May 16, 2007 by Administrator

Managers of Life Partners Holdings Inc. are not sure why the price of the company’s common stock is going up and down so much this week.

Brian Pardo, chief executive of Life Partners, Waco, Texas, a publicly traded life settlement company, today issued a statement discussing the price swings.

The price of the stock has ranged between $4 and $13 throughout most of the year, then climbed to almost $19, from $12.35, in the past 30 days.

The price closed Friday at $18.86, but it plunged more than $2, to $16.50, Monday morning.

The price fell again Tuesday, then opened today at $16.21 and closed at $17.15.

Average daily volume has increased substantially over the past 3 months, and that’s a sign that the market recognizes that Life Partners has made substantial progress over the past year, Pardo says in his statement.

“While there may have been some profit-taking yesterday, we feel the increase in our market capitalization is due to the outstanding increases in our net income and other key financial results which we have previously announced,” Pardo says.

“In response to recent inquiries from shareholders, the company is unaware of any reason for yesterday’s decline in price and we expect our results of operations to remain in line with our previous announcement and analyst’s predictions,” Pardo says.

Members of the public participating in a Yahoo! Life Partners stock message board pointed out that the company has benefited from being the only public company specializing in the life settlement market but may have suffered this week from investor concerns about the fact that the company’s price-to-earnings ratio has climbed over 98.

Source: National Underwriter

More Life Settlement Information:
Life Insurance Settlement
Life Settlement Broker
Life Settlement Auctions
Senior Settlements
Free Life Settlement Quote

May 16, 2007 by Administrator

Lawfuel – The Law Newswire – R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and Michael Yasofsky, Special Agent in Charge, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), announced today that defendant David Traina pled guilty on May 15, 2007 before United States District Judge K. Michael Moore in Miami federal court to an Information charging him with two counts of tax evasion, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201, in connection with income he made while employed at MBC in 2001 and 2002. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, Traina faces up to 5 years imprisonment on each count and agreed to be responsible for approximately $70,000 in restitution payable to the Department of Treasury. Sentencing is scheduled for August 10, 2007.

Traina was a sales manager at Mutual Benefits Corp. (MBC), a viatical and life settlement company that was closed by federal regulators in May 2004. Although David Traina was an employee of MBC, he established a consulting company named Polaris Consulting, which had no employees other than David Traina, and had no offices. Traina used this “shell” company to avoid paying taxes by improperly listing personal expenses, such as veterinary bills and home cable bills, as business expenses for Polaris Consulting.

Under this scheme, David Traina filed fraudulent joint tax returns, Forms 1040, on behalf of himself and his wife, in which he overstated deductions by approximately $198,000. Traina consequently owed an additional $70,00 in taxes for the 2001 and 2002 calendar years.

MBC victims/investors may obtain information concerning all MBC related cases at www.usdoj.gov/usao/fls/VictimWitness.html.

Mr. Acosta commended the investigative efforts of the IRS and the Southeast Regional Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The matter is being handled by Assistant United States Attorney Andrew K. Levi and Special Assistant United States Attorney Ryan Dwight Quinn.

A copy of this press release may be found on the website of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida at www.usdoj.gov/usao/fls. Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at http://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/ or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov/.

May 4, 2007 by Administrator

Mutual Credit Corporation (MCC) Wins Preliminary Injunction from California Superior Court against Mark Ross and Companies

Ross and Collaborating Agents Acting in Concert with Him Could Be Held Liable for Millions of Dollars, According to MCCÂ

IRVINE, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–The Honorable Ronald L. Bauer, Judge of the Orange County Superior Court, granted MCC’s request for a preliminary injunction against Mark Ross, his companies, and those acting in concert with them. The injunction comes five weeks after Judge Bauer entered a restraining order against the same group for various violations of contracts and tort law.

Mr. Ross, having lost a court decision which issued a preliminary injunction against him, has put out a press release filled with false and reckless statements — adding further to the damages he will owe MCC, according to MCC.

Both the restraining order and the preliminary injunction were based on MCC’s claims that the purpose of Ross’ breach of contract and tortious interference was to wrongly devalue a portfolio of premium finance loans for life insurance in order to misappropriate them at deflated prices — with the intended result of benefiting Ross and others working in concert with Ross by tens of millions of dollars and harming the interest of MCC and its clients.

Judge Bauer took the time to thoroughly review all the evidence and found it likely that, at the trial of this matter, MCC will prevail on claims that Ross broke key contractual obligations, misappropriated trade secrets, wrongfully interfered with contracts, and engaged in unlawful competition.

Reacting to the second significant victory in the case for MCC, General Counsel Lisa Fuller said, “We appreciate that the Court carefully reviewed the evidence and found it is likely that Mr. Ross violated contract obligations and other laws such as the trade secret and unfair competition statutes.”

“We are satisfied the Court ordered Ross to stop using confidential information obtained during the period of time Ross worked to approve the same transactions that his recent lawsuit wrongfully attacked. In fact, the hypocrisy of Ross’ position in the litigation is there for all the world to see: he approved, controlled, promoted and made millions from the very loan transactions he is now attacking.”

“We are also thankful the Court ordered Ross and his companies, and the agents working under their direction, to immediately stop entering into agreements or relationships that are directly or indirectly adverse to the interests of the MCC loans. Further proceedings will determine the amount of Ross’ liability for the damages already caused by his misconduct.”

The case has been moving quickly, and successfully, for MCC. On March 13, 2007, competitor and former business associate Ross, and one other person, filed a lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court attacking the MCC loans. The claims in the lawsuit are meritless and filled with unsupportable accusations. Contrary to those claims, MCC’s loans have been and continue to be a legitimate and valuable means of providing insurance and financial benefits to hundreds of wealthy seniors.

On March 22, MCC filed its own lawsuit against Ross and his companies and sought a Temporary Restraining Order against them before Judge Bauer. The MCC claims allege, among other things, that Ross, and those he has wrongly collaborated with:

- Breached contractual obligations to use his “best efforts” to maximize the value of MCC’s loan portfolio;

- Breached a confidentiality agreement, improperly misusing MCC’s trade secrets and proprietary information;

- Wrongfully interfered with MCC’s contracts in order to poach customer relationships; and

- Worked to damage the fair market value of insurance policies of wealthy senior insureds by creating a false and misleading appearance regarding the value of such policies.

MCC stated, while Ross claims to be the one upholding ethics, his own ethics are again part of the public record.

- Attached to MCC’s lawsuit and provided to the court was the public record showing that on March 10, 1975, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission found Ross had committed securities fraud by “dominating, controlling, and manipulating the market . . . and by creating a false and misleading appearance of a widespread and independent interest” in the stock of a particular company. For 25 years Ross was barred by the S.E.C. from association with any broker-dealer, investment company or investment adviser. That bar was finally lifted on July 13, 2000.

- Also attached to MCC’s claims are public documents evidencing that Ross has had numerous judgments entered against him and his business interests for millions of dollars, some of which remain unpaid.

- Mr. Ross used money from his current funder to finance policies he is trying to usurp from a previous investor, whose value he contractually agreed to maximize, without the current funder’s knowledge. That funder, the Arche Master Fund, filed suit for over $30,000,000 in breach of contract damages on April 13, 2007, and has cut off funds to support Ross’ activities.

- The Arche Complaint alleges that Ross is engaged in self-dealing and usurpation of corporate opportunities that rightfully belong to XE-R and that “Ross is in violation of the covenants to act in a good faith and in a commercially reasonable manner.”

- MCC’s evidence proved that Ross tried to intimidate numerous innocent third parties, including lenders, brokers and agents, by threatening reputational harm and lawsuits.

MCC will take all necessary steps to protect and preserve the value of the loans and policies.

MCC intends to proceed into full discovery, seeking depositions under oath of any agents and others who have been complicit with Mr. Ross in his conduct that sought to diminish the value of MCC’s assets. MCC intends to bring additional claims against those who, like Ross, are acting in their own self-interest to the detriment of their clients.

MCC’s Fuller also said: “While we are again thankful for the temporary restraining order and the preliminary injunction, we are confident that after complete discovery and a final decision on the merits, we will again prevail and Mr. Ross and his company and those who have acted in concert with them will be liable to MCC for millions of dollars of damages caused by their illegal and unethical conduct.”

To find out more about premium financing for life insurance, call 1-888-973-8377

May 3, 2007 by Administrator

FORT WASHINGTON, Pa., – Coventry today issued the following statement in connection with a lawsuit that was filed by Ritchie Capital Management:

“Coventry considers this action by Ritchie Capital Management to be a cheap publicity stunt to divert attention from its own well-documented problems and will seek an immediate dismissal with prejudice.

Coventry has not committed fraud of any kind. Coventry has been and continues to be in full compliance with all agreements related to the Ritchie life settlement portfolio.

It is unfortunate that Ritchie Capital has taken this action in an apparent attempt to blame others for its own shortcomings or wrongdoings. According to published reports, Ritchie is facing a myriad of problems including the withdrawal of $1 billion by investors, a citation by the Securities and Exchange Commission for benefiting from allegedly improper trades, Wells notices have been issued to its principals for possible illegal trading of mutual funds, and serious defections of senior management from the company.

Ritchie Capital Management was well aware of the investigation by the New York Attorney General and acknowledged in writing that its civil complaint against Coventry was not an event of default under any agreement between Coventry and Ritchie.

Coventry is a significant investor in the Ritchie life settlement portfolio, and is concerned that this action by Ritchie Capital Management may put this investment at risk. Coventry believes that this life settlement portfolio is a strong investment vehicle, though it has been compromised by a lack of liquidity due to the well-publicized problems of Ritchie Capital Management.”

Coventry

Source: PRNewsWireÂ

May 3, 2007 by Administrator

Ritchie Capital, the troubled hedge fund which last month sold its flagship fund, has filed a $2bn (€1.5bn) lawsuit alleging fraud against a life insurance company.

The complaint alleges Coventry First committed fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract stemming from an agreement to invest in life insurance products in 2005. Ritchie Capital is claiming damages of $700m but because it is suing under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), its payout could triple.

Ritchie Capital lawyer Thomas Puccio claims that Coventry First took part in “numerous racketeering activities and fraud, such as bid rigging and concealing both unlawful conduct and an investigation by the Attorney General of New York (which is ongoing), unbeknownst to Ritchie Capital. Had Ritchie Capital known that Coventry engaged in these illegal practices, it would have never done business with the company.”

The state of New York initiated its own lawsuit against Coventry First in October last year. According to a statement issued by then Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, the suit alleges that Coventry First defrauded life insurance policy owners by engaging in bid rigging; brokers accepted secret commissions that unfairly reduced the amounts owners received for the policies. The suit is the culmination of a year-long investigation by Spitzer’s office of the life settlement industry. Life settlements involve selling insurance policies to a third party for a sum greater than the cash value of the policy, but less than the face value.

Ritchie has had a troubled year. In January 2006 the hedge fund sold its life sciences debt financing unit Ritchie Technology & Life Sciences Finance to BlueCrest Capital Finance in order to raise capital to meet investor redemptions.

Last summer, Ritchie spun off its global macro fund run by Thomas Juterbock and a team of six. Juterbock launched the fund Fairstream Capital, but it has since been acquired by Nikko Asset Management.

In March this year, Ritchie closed a $1bn deal with Reservoir Capital to sell the assets in its flagship multi-strategy fund and in April, six members of Ritchie Capital jumped ship to Credit Suisse.