Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
•
•
1 FELDMAN, WALDMAN & KLINE
A Professional Corporation
2 PATRICIA S. MAR
L. J. CHRIS MARTINIAX
• )
4
2700 Russ Building
235 Montgomery street
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 981-1300
5
Attorneys for Frederick S. Wyle,
Trustee
• 6
11
In re ) Chapter 11
12 ) Substantively Consolidated
) or Jointly Administered
13 )
HAMILTON TAFT & COMPANY ) No. 91-3-1077 LK
14 KNIGHTSBRIDGE COMPANIES, INC. ) No . 91- 3 - '2 4 4 8 LK
THE REMINGTON COMPANIES, INC. ) No. 91-3-2449 LK
15 DRESDNER PETROLEUM, INC. ) No. 91-)-2450 LK
• 16
17
DRESDNER ENTERPRISES, INC.
Debtors.
------------------------_______ l
)
)
)
No. 9l-3-2451 LK
IS
• 19
20
SECOND INTERIK REPORT OF
FREOERICR S. WYLE, TRUSTEE
• 22
23
24
• 25
26
•
• •
• 1
• 3
• 7 B. of
• 16
17
V. RECOVERY AND LIQUIDATION OF ASSETS ......••......••... 12
A. PhysicQl Assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1S
1. __ Double C Cattle Ranch • • • • . . . . . . • . • . . . • . . . . . 13
• 19
20
2. Seventh Sonterr a ...••.....•••••••.•••••. 16
25 Mohamed d .••.•..•••••••••••••••••.•••.• 2Q
-i-
•
•
•
•
1 J. Parker Automot i ve ................ , ......... 23
• 3
4 2.
Criminal Defense
McCall Notes .•.....••••..•.•••....••....... 27
1 Fees. _ • It " ,. • 4 • II> ...... , I ,2 6
5 3. Potential To Be
Investigated ..•...•..•.....•...........•... 29
• 6
7
D. Assets ll·in Armstrong's Possession •••....... 31
Interests .....................•...... ) 1
8
2. Texas Stadium Box .................•....•... 32
9
• 10
J. Coffea Internet
Plaza
1 ....................... J 3
Note .......................... 33
11
5. Personal Possessions ...•................... 35
12
VI. LITIGATION AGAINST ARMSTRONG ................••....... 35
13
A. Analysis of Armstrong's Personal
14 ial Transactions .......................... 35
• 19
;20 VIr.
D. Cr 1
21 A. Bonds .. II' .. " .... "" .. "" ... II _ .. "" ), ., " ..... or. " .......... JI< .... '" .. " 45
• 22
23
B.
c.
Preference 44 ....
24 D. Ta'lt Pena es .. <II .. ............ "" "" .... II. to " ................ "" ......... '" " .. Ii .... 49
• 25
26
E. other Potential CIa .. 1 to ...................... ~ ~ " .... Ii; Ii; .... " .... 50
ii-
•
• c •
• 1 VIII . CRED ITORS CLAIMS ANALY SIS .•.......•........ . ......... 50
• 3 B.
c.
Claims Against Dresdner Petroleum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
6
• 7 APPENDICES
13
14
15
• 16
17
18
• 19
20
21
• 22
23
24
25
• 26
-iii-
•
• •
• 1
s.
• 3
4
On May 28, 1991, Frederick Wyle, trustee of Hamilton
5 At that time the Hamilton Taft bankruptcy case was two months old.
12 of Hamilton Taft funds for his other business ventures and for
13 personal expenditures.
15 only Hamilton Taft was under the control of the trustee. This
• 16
17
Second Interim Report .is filed by Frederick S. Wyle as trustee not
1a ( \I Kn ightsbr idge "), The Remington Compani as, Inc. ( tI Remi ngton") ,
• 19
20
Dresdner Petroleum
Inc.
I
(OIEnterprises ll )
Inc.
I
( II Petro leum" ) and Dresdner Enterprises I
• 22
23
Ha~ilton Taft case. The Second Interim Report will provide
•
•
•
• 1 This Second Interim Report will also contain an analysis
• 3
4
of Connie c. Armstrong, Jr., from January 1, 1989 to June 15,
5 Taft. At the time of the First Interim Report, the trustee did
6 not have access to any of the personal financial records of
• 7 Armstrong, which had been withheld on Fifth Amendment grounds.
• 16
17
with Hamilton Taft's money. Although that program has not yet
• 19
20
realizing on assets that have already been
Armstrong.
~ecovered from
• 22
23
A. Entry of order for Relief
On May 31, 1991, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order
•
•
•
•
1 filed by the petitioning creditors, Federal Express Corporation,
• J
4
Bankruptcy Court rejected the arguments of Hamilton Taft as Debtor
• 6
7
B. Appointment of Creditors committee
11 company, R.R. Donnelley & Sons, Castle & Cook (now Dole Foods),
• 19
20
C. The Texas Debtors and Substantive Consolidation
• 22
23
the IITe:l{as Oebtorsll), 'were commenced by voluntary Chapter 11
• 25
26
1991, on motion of the trustee, the Bankruptcy Court in San
•
I
~
I
•
• 1 transferred to the Northern District of california, pursuant to
• 3
4
affiliated entities may be transferred to a single court.
• 6
7
consolidation of the Knightsbridge and Remington cases with the
B means of recovering for the Hamilton Taft estate the assets which
18 would enable the trustee of Hamilton Taft to control not only the
• 19
20
entities being consolidated, but all of their subsidiaries as
• 22
2)
On July 22, 1991, the Court, with the consent of the
26
Petroleum and Enterprises. The intermediate step was taken at thel
2 consolidation decision was made. The Court set september 30, 1991
• l
4
as a claims har date for all five Debtors, Hamilton Taft as well
11 prudent.
12 On November 4, 1991, the Court ordered substantive
15- consolidation was not opposed by any party, including any of the
• 16
17
Debtors. Frederick 5. Wyle was appointed trustee of the
• 19
20
As a result of substantive consolidation, all assets and
• 22
23
assets and liabilities remain separate, but its bankruptcy case is
•
•
•
• 1 otherwise ~ould have been required to obtain the assets of the
2 Te~as entities.
• 3
4
D. Appeals by Hamiltpn Taft. as Debtor
8 relief entered on May ll, 1991, and from the order- authorizing the
18 I_occurred in the bankruptcy case since the orders were entered made
• 19
20
it inequitable to consider the appeals. The Debtor, which claims
• 22
23
dismissals to the Ninth circuit.
24 A. Hamilton Taft
May 16,-:.--1991,
Following a hearing on ----
• 25
26
-~ ... ...-'. the Bankruptcy
~
•
•
•
• 1 operations. Hamilton Taft had not conducted any significant
• 3
.4
missing funds, the consequent abrupt cessation of funds
transferred to Hal'lilton Taft by its customers, and the filing of
- -,
['.."
5 the Chapter 11 petition on March 2O, 1991. The trustee requested
12 took place over the next several months. The trustee ceased
15 deposits were made and what taxes were paid and not paid, respond
• 19
20
Hamilton Taft closed its 1 Market Plaza, San Francisco
offices on June 30, 1991. and moved its remaining staff to smaller
• 22
23
tangible assets of Hamilton Taft were sold at auction on
•
•
•
•
-1 bankruptcy case and litigation. Four additional employees are
• ) 8. Texas Debtors
• 6
7
some 16 employees at 3Bl1 Turtle Creek Boulevard in Dallas.
• 9
10
infusion of Hamilton Taft money to pay its operating costs,
Remington was running out of money and unable to pay even its
15 vacate its offices by July 31, 1991. No plans had been made for
21 place over the next three months. It was apparent that Remington
• 22
23
and the other Texas Debtors did not have, and had not had,
• 25
26
conducted by the Texas Debtors was Enterprises' efforts to sell
• 3
4
The trustee determined that Petroleumls operations could
be more economically managed by a~ outside management companYi
s that Enterprises required" only one employee on site in San
• 6
7
Antonioi and that the rest of Remington's administrative and
accounting services could be combined with that of Hamilton Taft
• 9
10
and achieving substantial savings. On October 31, 1991,
Remington's offices in Dallas were closed.
11 Remington's office equipment, furniture and furnishings
12 have been sold or moved to the Double C Ranch, ~hich was taken
13 over by the trustee on August 1, 1991. Remington's records and
14 files have been, or will be, moved to San Francisco. Sorting out
15 the VOluminous files and records located at Remington's offices
21 to the trustee for copying, except for documents which have been
• 22
23
withheld by Armstrongls criminal defense counsel as subject to a
Fifth Amendment or attorney-client privilege. The trustee is
24 seeking to work out with Armstrong's counsel any remaining
• 25
25
disputes over documents claimed to be privileged. Any unresolved
• 3
4
IV. FINANC!AL CONDITION OF THE ESTATES
A. Consolidated Estate
• 6
7
receipts and disbursements of the Debtors in the consolidated
estate, i.e., Hamilton Taft, Knightsbridge, Remington and
21 defense counsel for recovery of legal fees ($400 / 000); and bank
• 22
23
account interest ($lB3,141). Details of these receipts and the
24 report.
• 25
26
Postpetition disbursements by the D~btors comprising the
•
• &
•
• Disbursements during the period of the trustee's administrai
1
• J
4
operating e~penses
appointment.)
paid by Remington prior to the trustee's
• 16
17
I
professional fees do not include fees accrued but not paid as of
• 19
20
consolidated estate, at the commencement of their respective
• 22
23
Enterprises combined. with total disbursements exceeding receipts
by $643,971, the consolidated estate had a cash balance of
•
• &
•
1 for the consolidated estate, if possible, on a level which could
2 be funded from current interest income. Such expenses would not,
• 3
4
however, include the professional fees and expenses, which will be
the primary Chapter ~l costs in the future, and which will in time
5 diminish the existing funds of the estate unless substantial new
• 6
7
rec.overies are had,
B.
and sales are made.
Dresdner Petroleum
• 22
23
have been recovered, to the extent that they are available to be
•
•
•
•
1 unrecoverable operating costs of Armstrong's Texas operations, and
• 3
4
held by the Texas Debtors or their subsidiaries, the trustee has
also recovered the najor asset that had been held by Armstrong
• 6
7
control are discussed in section V.D below.)
12 time, the trustee cannot provide any estimate of the amount that
13 will be realized from the assets Which have been turned over by
• 22
23
A. Physical Assets
• 25
26
1,700 acre ranch l which he called the "Double C Ranch."
•
•
•
• 1 Armstrong's own description, meaning a combination cattle and
• 3
4
13,000 square feet in size, with indoor swimming pool, sauna, and
5 Hamilton Taft's funds on the ranch, including $6.5 million for the
12 the $9.8 million to Armstrong, who acquired the ranch in his own
13 name. Armstrong gave Winthrop a note for $9.9 million, secured by
• 16
17
In June, 1991, the trustee declared a default on
• 19
20
note to winthrop, the trustee then commenced foreclosure
• 22
23
trustee through a deed in lieu of foreclosure.
•
•
•
• took session of the ranch effective August 1, 1991,
1 The
• 3
4
The cattle operations on the ranch
7
Armstrong owned the ranch, the
• 19 real estate
for what
in Texas, the trustee cannot predict
, the ranch 11 be sold.
20
• 22
23
approximately $300,000 per year, of which
26
essent
res
1 for the sale of the ranch.
•
•
•
• 1 include a guest house with 3,4QO square feet, three foremen's
• J
4
art" show horse arena, which also canta
15 that the ble value of the stiefer was less than the
• 19
20
to Armstrong
property to Stiefer.
a deed in 1 of foreclosure to
21 2. Seventh of SQnterra
• 22
2)
The Seventh of Sonterra project consists of 23 single-
~illion J
•
• • •
•
1 The acquisition was financed with Hamilton Taft funds, funnelled
• J
4
on July 22, 1991 1 only two townhouses had been sold.
• 6
7
the net revenue to the estate would probably be greater than from
a bulk sale, although a bulk offer for the entire project would
15 a court order for each sale, provided that the gross sales price
• 22
23
out work and repairs required for each townhouse, which work is
• 25
26
by one remaining Enterprises employee on site in San Antonio.
•
• • •
• 1 3. Whispering ~eadows and Glade Meadows
• 3
4
residential tracts located in Arlington and Grapevine,
13 Tnus, the two projects, while again under contract, remain unsold.
~4 4. Oil and Gas Leases
• 16
17
on a 560 acre tract in Howard County, and on a 1,000 acre tract in
• 19
20
producing well. Continuing the exploration program would require
• 22
23
The Howard County property is a leasehold which has had
• J
4
continuing operational loss} the trustee believes, was due largely
to excessive overhead and salary costs (including a salary of
• 16
17
the savings of administrative costs, except for professional fees.
18 postpetition advances.
• 19
20 e~pected
The "secondary recovery" water injection program is
• 22
23
can be properly evaluated, the trustee intends to sell the Howard
County property.
24 s. Luxury Automobiles
•
•
• •
• 1 Spur II and a 1990 Jaguar ·XJS, both of which were purchased at
• J
4
personal vehicles.
Lincoln stretch
The trustee also took possession of a 1989
12 Remington to Hadid.
• 16
17
the same lawsuit against MaxPharma through which he acquired
ownership of Ha~ilton Taft in 1989, also sued Hadid, claiming that
• 19
20
Ha~ilton Taft by, among other things, borrowing the $3 million
against Hadid for cash of $50,000 and a new $1.75 million note,.
• 22
- - - - - - - - - --- - -
•
• •
• 1 Hadid executed a promissory note dated September 11,
• l
4
wife, Mary Butler Hadid. To secure the $6.5 million note, Hadid
• 19
20
note, the $1.75 million and the original $3 million and to enforce
21 has learned that in June. 1991, Radid may have transferred his
• 22
23
interest in the collateral to a business associate, Abdulaziz bin
24 lithe Sheik". The trustee has joined the Sheik as a defendant and
•
•
•
1 Media reports as well as reports of the trustee's
• 3
-4
creditors, his Washington, D.C. office has been closed, certain of
• 16
17
notes.
2. Stanley Rosenberg
• 22
23
developing a combined restaurant and gambling facility known as
•
•
• •
•
1 Rosenberg. The restaurant failed and RFCI filed a Chapter 7
2 petition.
• 3
4
In response to the trustee's lawsuit, Rosenberg has
• 6
7
and failed to subsidize all necessary expenses to keep the project
operational, and that Rosenberg advanced additional money to the
20 financial condition.
21 3. Parke~ Automotive
• 22
23
In February. 1991, Armstrong invested $3 mi~liDn,
• 25
26
distributed a machine and chemical compound designed to clean
•
•
• •
•
1 difficulties. Remington received "a convertible note, secured by a
2 lien on all assets of Parker, junior to a lien for approximatelY
• 3
4
$700,000 owed to Home Bank. Remington was also granted certain
• 6
7
the company.
Ibecame chairman
Upon the closing on February 14, 1991, krmstrong
8 Parker.
20 rights, for $1.5 million, payable $500,000 at closing and the rest
• 22
23
Inventory located in Europe and accounts receivable are not
• 25
26
is collected under the sale, Remington could realize up to
S700,DQO from the sale proceeds, based on its second priority lien
• 16
17
resolution of Remington's claim in the Parker bankruptcy case
• 19
20
have reached a tentative agreement, which has not been finalized
•
•
• •
• 1 The trustee cannot estimate at this time what, it
2 anything, the estate will recover from the Parker investment.
• J
4
Protecting the estate's interest in Parker has consumed
substantial time and legal expense, and has been one of the most
• 16
17
~700/000
appointed.
was paid on March 27, 1991, the day after the trustee was
• 19
20
company, on March 25, 1991. Winthrop had purchased the helicopter
• 22
23 Meadows
The trustee sought recovery of the payments to the
•
------ - -- ----
• • •
• 1 Under section 550, the trustee may recover fraudulently
• 3
4
also from a
without
transferee who received the
5 transfer.
9 2.
12 Jr., and his sons, David Mccall, III and Mccall. Each of
• 16
17
certain real estate
18 friends of and
• 19
20 violat
The trustee recently learned that on
of a iminary injunction then in effect (See
27,1991,
•
• • •
• 1 Armstrong, and $100,000 in November, 1991 to Armstrong. (The form
• 3
4
McCall, III notes for the $175,000 transfers in July and october
11 cash and returned the notes to David MCCall, III at the time the
• 19
20
preliminary injunction and obtained a temporary restraining order
• 22
23
contempt hearing. (See Section VI.C.l.) The trustee has
• 3
4
they received from Knightsbridge as fraudulent conveyances from
Knightsbridge, imposition of a constructive trust on the notes,
9 automatic stay.
12 claims that the estate may have against third parties for recovery
• 16
17
Among the transfers that will be reviewed are retainers
• 19
20
filed. In addition to the ~735,000 paid by Armstrong to his
criminal defense attorneys/ ne caused $480 1 000 in retainers to be
• 22
23
total of $1,215,000 in advance payments to lawyers representing
•
•
• •
1 subsequently returned to the Debtors' estates or credited against
• 3
4
The trustee has already settled with Armstrong's
5 to the estate. (See Section V.C.1.) The four law firms receiving
• 16 ana Bankruptcy Rule 2016, nor have their retainers been reviewed
• 19
20
The trustee has not yet sought return of the retainers,
• 22
23
retainers paid to the attorneys should be reviewed by the Court,
•
• • •
• 1 the trustee decides to seek recovery of the retainers, or any
2 portion thereof. The trustee has been advised that some of the
• 3
4
attorneys involved may seek additional fees from the estate,
6 April, 1991, but also for each of the months of January, February
• 7 ~nd March, 1991, for a total of $100,000. In response to the
B trustee's inquiry, Hance and Gamble has stated that the firm was
13 governor of Te~as. The trustee has asked Hance and Gamble for
• 19
20
Armstrong still has possession of a number of assets
which were purchased with Hamilton Taft funds and which are held
Rodeo Interests
•
•
• •
• 1 interest in Rodeo PartnerS. Both entities are located in
• 3
4
Pro Rodeo is controlled by a rodeo performer, Don Gay,
• 6
7
Dallas area. Armstrong invested $350,000 of Hamilton Taft's money
11 1990.
• 16 are uncertain.
21 to the stadium boxes personally, and the purchase price was boo~ed
• 22
23
as a loan from Remington to hrrnstrong. After the acquisition,
• 25
26
stadium boxes for a total of $265,000, which was paid to
Remington. Armstrong retained the third box, which, according to
•
•
• •
•
1 deposition testimony of his assistant, Teri Robins, ne treated as
2 his "personal" box. Based on information from a broker who sells
5 3. Coffe~ International
• 6
7
In 1989 and 1990 Remington loaned a total of $B9,000 to
• 9
10
controlled by Robert Chad Armstrong. On February, 11, 1991,
Knightsbridge advanced an additional $250,000 to Chad Armstrong or
15 but the trustee has been advised that Armstrong also claims the
• 16 stock as his personal asset. The trustee is in the process of
• 25
26
Corporation and its principals, Jimmy E. Nix and Richard F.
• 3
-4
Investment Fund (IIPlptl) I owned
Realty
11 and Watkins and related entities for fraud aris out of the
•
•
21 recovering from Plaza Realty or the collateral the Plaza
• 22
23
Realty note are not promising.
the f
However} the trustee has not yet
al cond of za Realty
•
• • •
• 1 5. Personal Possessions
• 3
4
of his luxury automobiles, he still retains two personal
1990 Jaguar returned to the trustee) and a 1990 Ford Lariat pickup
•
6
14 furnishings to Dallas.
• 19
20
as compared to those of corporate entities controlled by him.
• 22
23
In late July and August, 1991, Armstrong produced his
• 25
26
(Armstrong acquired Hamilton Taft in March, 1999.) With the
•
I
I.
• • I
I
4
of Armstrong, the trustee's accountants have prepared an analysis
• 19
20
($852,385 net of withholding taxes) or reimbursement of expenses
• 22
23
Armstrong has never repaid, or as repayments to Armstrong of a
I-
•
• •
• 1 before the public disclosure of Armstrongts diversions of Hamilton
• 3
4
Knightsbridge to Armstrong's personal accounts.
Armstrong's personal financial records verify that he
5 had no significant source of income or receipts, other than
6 Hamilton Taft money, during the two and half year period. Of
• 7 $4.8 million in total cash flow through his personal bank accounts
8 OVer the two and a half year period, all but $127,6Q6 can be
15 Armstrong's funds, obtained its money from loans which were repaid
17 Taft.
18 Likewise, all but an estimated $78 1 °00 of the
• 19
20
approximately S4.7 million that Armstrong received in cash from
• 22
23
On January 1, 1989, he had $52B in his accounts. On June 15,
1991, the last date for which the trustee has bank account
•
• • •
• 1 Taft funds ~ent into and out of his accounts for personal
2 expenditures.
11 paid from his personal accounts during the January 1, 1989 through
13 were:
• 16
17
contributions and $361,000 was for political contributions.
• 19
20
Rolls Royce and $100,000 paid to the Dallas Opera Ball.
25 Section V.C.l.)
• 26
•
• • •
• 3. Investments totalling $494,017, of which $350,000
2 was for purchase of a 49% in Pro-Rodeo~ Inc., a company
• J
4
which
classif
1 for rodeos. (See V.D.l.)
7 trustee.
• 19
20
6. Purchases from jewele~s, clothiers, furriers.
and other retailers totalling over $183,000, not
• 22
23
Acquisitions, investments or
the $11.9 million which
financed by
Armstrong's
24 benefit with Hamilton Taft addition to the
25 ranch, 47,738 for costs associated with his acquisition of
• 26 Hamilton Taft (consist primarily of $615,000 d to Stanley
•
•
• •
• 1 Rosenberg, a former Ma~Pharma shareholder, as part of the
• 3
4
the Texas stadium skyboxes, $600,000 for loans to the McCalls,
• 6
7
$295,000 for investments in cotfea International, Armstrong's
- 19
20
21
years.
• 22
23
terminated in late January, 1992. The trustee and Armstrong were
I-
--------
• • •
• 1 against Armstrong to seek recovery of all remaining assets in
• 3
4
transfers from any of the other Debtors. In addition, the trustee
will seek a money judgment against Armstrong for the full amount
• 6
7
from recovered assets.
9 had demanded a jury and the Bankruptcy Court could not conduct
• 10 jury trials. The District Court, on Armstrong's motion for
15- core claims included in the trustee's complaint, namely the breach
• 19
20
1. TROs and preliminary Injunctions
On April 4/ 1991, after the adversary proceeding against
• 22
23
issued a temporary restraining order (·'TRO") prohibiting any
• 25
26
ordinary operating expenses".
several times.
The TRO was extended by agreement
•
•
• •
• 1 On July 22, 1991, when the trustee was appointed interim
• 3
4
preliminary injunction against him, with the TRO continued as to
• 7
6 eKisting as of July 22, 1991, and any proceeds and products
15 future earnings and income, were released from the TRO and not
• 19
20
Winthrop), was converted to a preliminary injunction. The
• 22
23
except for "ordinary day to day operating expenses." The two
26
•
•
• 3
4
does not replace the July 22, 1991 preliminary injunction. The
13 promissory note proceeds which were subject to the July 22, 1991
15 2. contempt Proceedings
• 16
17
The trustee has filed two contempt motions for
Armstrong's violation of the April 4, 1991 TRO and the July 22/
• 19
20
In December, 1991, the trustee and the creditors
•
• • •
• 1 sought recovery of $11,000 from proceeds of cattle sales which
• J
4
personal account.
5 Court ruled that Armstrong had violated the TRD and ordered him to
• 16
17
exchange for the 5275,000 he received from McCall, and (iii)
• 19
20
order requiring Armstrong to show cause on March 13, 1992 why he
21 injunction.
• 22
23
D. Criminal Investigation
•
•
• •
• 1 trustee has cooperated with law enforcement officials in their
• 3
4
possession or under his control,
officials.
~hen and as requested by such
• 16
17
underwriters on April 25, 1991. Discussions with the underwriters
• 19
20
They have requested access to voluminous records of Hamilton Taft
and the Texas Debtors to investigate the claim, and the trustee is
• 22
23
denied or not acknowledged after the underwriters have had a
•
• • •
• 1 issues are likely to be raised relating to coverage or the amount
• ]
4
Reflecting the importance of the fidelity bond claim to
the estate, both the trustee and the Creditors Committee have
6 law firm of Mound, cotton and Wolan of New York City to assist in
• 7 pursuing the claim. The creditors committee has retained Bronson,
9 B. Preference claims
• 16
17
celinquent payments made by Hamilton Taft during the 90 days pr_ior
• 19
20
about January 31, 1991, when Hamilton Taft paid over $50 million
• 22
23
Hamilton Taft had diverted tax deposits to the Armstrong entities
and made demands on Hamilton Taft for confirmation that their
•
•
• •
1 preference criteria may exceed $40 million, after deduction of
• 3
4
The trustee has thus far made demands for return of
• 6
7
~illion
million.
and S&S Credit co., Inc. (aka Shop and Save) for $12.5
8 in both January and March, 1991. They were among the first
11 taxes, and they have relatively small claims against Hamilton Taft
18 bankruptcy was filed, the trustee does not expect any significant
• 19
20
preference claims to be asserted on account of payment of vendor
debts during the 90 day preference period. Hamilton Taft was
21 generally paying its trade debts as they became due, and the
• 22
23
"ordinary course of business" exception will like.ly apply to most
payments to vendors.
24 c. Sa."!o.ie Refund
9 1991. )
15 the same day, and made its o~n deposit with the IRS, which
• 19
20
not dispute that the refund belonged to Hamilton Taft, Sandia
• 3
4
taxes for which Hamilton Taft was respons
state ta~es which were not due at the
I
were ,051 in
6 Taft.
• 7 The trustee and Sandia reached a settlement, under which
8 Sandia to pay to the trustee all of the IRS refund,
9 including any interest accrued thereon Sandia's
• 10 except for $22,051 for the taxes, which Sandia will retain,
11 and $160,106, the unconfirmed state tax payments,
12 which will be an interest bear account until March 8,
13 1992. If Sandia is able to find any additional unpaid taxes
• 16
17
funds from the IRS refund, and accrued interest, which
to total approximately $lB7,OOO, will be released to the trustee,
18 regardless of whether has confirmation of Hamilton
• 19
20
Taft's
D,
of its taxes.
• 22
23
in March, 1991,
Ilion in penalties to the IRS on account of late
Taft: over $7
of
customers' payroll taxes, which resulted from Armstrong's program
of diverting tax to his Texas entities. /~he
• 25
•
•
• 1 or the customers under the Internal Revenue Code, which provides
2 that penalties may be excused if to make timely
• 3
4
was due to reasonable cause and not willful
• 19
20
such claims.
VIII. CREDITORS CLAIMS ANALYSIS
• 22
23
September 3D, 1991 for fil
Debtors.
of claim against the f
of the bar date was sent to all known
•
•
•
• 1 ~. claims ~gainst Consolidated Estate
• 3
4
were filed against the Debtors constituting the consolidated
• 16
17
potential claims against the consolidated estate total $100.2
• 19
20
Claims of Hamilton Taft customers for unpaid taxes
account for $95.1 million of the $100.2 million total claims
• 22
2]
schedules). Total potential claims of Hamilton Taft trade vendors
•
•
•
• 1 against Enterprises total $47,332. No claims were filed against
• J
4
Debtors. All claims totals e~clude intercompany claims, including
5 consolidated estate.
• 6
7
B. Claims Against Dresdner Petroleum
13 in Appendix C.
• 16
17
public disclosure to customers and the news media of the diversion
IB filed a $110 million proof of claim against Hamilton Taft and the
• 19
20
other Debtors based on the federal False Claims Act.
• 22
23
the private citizen retaining up to 30% of any recovery.
•
•
•
1 ~as wrongfully terminated by Hamilton Taft because he notified the
• 3
4
Prior to the commencement of the Ha~ilton Taft
5 the u.s. District Court. The United states government not only
• 6
7
declined to take over the lawsuit, as it is entitled to do, but
9 tax claims, which are expressly excluded from the False Claims
• 10 Act.
• 16 llni til enti tied to assert the "police power" exception under
• 22
23
United states, which has suffered no loss, has any significant
• 25
26
executed at the time of his termination, for which he received
•
- -----~ - --.-.- . - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - -
• •
• 1 IX. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE ACTIVITIES
• J
4
assets and litigation requirements of the estate is now
14 much of their claims they will receive, and when they will receive
15 any funds.
• 16
17
From this report, creditors and other parties in
interest will understand that the trustee cannot now provide very
• 19
20
however, on the determinants of the amount of pDtential recovery_
• 22
23
will be a major concern. Except for the Soloaoff claim} the
•
• •
-.oJ
,~
• 3
4
likelihood of a major impact on percentage of recovery from any
5 Solodoff claim).
• 19
20
trustee. This is the major task for the estate in the future.
23
;!4
• 25
26