IBJNews

Tim Durham closes New Castle restaurant

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Embattled Indianapolis businessman Tim Durham this week closed his downtown New Castle restaurant, Durhams Ristorante, after about two years of operation.

A sign on the restaurant door says “closed until further notice.” The restaurant’s kitchen manager told the New Castle Courier Times it shut down because of financial problems.

Durham teamed with local restaurateur Henri Najem to open the moderately priced Italian eatery. It originally operated as Bella Vita, but Durham changed the name after he and Najem, who operates Bella Vita restaurants in Geist and downtown Indianapolis, parted ways early last year.

Durham’s businesses have been in a tailspin since last fall, when FBI agents raided his Chase Tower offices and the offices of Fair Finance Co., an Akron, Ohio,  consumer-loan firm he co-owns.

The raids occurred one month after IBJ published an investigative story that raised questions about whether Fair had the financial wherewithal to repay Ohio investors who purchased more than $200 million in unsecured investment certificates.

The story reported that, since Durham bought Fair in 2002, he had used it almost like a personal bank to fund a range of business interests, many of them unsuccessful, and to support a lavish lifestyle. The story noted that he and related parties owe Fair more than $168 million. (For more Durham coverage, click here.)

Fair never reopened after the raids, and creditors forced it into bankruptcy early this year. Bankruptcy attorneys expect Fair investors who purchased certificates—a largely blue-collar, elderly lot—to recover only a small fraction of what they’re owed.

Durham, 48, has acknowledged he owes Fair a bundle but has denied doing anything wrong. In court papers, he said the offering circulars provided to prospective investors outlined the risks, including that they carried no government guarantee.

He’s turned over to the bankruptcy trustee more than two dozen cars, as well as expensive pieces of art. The assets will be auctioned, with proceeds going to certificate purchasers.

The U.S. Attorney's Office in Indianapolis is overseeing an ongoing criminal investigation of Durham. Officials won't comment. But in court papers filed in November, they allege Fair operated as a Ponzi scheme, using money from new investors to pay off prior purchasers of investment certificates.

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. JK, Thanks for your comments. I suppose your question of whether or not a more expensive but potentially better MRI quality is worth it depends upon whom you ask. If a radiologist misses a significant problem because of imaging quality issues, then maybe the extra cost would have been worth it. That is something a patient has to decide for him/herself. That being said, I too want more fair and competitive pricing and transparency from hospitals!

  2. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

  3. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

  4. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

  5. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

ADVERTISEMENT