IBJNews

Much of trustee’s suit against Fair Finance lenders dismissed

Scott Olson
November 12, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Fair Finance Co.'s investors have been dealt a blow by a federal judge who dismissed a bankruptcy trustee's lawsuit against one of the company’s deep-pocketed lenders.

Trustee Brian Bash in February sued Fair’s lenders—Rhode Island-based Textron Financial Corp. and New York-based Fortress Credit Corp.—seeking up to $1.2 billion in actual and treble damages.

The suit charged the companies turned a blind eye to Fair CEO Tim Durham’s fraudulent activities because they were making millions of dollars on their lending relationship and held first liens on the only Fair assets with real value.

It accused the two companies, which have billions in assets, of aiding and abetting theft, fraud and insiders’ breaches of fiduciary duty.

But Judge Patricia A. Gaughan of the Northern District of Ohio’s Eastern Division said in her ruling Friday that Fair Finance is at least “equally” responsible for the harm to investors, and she dismissed the claims against Textron.

“Textron need only show that [Fair Finance] is at least as culpable as Textron,” the judge wrote. “Textron need not establish that it is less culpable.”

Regarding Fortress, the judge dismissed some counts against it and ruled that the trustee cannot collect treble damages because the  company did not commit a criminal act of damage to property, or theft.

It's not clear whether Bash intends to appeal the ruling. He and his attorneys were not immediately available for comment.

Without a big recovery from Textron or Fortress, Fair investors—who purchased unsecured notes with interest rates as high as 9 percent—may face an uphill battle recovering a signficant chunk of the more than $200 million they're owed.

The judge did decide that the trustee’s claims that Fortress intentionally committed fraud can go forward.

“Loan funds borrowed from Fortress were ‘directly routed to a debtor-owned account for use by Durham in furtherance of the Ponzi scheme,’” the judge wrote.

The judge said Fair created a special-purpose entity to receive Fortress funds only after Fortress declined to consider making Fair a direct loan. "Moreover," the judge wrote, "the Fair Finance SPE was controlled by Durham and [James] Cochran, who in turn have been convicted of a massive fraudulent scheme.”

A grand jury in March 2011 indicted Durham, Cochran and Fair Chief Financial Officer Rick Snow on charges of wire fraud, securities fraud and conspiracy to commit wire and securities fraud. A jury convicted Durham on all charges and Cochran and Snow on some charges in June. The three are scheduled to be sentenced Nov. 30.

The lawsuit against Textron and Fortress was Bash’s most aggressive push yet to recover money for the Ohio residents who bought Fair's unsecured notes. Payments ceased to all 5,000 noteholders when the company collapsed in November 2009.

Bash has filed dozens of suits since early 2010. But most seek to recover relatively small sums that were transferred out of Fair at a time the trustee alleges it was insolvent. Many of the defendants are Durham friends or business associates who appear to have few assets.

Durham and Cochran bought Akron, Ohio-based Fair in a 2002 leveraged buyout. Authorities charged that almost immediately, Durham drained tens of millions from the company by making loans to himself and failing businesses he owned. They say millions also went toward Durham’s mansions, a yacht, part ownership of an airplane and extravagant gambling trips.

The trustee’s suit charges that by December 2003, Fair already was operating as a Ponzi scheme reliant on the sale of additional unsecured notes to Ohio residents to stay afloat.

Textron provided a $22 million line of credit that financed the purchase of Fair from then-owner Donald Fair. Since its founding in 1934, the business had focused on buying finance contracts from fitness clubs, time-share condominium developers and other firms that offered their customers extended-payment plans.

To catch up on IBJ's coverage of Fair Finance and Durham, click here.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. It is nice and all that the developer grew up here and lives here, but do you think a company that builds and rehabs cottage-style homes has the chops to develop $150 Million of office, retail, and residential? I'm guessing they will quickly be over their skis and begging the city for even more help... This project should occur organically and be developed by those that can handle the size and scope of something like this as several other posters have mentioned.

  2. It amazes me how people with apparently zero knowledge of free markets or capitalism feel the need to read and post on a business journal website. Perhaps the Daily Worker would suit your interests better. It's definitely more sympathetic to your pro government theft views. It's too bad the Star is so awful as I'm sure you would find a much better home there.

  3. In other cities, expensive new construction projects are announced by real estate developers. In Carmel, they are announced by the local mayor. I am so, so glad I don't live in Carmel's taxbase--did you see that Carmel, a small Midwest suburb, has $500 million in debt?? That's unreal! The mayor thinks he's playing with Lego sets and Monopoly money here! Let these projects develop organically without government/taxpayer backing! Also, from a design standpoint, the whole town of Carmel looks comical. Grand, French-style buildings and promenades, sitting next to tire yards. Who do you guys think you are? Just my POV as a recent transplant to Indy.

  4. GeorgeP, you mention "necessities". Where in the announcement did it say anything about basic essentials like groceries? None of the plans and "vision" have basic essentials listed and nothing has been built. Traffic WILL be a nightmare. There is no east/west road capacity. GeorgeP, you also post on www.carmelchatter.com and your posts have repeatedly been proven wrong. You seem to have a fair amount of inside knowledge. Do you work on the third floor of Carmel City Hal?

  5. I don't know about the commuter buses...but it's a huge joke to see these IndyGo buses with just one or two passengers. Absolutely a disgusting waste of TAXPAYER money. Get some cojones and stop funding them. These (all of them) council members work for you. FIRE THEM!

ADVERTISEMENT