IBJNews

Bosma to return $10,000 Durham donation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Speaker of the House Brian Bosma agreed on Friday to return to Fair Finance Co. the $10,000 contribution he received from the company’s indicted CEO, Tim Durham, according to the company’s bankruptcy trustee.

The development came two days after Trustee Brian Bash sued Bosma’s campaign committee and four other GOP campaign committees seeking to recover $138,580 in political donations that accused Ponzi schemer Tim Durham made since 2006.

“We are thankful he did the right thing,” said David Proano, an attorney for Bash, said of Bosma.

The other four suits remain pending. Bash is seeking the largest sum—$50,000—from the Greater Indianapolis Republican Finance Committee. In all the cases, Bash argues that Fair is entitled to recover the money because at the time Durham made the donations he owed millions of dollars to Fair and its parent companies. By the end of 2005, at the latest, Fair operated as a Ponzi scheme and was insolvent by more than $50 million, according to the lawsuits.

“Durham made the payment to defendant with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud Fair Finance and its parent companies,” according to the suits.

The other suits seek $40,000 from the committee for Lawrence Mayor Paul Ricketts, $33,580 from the House Republican Campaign Committee and $5,000 from the Marion County Republican Central Committee.

Before his financial empire collapsed in 2009, Durham was a huge funder of Republican political candidates. The trustee hasn’t filed suits against the biggest recipients of Durham’s political largesse—campaign committees associated with Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels and former Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi. Both candidates received about $200,000 from Durham.

In an e-mail Friday afternoon, Brizzi suggested a settlement was in the offing. "We are working with the trustee toward a mutually agreeable resolution," he said.

Proano added: “We are in good faith discussions and making progress toward a settlement.”

He would not discuss Daniels. In a written statement last month, Bash said Daniels at least had responded to the trustee’s request that he return campaign contributions, unlike most others, and the trustee hoped “for mutual resolution through continued discussions.”

A spokeswoman for Daniels did not respond to a request for comment Friday.

Paul Okeson, treasurer for the Greater Indianapolis Republican Finance Committee, said: “We are in receipt of notice of the suit. We will consider all options. We intend to be cooperative in those discussions to figure out the best outcome.”

For more than a year, Bash has been trying to recover money for Fair investors—Ohio residents who purchased unsecured investment certificates with interest rates as high as 9.5 percent. He alleges Durham “utterly looted” 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.

In the statement, he praised Indiana Sen. Mike Delph for recently returning $10,000 and implored fellow elected officials to follow suit.

Last month, Marion County Republican Party Chairman Kyle Walker expressed sympathy for victims of Fair Finance’s collapse but said Durham’s contributions to the party have “long since been spent in good faith.”

Most of Durham's political contributions went to Republicans, but former Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson collected $2,000, and former U.S. Rep. Baron Hill received $5,000. Adam Kisch, spokesman for the Marion County Democratic Party, said he did not know whether the men, both Democrats, had returned the contributions.

Durham and two business partners, James Cochran and Rick Snow, were arrested March 16 after being indicted on 12 felony counts, including conspiracy to commit wire and securities fraud.



 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Money
    Hey, I just remembered. Tim walked around town claiming for years that his personal wealth was 75 to 100 million dollars. I see he only personally owes around 40 million. Shouldn't be any problem to pay it back because allegedly he'd still have 35-60 million leftover! Tim is no liar, he'll just give the money back he owes, he's good for it! HA. What a circus, can't wait to see who the FBI arrests next!
  • re
    wrongo....there weren't loans, those were purported loans that appear to be backdated on the eve of the FBI raid...HELLO....if those "loans" were real then explain why Durham mortgaged all those assets post receipt of Fair money without mentioning to the banks and mortgage companies where the funds came from?

    But, your comment is exactly what defense he plans to use...the problem you have is you don't understand you cannot help yourself to client monies, violate Ohio state laws which require truthful disclosure and by the way take a single dollar over state lines without violating the intrastate exemption.

    Timmy is going to prison. And all of his mooch friends deserve to be as well.
  • This whole thing is over blown
    Tim Durham and his 2 partners are basically guilty of borrowing more than they could afford...kinda like a lot of Americans who put to much on credits cards and get bigger houses than they could afford. Durham is guilty of mismanagement and skating the moral line and this whole thing really needs to be a civil issue..not an issue of him facing the rest of his life in an ohio state prison!
    • Typical
      Mitch Daniels shows his true colors...

    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