2006 to 2009.

During that time, the suit says, Laikin “used his insider status to obtain loans ... on commercially unreasonable terms and without formalities,” such as legally posting the assets he pledged as collateral. As a result, according to the suit, Laikin was able to use those assets as collateral to other creditors.

An attorney for Laikin could not be reached Tuesday. Trustee Bash, a partner in the Cleveland law firm Baker & Hostetler, was not available for comment.

Records filed with securities regulators show Durham used Fair like a personal bank after buying it in 2002, with money flowing to support an ostentatious lifestyle, friends and business associates, as well as other companies he owned.

Related-party loans now top $168 million and represent the primary asset available to pay Ohio residents who purchased more than $200 million in unsecured investment certificates from Fair. Fair in November halted payments on the certificates, which were supposed to pay interest rates as high as 9.5 percent.

Records show Fair Finance lent to its parent, Fair Holdings, which in turn lent to DC Investments, a holding company jointly owned by Durham and Indianapolis businessman Jim Cochran. DC Investments, known as DCI, then issued tens of millions of dollars in loans, many of them to insiders.

“Fair Holdings and DCI essentially used [Fair Finance] as a cash cow to personally enrich the owners and other insiders and affiliates,” the trustee’s lawsuit says. It notes that Fair Finance “generally did not collect regular payments on loans to its parent companies, not even interest,” and took no steps to seize collateral on insider loans.

The Laikin loans technically came from DCI, though the three firms “are so entangled that they are one and the same company,” the trustee says in court papers. He said he soon will be filing papers to fold Fair Holdings and DCI into Fair Finance’s bankruptcy case.

Even though that hasn’t happened yet, Bash said in court papers that he decided to move forward with the Laikin suit to assert Fair Finance’s security interest in a Los Angeles home that Laikin has listed for sale for $8.99 million.

Laikin, brother of Brightpoint Inc. CEO Bob Laikin, also posted stock held in one of Durham’s investment accounts as collateral, according to the suit. The bulk of that collateral is Brightpoint Inc. stock worth $1.7 million.

Durham, 47, has denied doing anything wrong. His attorneys say in court filings that Fair Finance provided prospective purchasers of Fair's investment certificates offering circulars that disclosed insider loans and other risks.

However, investigators are trying to build a case that Durham duped investors. In a court filing late last year, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Indianapolis alleged Durham was operating a Ponzi scheme, using money from the sale of new investment certificates to pay off prior purchasers.



 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing

ADVERTISEMENT