Durham prosecutors wrap case with details on asset transfer

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In the weeks before an FBI raid shut down Fair Finance Co., top executives led by Indianapolis financier Tim Durham devised a last-ditch financial maneuver they hoped would persuade Ohio regulators to allow them to keep selling investment certificates.

Executives decided to transfer $85 million in nonperforming loans and investments held by Fair's parent company, DC Investments, to Fair's own books. The rationale, they reasoned in e-mails and government-recorded phone calls, was twofold: The move theoretically would reduce the balance of related-party loans from Fair, and it would allow Fair to show more assets on its own balance sheet.

Many of the loans to be transferred involved businesses that already had closed, individuals with ties to Durham and partner Jim Cochran who didn't have the means to pay them back, and still-operating companies that came up well short of the collateral required for such loans, government witnesses testified Friday afternoon and Monday morning in U.S. District Court.

The prosecution in the fraud trial of Durham and co-defendants Cochran and Rick Snow was expected to rest its case Monday afternoon. Defense attorneys expect to finish their presentations Tuesday evening, allowing the jury to begin deliberations as early as Wednesday afternoon following closing arguments.

The big question is whether any of the defendants will take the stand. John Tompkins, Durham's attorney, on Friday said he hadn't made the decision yet whether to recommend Durham testify in his own defense, though he said ultimately that will be Durham's call. The other attorneys declined comment.

Durham, Cochran and Snow, Fair's chief financial officer, are facing 10 counts of wire fraud, one count of securities fraud, and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and securities fraud. The government alleges they bilked more than 5,000 Ohio investors out of $200 million by turning Fair into a Ponzi scheme. If convicted, they face decades in prison.

In testimony Monday morning, William Bavis, a forensic accountant hired by the government, said Fair failed to own up to the fact that $17 million in loans to luxury bus company Pyramid Coach—a firm partly owned by Durham—were uncollectible. Bavis highlighted an Aug. 9, 2009, e-mail in which Snow told an accountant that "at some point we need to write those off."

But the loans were not written off when Fair submitted paperwork to state securities regulators in October 2009 seeking approval to sell an additional $250 million in investment certificates to Ohio investors.

In that filing, Fair listed its net worth as $5.6 million. Writing off the Pyramid loans would have left Fair with negative net worth of $11 million "and the company would be considered from an accounting perspective to be insolvent," said Bavis, managing director in the Baltimore office of Invotex Group.

The bad loans from Pyramid wound up in a grouping of $21.6 million of loans transferred to Fair and labeled as "previously reserved," even though Durham had not set aside any cash to cover the losses, Bavis said Monday. 

Bavis said other loans included in the "previously reserved" category included $1.3 million for a yacht Durham no longer owned, $424,000 for a jet he had sold, and a $470,000 loan to his mother, Mitza Durham.

The $85 million asset transfer essentially "liquidated" DC Investments, Bavis said.

On Friday, the prosecution took testimony from Jeff Osler, a former executive vice president at Durham's Obsidian Enterprises who is married to Durham's sister (the couple is getting a divorce) and for years took money from Durham for his home, business ventures and children's tuition, running up a tab of $1.3 million.

One of Osler's last assignments before the FBI raided Fair Finance and Obsidian in November 2009 was to prepare a list of loans and investments held by other Durham entities, including personal loans made by Durham and Cochran. Osler testified the plan was to move the loans to Fair's balance sheet, making Fair look stronger in terms of assets even though the loans weren't performing and had little chance for repayment.

Many of the $85 million in loans that wound up on Fair's books were for companies that had shut down years earlier, including for an embroidery business called DWA LLC and a tech startup called Inet Now, Osler testified.

The $1.3 million loan to Osler also wound up with Fair, though Osler testified he had no means to pay it back. He had a first mortgage on his home, leaving little equity to cover the second mortgage that purportedly secured the loan.

Defense attorneys pointed out mistakes in the accounting for loans, including a couple of Osler loans that had been assigned to Cochran. They also noted the final list of loans set for offload to Fair did not include some of the most obviously bad loans.

By the time the FBI raided Fair, the company had gone five years without audited financial statements. That's because independent accountants refused to sign off on the firm's books.

After the firm BCBG Partners declined in 2005 to issue an audit of Fair's 2003 financials, Somerset CPAs stepped in.

Despite its own concerns, Somerset wound up delivering audited financial statements for 2004, but it withdrew from a 2005 audit because of "changes in the financial position of the company and the required adoption of new accounting pronouncements," according to a July 2006 letter.

But the firm went a step further, asking Fair to stop using its 2004 audit in its materials shared with investors.

"We no longer felt comfortable with our opinion to be used in offering circulars," Somerset principal Ben Kimmerling testified Friday.

Fair's loans to related entities and individuals had increased, and its collateral had fallen in value, Kimmerling explained.

Somerset's draft 2005 financial statements showed a loss of more than $19 million by Fair. The statements Durham and Snow ultimately signed off on showed a profit of about $300,000.


  • Durham, Cochran and Snow
    By jove! The picture of wrongdoing is very clear and it has been an excellent presentation of the Government's case. I anticipate little to no defense to all the Government's overwhelming evidence of guilt. I don't know how Durham, Cochran and Snow were allowed to operate like that for as long as they did and continue to rip more people off.
  • tough road for the defense!
    Jury deliberations for this should take about 30 seconds. Then, after Durham and fellow crooks are put away, maybe we can move on to more positive news stories about what some good people are doing...

Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How much you wanna bet, that 70% of the jobs created there (after construction) are minimum wage? And Harvey is correct, the vast majority of residents in this project will drive to their jobs, and to think otherwise, is like Harvey says, a pipe dream. Someone working at a restaurant or retail store will not be able to afford living there. What ever happened to people who wanted to build buildings, paying for it themselves? Not a fan of these tax deals.

  2. Uh, no GeorgeP. The project is supposed to bring on 1,000 jobs and those people along with the people that will be living in the new residential will be driving to their jobs. The walkable stuff is a pipe dream. Besides, walkable is defined as having all daily necessities within 1/2 mile. That's not the case here. Never will be.

  3. Brad is on to something there. The merger of the Formula E and IndyCar Series would give IndyCar access to International markets and Formula E access the Indianapolis 500, not to mention some other events in the USA. Maybe after 2016 but before the new Dallara is rolled out for 2018. This give IndyCar two more seasons to run the DW12 and Formula E to get charged up, pun intended. Then shock the racing world, pun intended, but making the 101st Indianapolis 500 a stellar, groundbreaking event: The first all-electric Indy 500, and use that platform to promote the future of the sport.

  4. No, HarveyF, the exact opposite. Greater density and closeness to retail and everyday necessities reduces traffic. When one has to drive miles for necessities, all those cars are on the roads for many miles. When reasonable density is built, low rise in this case, in the middle of a thriving retail area, one has to drive far less, actually reducing the number of cars on the road.

  5. The Indy Star announced today the appointment of a new Beverage Reporter! So instead of insightful reports on Indy pro sports and Indiana college teams, you now get to read stories about the 432nd new brewery open or some obscure Hoosier winery winning a county fair blue ribbon. Yep, that's the coverage we Star readers crave. Not.