REC NEWS Winter'03-FINAL - Receivers · 2018-11-18 · Continued on page 3... Continued on page...

Fall 2018 • Issue 64

A Publication of the

California Receivers Forum

RECEIVERSHIP

I n s i d e

Receivership: 5

A Brief History Lesson

The Value of Choosing 9

Mediation in Receiverships

The Importance of 11Ex Parte Access to Courts in Receiverships

Professional Profile: 12Blake Alsbrook

Ask The Receiver 16

The List 18

Heard in the Halls 19

Continued on page 3...


Profile of Judge Mark S. MillardDepartment C-65, Family LawSanta Ana, CA

A Receiver is a court-appointed officer charged with certain duties, including, butnot limited to, operating businesses, pursuing causes of action, dissolving entities,complying with health, safety and welfare statutes and/or winding up companies andselling assets. This article focuses on the collection and sale of certain types ofreceivership assets (“Assets”) in state court receivership cases1.

Receivership LawsEach state has a receivership statute, but the statutes are not uniform and some

states give Receivers more rights than others. To the extent the state statute is silenton a receivership issue, then the appointment Order (“Appointment Order”) issuedat the beginning of the case dictates the rights and remedies of the Receiver.Generally, the Appointment Order is drafted by the interested parties and approvedby the Court. The extent of the receivership estate property is also determined by theappointing court. Typically, receivership property will include:• accounts receivable, earned future income and unearned future income;

Judge Mark S. Millard on the bench in Orange CountySuperior Court in Department C65 that is one of a fewfamily law courtrooms located in the Central Courthouse.

Selling Remnant Assets inReceivership CasesBY ADAM B. NACH AND SHARON M. KOPMAN*

Judge Mark S. Millard spent most of his time as a lawyer and all of his time as a judgein the narrow niche of Family Law. He is a double USC graduate (an undergraduatedegree in 1960 in economics and business – numbers, and a JD degree in 1963 from theUSC law school). After graduation, then lawyer Millard worked for a general litigationlaw firm in Orange County, Hurwitz & Hurwitz, plus two other firms before forming hisown practice, Millard, Castle & Monarch. Governor Gray Davis appointed about-to-beJudge Millard to the Orange County Superior Court in August 2003 to succeedChristopher Strople. By the time of his appointment, the O.C. Courts had opted forspecialization in judging such as civil, criminal, juvenile, probate and family law. Givenhis emphasis in family law in his law practice, he was an obvious choice to become afamily law judge. In 2008 and again in 2017, Judge Millard was awarded OutstandingJudge of the Year by the Family Law Specialist of the Orange County Bar Associationand American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (see photo on page 3).

NEWS

I like to think of this issue as ‘Back to the Basics.’ We havefilled this issue with topics that we all encounter on a nearly dailybasis in our receivership practices but may not have stopped tofocus on in a while. Thank you to Adam Nach and SharonKopman for reminding us about “Selling Remnant Assets inReceivership Cases.” Richard Ormond’s “Receivership: A BriefHistory Lesson” reminds why we are all able to do what we do inreceiverships. And Howard Ehrenberg explores “The ValueChoosing Mediation in Receiverships.” Edythe Bronstonhighlights “The Importance of Ex Parte Access to Courts inReceiverships.” Each of these articles contains information thatforms the building blocks of our practice; they are informativereminders of issues we should keep at the forefront of our minds.

The Ask the Receiver column by Peter Davidson contains agood discussion of the Ninth Circuit ruling in the In re Sino CleanEnergy case, as well as the issue of secret liens. And check out thelatest news in Heard in the Halls by Michael Muse-Fisher to findout the latest in our receivership community.

We are always looking for articles on current and relevantreceivership issues, so please feel free to send ideas or articles to myattention at [email protected].

Kathy

Receivership NewsPublished by

California Receivers Forum954 La Mirada St.

Laguna Beach, CA 92651949.497.3673 x 1200www.Receivers.org

PublisherRobert P. Mosier

[email protected]

EditorKathy Bazoian Phelps

[email protected]

Associate Editor Craig Collins, CPA

Associate PublishersBeverly McFarland

Ron OlinerKevin Singer

Contributing ColumnistsMichael Muse-Fisher, Heard in the Halls

Peter Davidson, Ask the Receiver

OfficersMia Blackler, Chair

Richardson “Red” Griswold, Chair-ElectKevin Singer, TreasurerJustin Harris, Secretary

Richard Ormond, Project DirectorScott Sackett, Immediate Past Chair

Graphic Design & LayoutRegina Roland, Inc.

Production ServicesJBS & Associates

Web ServicesCDR Marketing

Receivership News is published by the California Receivers Forum, a not-for-profit association. Articles in thispublication express the opinions of theirauthors and do not necessarily reflect theviews of the directors, officers or membersof the California Receivers Forum.Articles are intended as a source ofgeneral information and should not beconstrued as specific advice withoutfurther inquiry and/or consultation withprofessional counsel.

© Copyright 2018California Receivers Forum

All rights reserved.

Publisher’s CommentsBY ROBERT P. MOSIER, PUBLISHER*

| Fall 2018

Robert P. Mosier

*Robert P. Mosier isa Southern Californiareceiver and trustee andprincipal of Mosier &Company, Inc., a firmthat has specialized inmanaging and turningaround troubledcompanies for more than 25 years.

*Kathy BazoianPhelps is a partnerat DiamondMcCarthy, LLP, Los Angeles, and theco-author of ThePonzi Book: A LegalResource forUnraveling PonziSchemes. Shefrequently representsreceivers andtrustees.

In this issue we are very pleased to profile Judge Mark S.Millard, Orange County Superior Court, Family Law specialist.Judge Millard’s complexity may surprise you. A fine jurist to besure where most of his career as a lawyer and all of his time asjudge have been devoted to this emotionally charged area offamily law. What makes Judge Millard unusual is his devotion totwo San Francisco teams (the 49’s and the Giants) when he wasborn and raised in So Cal (except for brief stay in the Bay area).What is even more interesting are his hobbies – racecar driving(Formula cars, no less). It is a fun and interesting read. Equallyinteresting is our member profile. The spotlight in this issue is onattorney Blake Ashbrook who works with the Pasternak law firm.When he is not cheering for his alma matter’s football team(Michigan), you can find him climbing the Chilean Andes. Thishobby suggests a certain toughness and the ability to endure.How’s business? Most receivers report dead slow in the rents andprofits area – please advise if you need a definition of a rents andprofits receivership. I was recently introduced the Comptroller ofthe Currency, Joseph Otting (a former southern Californiabanker), and he reminded me that we still have cycles. Agree. Butwhere or when is the next cycle? Small signs: The high-endcondo market on the East Coast is reportedly in trouble.Foreclosures have recently taken a slight up-tic compared toseveral years of steady decline. Interest rates are also ticking up. Isthere a blue wave of insolvency just around the corner? Staytuned. It may be similar to hiking in the Andes – a question ofsurvival. Good luck. RPM

Kathy Bazoian Phelps

Editor’s CommentsBY KATHY BAZOIAN PHELPS*

Fall 2018 |

Continued from page 1.

Judge Mark S. Millard

Judge Millard states that he enjoys being a family law judgedespite the occasional high emotion. He has no immediate plansto change this, although a number of his colleagues have goneinto private judging with the many retired-judge mediationservices that now populate the legal community. Being a formerbusiness major, Judge Millard confesses that he enjoys thenumbers side of family law (translated: dividing up the goldrather than more emotionally-charged custody battles). And heacknowledges in family law, emotions run high. This iscompounded by the fact that someone is going to lose. Thistypically leads to emotional disappointment versus the disciplineof a CEO of a corporation who loses a battle in court and, inmost instances, moves on irrespective of the unfavorabledecision. Judge Millard observes that family law judging is notfor the faint at heart; many judges avoid the emotionally-charged family law for fear it will taint their reputations. ToJudge Millard, it is just part of the (sometimes challenging)assignment. Regarding his perspective on today’s Orange County legal

community, Judge Millard observes that when he started hislegal career after USC, Orange County was the land ofopportunity where a few lawyers controlled the business. With


A FULL-SERVICE BUSINESS LAW FIRM

Los Angeles • Napa Va l ley • Orange County • SacramentoSan Diego • San Franc isco • Scottsda le • Seatt le

w w w.buchal ter.com

BankruptcyBusiness Opera onsCreditors’ Rights Labor and Employment Counseling/Li ga onMergers & Acquisi onsReal EstateReceivershipsRegulatory/ComplianceTaxTransac onal Documenta on Workouts & Turnarounds

Contact:

Los Angeles - (213) 891-0700Richard Ormond

Steven Spector Michael Wachtell

San Francisco - (415) 227-0900Shawn Chris anson

A lifetime of achievement is capsulated and displayed in Judge Millard’s chambers. Two ofthe awards on display recognize Judge Millard as the Outstanding Judge of the Year awardedby the International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. Note, that his wife Barbara(“Bunky”), now deceased, is clearly displayed in the middle of all of those life achievements.They have two married daughters and three grandchildren.

| Fall 2018


Judge Mark S. Millard

today’s growth in population and the staggering growth in thenumber of lawyers, Orange County now appears to be anextension of the more competitive LA market. The personal side of Judge Millard seems to be a little racy –

well, he enjoys racing cars. In the photo below, there he isbehind the wheel racing to court lest he be late for his ex partecalendar. His specialty, not Formula 1, but none the less Formularacing cars. He also enjoys tennis.

With regard to receivers, Judge Millard subscribes to thebelief that receiverships and the receiver are an extreme remedyand should be used sparingly. Receivers are expensive. JudgeMillard has appointed many over the years but only where therewas a complex piece of real estate or business to sell or dividethat required outside input to advise the Court. His pattern is toattempt to get the Petitioner and Respondent to divide theassets willingly versus having to go to the expense of a third-

party receiver. But when the job is not getting done, receiverscan provide the Court and the divorcing couple with expertiseand neutral thinking. His experience with receivers has beenfavorable and the parties are warned about the expense (andgiven an opportunity to resolve the issues themselves) before theappointment.

Among other interests, Judge Millard played football in highschool and his freshman year at USC (where he attended basedon an academic scholarship). He jokes that he used to be 6’6”tall but after years on the bench, he is alas only 5’8.” While hewas born in LA and prior to college, Judge Millard spent some ofhis early years in San Francisco with his family – enough time tobecome a life-long fan of the San Francisco Giants and the 49ers(where he had season tickets for a few decades). A high point ofmemorabilia in his chambers is a seat from the old CandlestickPark along with Joe DiMaggio’s shirt when he played for the SanFrancisco Seals (see photo above). On the personal side, Judge Millard’s has two grown

daughters: Nicole lives in Austin, Texas and Michelle lives inAlbany, California. He has three grandchildren from the twodaughters: Olivia is going to Northwestern State University inLouisiana on a soccer scholarship and her brother Alex is inhigh school in Texas. Stella is undecided (maybe a future family-law judge)? Thanks to Judge Mark S. Millard for givingReceivership News a glimpse into his unique background andaccomplishments.

Judge Millard stands behind his Formula racer with some pride. An unusual hobby for afamily law lawyer/Judge.

Judge Millard is a life-long fan of the San Francisco Giants and the 49ers. For decades, hehad season tickets. Seat #4 is from Candlestick Park – a unique piece of furniture to besure. The jersey and photo are of none other than Joe DiMaggio who played for the SanFrancisco Seals before he moved on to the New York Yankees. And now you know the restof the story.

Judge Millard “racing” to the courthouse for his 8:30 AM ex-parte calendar?

If you are involved in receiverships, you are part of a longhistory of common law solutions developed by the English courtsnearly 1000 years ago. It is amazing to think that themillennium-old concept is relevant and effective today inhelping to resolve complex and intractable problems.

Receiverships, in general, tend to become more prominent indistressed economic times and, when used properly, can becomeflexible and creative avenues to assist in the restructuring orturnaround of a business, real property or other asset. In otherinstances, a receivership can provide the parties with anadditional layer of insulation from liabilities, in that a receiverenjoys quasi-judicial immunity and takes instructions solely fromthe court that appointed him or her. Therefore, the legalliability of actions taken by a receiver, such as the remediation ofan environmental hazard or the eviction of tenants, falls not onthe lender or aggrieved party that sought the receiver’sappointment, nor does it necessarily fall on the party beingdispossessed of its business or assets—rather such liabilitybelongs to the receiver and the court.

The Establishment of Courts of Equity The concept of the receiver took form after the Norman

invasion of England in 1066. Receivers were an extension of theNorman curia regis, or King's Council, maintained by most earlyrulers of England after 1066. Available records reference“receivers” during the reign of William the Conqueror who used“receivers” as extensions of his royal court to resolve disputesbetween feuding land holders. These “receivers” later evolvedinto “chancellors” or “officers” in the later Court of Chancery.

The Court of Chancery was a court of equity in England andWales that followed a set of flexible rules to avoid inequities ofthe common law. Until the 19th century, the Court ofChancery was able to apply a far wider range of remedies thanthe common law courts, such as the appointment of a receiver,specific performance and injunctions, and also had some powerto grant damages in special circumstances.

The Court of Chancery appointed “chancellors” to manageassets of debtors and landowners so that their debts could be paidefficiently. The term “Receiver” in this context began to be usedcommonly in England in the mid-16th century.

Receivership: A Brief History Lesson BY RICHARD P. ORMOND*

Fall 2018 |


| Fall 2018

• causes of action;• real property;• claims and rights to payment;• licenses, copyrights, business names;• bank accounts, certificates of deposit; and• personalty, equipment, vehicles, furniture/fixtures, andequipmentThe lack of consistency with receivership statutes

throughout the states is a problem, particularly when it comes toreal estate. In July 2015, the National Conference ofCommissioners on Uniform State Laws (“NCCUSL”) approvedthe Uniform Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act(“UCRERA”) and recommended it for enactment in all states. As of September, 2018, the following states have enacted a

form of the UCRERA statute: Michigan, Nevada, Oregon,Tennessee, and Utah, and the following states have introducedthe statute to legislation: Kentucky, Oklahoma, West Virginia2.The UCRERA addresses the receivership issues of, inter alia, theAppointment Standards, Stay of actions, and Power of theReceiver including the sale of real property. As a result of theUCRERA, the Receivers in states that have passed theUCRERA have a much easier time with selling real property andpersonal property related to the real property.

The Receivership EstateThe state statute or Appointment Order will determine the

assets that comprise the Receivership Estate. The attorneysdrafting the Appointment Order must be careful in providing adetailed list of assets that the Receiver will control and preserve.Generally, the Appointment Order is broadly drafted and usuallyincludes ALL the company’s assets or assets that are subject tothe secured lender that appointed the Receiver or owned by theentity under the Receiver’s control.The Receiver has a fiduciary duty with regards to locating

the assets, selling the assets and maximizing the value of theReceivership estate. The Receiver can, among other things,review company records, public records (County Recorder,UCC, USPTO, water craft, MVD, and aircraft public records)and may order a private investigator to locate assets.Notwithstanding the Receiver’s due diligence, there may beassets that cannot be located.

Sales of Receivership PropertyIn most states, a Receiver may sell assets by statutory

authority or pursuant to a Court Appointment Order (See, e.g.,Cal Code Civ Proc § 568 ); see also Resolution Trust Corp. v.Bayside Developers, 43 F.3d 1230, 1242-3 (9th Cir. 1995); Peoplev. Stark, 131 Cal. App. 4th 184, 202-3 (Ct. App. 2005).Receivers are appointed to preserve and monetize any type ofcollateral held by a secured lender.Section 16 of the UCRERA addresses sales of receivership

real property. A summary of Section 16 is as follows: Use, Sale, Lease, License, or Other Transfer of Receivership

Property Other than in Ordinary Course. With court approval,the Act permits the receiver to use, sell, lease, license, exchangeor otherwise transfer receivership property other than in theordinary course of business. § 16(b), (c). Unless the agreementof transfer provides otherwise, the transfer is free and clear ofrights of redemption and liens other than liens that are senior tothe lien of the person who obtained the receiver’s appointment.§ 16(c). Liens extinguished by the receiver’s sale attach toproceeds with the same validity, perfection, and priority as theyhad with respect to the property sold. § 16(d). The sale may beconducted as a private sale, and creditors with valid securedclaims may credit bid. § 16(e). The Act also provides a safeharbor for purchasers, in case a party objects to the sale but failsto get a stay of the order approving the sale. § 16(f). Securedcreditors are entitled to the proceeds of their collateral accordingto the priority rules established by law other than this Act, §20(g), although the court may award the receiver the reasonableand necessary fees and expenses for carrying out the receiver’sduties. § 21(a).

UCRERA at p. 7.A problematic issue in most cases is whether the Receiver

may sell the asset free and clear of liens. Some courts will allowfor the sale of assets free and clear of junior liens under certaincircumstances. Park National Bank v Cattani, Inc, 187 Ohio App.


Selling Remnant Assets...


3d 186, 189 (2010). In the alternative, the Court may allow for asale free and clear of liens although the case law and statutes arenot clear on the issue. In such circumstances, the parties willdraft an order at the beginning of the case which provides for theparameters of such sale, subject to the court’s views. The startingpoint for orders with free and clear language may be usingBankruptcy Court orders and using the Bankruptcy Code § 363language (11 U.S.C § 363(f)). Again, these types of sales dependon the facts and circumstance, the state, and most importantly,knowing your judge. Notwithstanding the Order provides for asale free and clear of liens, the title company that insures titlemay not agree to insure when the sale is free and clear of liensand the lien is not paid in full. Therefore, before getting too farin the sales process where liens are involved, care should betaken to establish whether a sale free and clear of liens is feasibleor permissible.

Sale of Remnant AssetsWhen a Receivership case is wrapping up, there may be a few

remaining known assets that the Receiver deems unworthy topursue because the costs outweigh the benefits.

Known Assets:Typical assets that fall into this category are as follows:(i) default judgments; (ii) litigation claims that are otherwise not cost-effective to

pursue(iii) accounts receivable; (iv) notes; (v) equity interests; and (vi) insurance refunds3

The Receiver will weigh the risk and time of any potentialrecovery with the costs of keeping the estate open for only thoseassets. There are companies that can assist the Receiver in theexercise of his or her fiduciary duty by purchasing these knownremaining assets. By doing so, a Receiver is eliminating risk andbringing cash into the estate while stopping the hemorrhagingcaused by the costs from the ongoing administration of theestate.

Unknown “Remnant Assets”:Even if all known operating assets of value having been

monetized and any viable claims and causes of action havingbeen prosecuted, there may be an opportunity to sell unknownresidual assets that may arise after the Receivership is closed.These unknown Remnant Assets may include, among otherthings, the following:(i) unscheduled refunds; (ii) overpayments; (iii) deposits; and (iv) claims or other payment rights that would accrue

sometime in the future. Typically, these are small checks that can show up many

years after a Receivership case closes and are too small towarrant re-opening a case to make a distribution. As such, theycreate an administrative hassle for the Receiver who has toreturn the checks. The cost of postage is not as much an issue asis loss of a professional’s time. As we all know, time is money. AReceiver can alleviate this hassle while bringing money into theestate for these unknown Remnant Assets. Earlier in this article, we discussed the importance of

ensuring that the Appointment Order contains broad salelanguage. To ensure that a Receiver has an option to do aRemnant Asset deal at the end of the case, the Receiver shouldensure that the Appointment Order contains broad languageauthorizing the sale of all assets of the Receivership estate,whether known or unknown, that may arise at any time. Thiswill prevent the Receiver from taking extra steps at the end ofthe case to adjust the Appointment Order if the Receiverchooses to do one of these deals. The process for selling these known and unknown Remnant

Assets is the same as any other sale in a Receivership case and asmentioned above, if permissible under applicable laws, shouldinclude a provision selling the assets free and clear of liens,claims and encumbrances. These Remnant Asset deals are a win-win for the

Receivership estate. They help the Receiver to (i) generate morefunds for the estate; (ii) expeditiously administer the assets; and(iii) eliminate the administrative hassle associated with handlingsmall straggling assets that may appear post-closing. This article should not be considered or construed as legal

advice on any fact or circumstance. You should consult your ownattorney regarding your own personal situation or any legalquestion you may have.

1 Sales of assets in Receivership cases brought in Federal court are governed by 28

U.S.C. sections 2001 and 2004 and the Federal Court order. 2 http://www.uniformlaws.org/LegislativeFactSheet.aspx?title= Commercial % 20

Real%20Estate%20Receivership%20Act.3 An example is a small insurance refund that is not expected to be paid out until

6 months to a year after a case is ready to close.


Selling Remnant Assets...

Adam B. Nach

*Adam B. Nach is an attorney with over 25years of experience. He represents Receivers,

Trustees, Lenders and Landlords and is admittedto the Arizona State Bar, 9th Circuit Court of

Appeals and U.S. Supreme [email protected].

Sharon M. Kopman

*Sharon M. Kopman has been a restructuringattorney for over 25 years. She works for privateinvestment firm, Oak Point Partners, whichpioneered the “Remnant Asset” concept over 10years ago. Oak Point Partners has completed over600 Remnant Asset deals across the U.S. incommercial bankruptcy cases, receiverships, ABCs,and out-of-court [email protected]

Fall 2018 |

| Fall 2018

The Equitable Powers Found inAmerican Courts1

The United States traces its equitablecourts to Article 3, Section2, of theConstitution where the judicial powerof the federal government wasestablished to all cases “at law andin equity.” The United StatesSupreme Court holds that theadministration of insolvententerprises, investigations into thereasonableness of public utility rates,and the performance of other judicialfunctions often require the special services of masters inchancery, referees, auditors, and other special aids.

In Heckers, the Court held that the practice of referringpending actions to a referee is coequal with the organizationof the federal courts under Article III. The leading case of ExParte Peterson centers on a United States district court’sappointment of an auditor with power to compel the attendanceof witnesses and the production of testimony. The courtauthorized the “auditor” to conduct a preliminary investigationof facts and file a report thereon for the purpose of simplifyingthe issues for the jury. This action was neither authorized norprohibited by statute, but rather emanated from the court’sequitable powers.

In sustaining the action of the district judge, Justice Brandeis,speaking for the Court, declared: “Courts have (at least in theabsence of legislation to the contrary) inherent power to providethemselves with appropriate instruments required for theperformance of their duties. . . . This power includes authority toappoint persons unconnected with the court to aid judges in theperformance of specific judicial duties, as they may arise in theprogress of a cause.”4 The power to appoint auditors by federalcourts sitting in equity has been exercised from their verybeginning, and here it was held that this power is the samewhether the court sits in law or equity.

In general, the appointment of a receiver is an equitableprocedure wherein a court believes that a party to an action isnot in a position (or, in some circumstances, refuses) to complywith the desires of the court. Appointment of a receiver is also aprovisional remedy that allows courts to preserve and/ormaintain assets, so that “waste” does not occur and the value ofan asset in dispute can be preserved pending final adjudication.A receiver is a ministerial officer, agent, creature, hand, or armof, and a temporary occupant and caretaker of the property forthe court.

England and most other Common Law nations also stillmaintain some sort of equitable solution through receivership.Today, each of our fifty states and the federal government have

statutoryor common law

that provides theirrespective courts

with the equitable powerand authority to establish a

receivership estate and appoint a receiver over the business, realproperty, personal property (whether tangible or intangible) ofwhat is usually a distressed litigant, and to maintain those assetsfor the benefit of the parties involved in the dispute. Moreover,some states confer considerably broad power to the receiver tooperate a business, sell real and personal property and, in someinstances, even seek to restructure debt or liquidate the assets ofa business. Receivers can also collect and enforce accountsreceivable, obtain and sell trademarks and domain names, andtransfer liquor licenses, among other broad powers.

It is truly amazing that all of us are torchbearers for this longtradition, a tradition developed to solve problems, preserve valueand to maintain continuity. All of us have the highest duty tocontinue this tradition and practice to the highest standards sothat judges and litigants continue to put their trust and faith inour unique and ancient skills.

1 This section focuses primarily on Federal and California authorities. Itis recommended that practitioners consult the governing laws in theirjurisdiction when appropriate.

2 Heckers v. Fowler, 2 Wall. (69 U.S.) 123, 128–129 (1864).3 253 U.S. 300 (1920).4 Id. at 312.

Richard Ormond

*Richard Ormond is a shareholder at Buchalter, APC, inits Los Angeles office and Co-chair of the firm’s Receivership

Industry Group. He is also the 2018 Co-chair of theLA/OC Chapter of the California Receiver’s Forum and a

member of the CRF’s state board.


Receivership: A Brief History Lesson

Fall 2018 |

Mediation is a smart and effective way to resolve disputes in areceivership setting. A receiver, once appointed, is a neutral thirdparty and an agent and officer of the court. A receiver has, underthe control of the court, the power to bring and defend actions inhis own name, as receiver; to take and keep possession ofproperty, to receive rents, collect debts, to compound for andcompromise the same, to make transfers, and generally to do suchacts respecting the property as the court may authorize.1 In thiscontext, receivers can often find themselves in an adversarialsetting, and faced with a dispute that cannot be resolved throughnegotiation between the parties. Rather than feeling the onlyrecourse is to litigate the dispute, which is not only a riskyoption, but also very costly, mediation presents an alternativesolution that is relatively quick, inexpensive and generally risk-free. Further, mediation allows parties to control the outcome ofthe dispute and to feel like they have received a fair outcome.

A Receiver's Right or Power to Use Mediation A receiver has only those powers granted by statute, by the

order of appointment, and by subsequent court orders.2

California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 564 through 570provide the foundation for California receivership procedure;Section 568 specifically sets forth the powers of receivers.

Section 568 provides that a receiver has the power to "takeand keep possession of the property, to receive rents, collectdebts, to compound for and compromise the same . . . ” (emphasisadded). Although appearing to provide broad authority for areceiver to compromise disputes, there is no explicit right of areceiver to use mediation and no explicit power to "sign off" on aresolution reached through mediation, at least without courtauthority or approval.3

In line with the above, a receiver's right or power to make acontract binding the property or funds in his custody, withoutthe authority or approval of a court, is similarly limited. Anunauthorized agreement of a receiver does not bind the court incharge of the receivership, is not recognized as a contract of thereceivership, and is treated as the receiver's own contract.

Case law, however, is replete with state court-appointedreceivers negotiating compromise agreements or settlements.Further, no case has stated that a receiver could not use theassistance of mediator.

Seeking Court ApprovalBased on the above, the best practice would be to include in

the order of appointment the right to, in the receiver'sdiscretion, use a mediator and enter into an agreement, subject

to further court approval, binding the property in dispute andthe court in charge of the receivership. To the extent that areceiver has been appointed without such language in the order,a receiver may petition for additional authority from the court orinstructions as the need arises.4

Because parties can choose to initiate mediation at anypoint, and because everyone is agreeing to participate, mediationtypically gives rise to less conflict throughout the process. Thiscan be critical if a party wants to maintain a good relationshipwith the other side, and the concept of using a mediator in sucha setting makes sense and sets the stage for dispute resolution.

1 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 568.2 See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 568; City of Santa Monica v. Gonzalez, 43 Cal. 4th905, 930, 76 Cal. Rptr. 3d 483, 502, 182 P.3d 1027, 1043 (2008); Cal-American Income Property Fund VII v. Brown Development Corp., 138 Cal.App. 3d 268, 273, 187 Cal. Rptr. 703, 706 (Cal. App. 1982); Haswell v.Costellanos, 126 Cal. App. 427, 431, 14 P.2d 846, 848 (Cal. App. 1932).

3 Nulaid Farmers Assn. v. La Torre, 252 Cal. App. 2d 788, 791, 60 Cal. Rptr.821, 823 (Cal. App. 1967).

4 See Steinberg v. Goldstein, 145 Cal. App. 2d 692, 696, 699-700, 303 P.2d 80(Cal. App. 1956); Free Gold Mining Co. v. Spiers, 135 Cal. 130, 131-32, 67 P.61, 61 (1901); In re Executive Life Ins. Co., 32 Cal. App. 4th 344, 399-400, 38Cal. Rptr. 2d 453, 486 (Cal. App. 1995).

The Value of Choosing Mediation inReceiverships For Dispute ResolutionBY: HOWARD EHRENBERG AND CLAIRE WU*

Claire Wu

*Claire K. Wu is an Associate with thefirm and can be reached at 213-617-5284;[email protected].

Howard Ehrenberg

*Howard M. Ehrenberg is the Presidentand Managing Member of

SulmeyerKupetz, a premier business,financial restructuring and litigation firm inCalifornia. He can be reached at (213)

626-2311; [email protected].

| Fall 2018

With a seemingly endless number of things to talk about, theannual conference of the National Association of Federal EquityReceivers (NAFER) again attracted a high caliber group ofprofessionals, judges and regulators to talk about federal equityreceiverships. The Seventh Annual Conference of NAFER tookplace on October 18 –20, 2018 at The Drake in Chicago. For thethird year in a row, the conference began with a half-dayReceiver’s Training Camp which focused on litigation issues this

year. The next full day of educational content contained qualitypresentations covering everything from sales issues, tocryptocurrency cases, to federal nonregulatory receiverships.The final day was capped with a panel discussing internationalissues arising in receivership cases, as well as the insightfulJudges’ Panel. Our own Judge Philip Gutierrez from the CentralDistrict of California participated in both the Training Campand the Judges’ Panel, and he actively interacted with receivers,attorneys, regulators and others throughout the conference. Hiscontributions to the conference were noticed and appreciated byeveryone.

The 2019 Annual Conference is scheduled for October17–19, 2019 in Phoenix/Scottsdale at the Omni ScottsdaleResort & Spa at Montelucia. It’s a conference well worthattending. Check out www.nafer.org for more information aboutNAFER.

The NAFER 2018 Annual ConferenceBY KATHY BAZOIAN PHELPS

Fall 2018 |

The Importance of Ex Parte Access to Courtsin Receiverships Remains HighBY EDYTHE L. BRONSTON*

It is impossible to overestimate the importance to receivers ofthe ability to access the Receivership Court on an ex parte basis.This extends to applications for appointment of a receiver,where the courts have always been cognizant of the need foremergency relief in the case of irreparable harm or immediatedanger. The statewide uniform Civil Rules of Court, adopted bythe Judicial Council of California, are detailed as to the requiredfactual showing. [Chapter 4 of California Rules of Court(“CRC”)]

This urgency is tacitly acknowledged by CRC Rule 3.1175 etseq, where the only reference to a noticed motion is in Rule3.1184, dealing with the Receiver’s Final Account and Report.Even in that Rule, a stipulation of all parties is offered as analternative to a noticed motion. On January 1, 2007, Article 4was adopted as part of the reorganization of the California Rulesof Court. That reorganization, as it pertained to receiverships,was based in large part on the Los Angeles Local Rules, whichhad been developed with the assistance of several of theCalifornia Receivers Forum members working with Judge RobertO’Brien and later, in 2006, with the Judicial Council ofCalifornia. The Los Angeles Local Rules were selected as amodel, due to the Los Angeles courts’ Writs and Receiversdepartment, unique in the State.

There can be no doubt that the need for expediency inreceivership matters often arises. It is also true that ex parteapplications were, in the past, sometimes filed when a trueemergency did not exist.

For many years, during the tenure of Judges O’Brien andDiane Wayne, as well as Commissioners Arnold Levin andBruce Mitchell, the Los Angeles receivership courtsacknowledged the need for expediency in their receivershipcases. These needs arose under many disparate circumstances:e.g., confirmation of sales of assets of the receivership estates;interference with the administration of those estates;interference by creditors; improper bankruptcy filings, etc.

With the retirement of Judges O’Brien and Wayne plusCommissioners Levin and Mitchell from the Los AngelesSuperior Court, attitudes abruptly changed and the receivershipcourts clearly communicated to receivers and their counsel thatex parte hearings were unnecessary and would rarely, if ever, begranted. In many cases, judicial officers failed to recognize andacknowledge that receivers are officers of the court and thatestate assets are held by the receivers in custodia legis for theappointing court.

This was a sea change and the almost immediate result wastwofold: (1) costs to the estates multiplied, as choices were made

to file an ex parte application knowing that it would almostcertainly be denied, with a requested alternative remedy being ahearing set on shortened notice; and (2) seasoned receivers andcounsel routinely advised potential movants to file theircomplaints in branch courts whenever possible. The firstalternative greatly increased the cost of a receivership; thesecond undermined the courts’ efforts to streamline processes,reduce congestion and, most importantly, to operate within thenew, stringent budget allotted to the court system.

The genesis of the California Receivers Forum was a meetingbetween Los Angeles and Orange County Receivers in the early1990’s, arising because there was a recognizable need to shareinformation and raise issues of importance to the bench, the barand non-attorney receivers. Almost simultaneously, JudgeO’Brien had reached out to the Los Angeles receivershipcommunity, forming an ad hoc committee on receivershipswhich assisted in formulating the aforesaid new (Los AngelesCounty) local rules, implemented in early 1994. The line ofcommunication opened between the courts, the Ad HocReceivership Committee and the Los Angeles and OrangeCounty Receivers quickly proved itself to be invaluable in manyways. The community of receivers was made privy to problemsseen by the bench and corrections were made; conversely, thecourts were made aware of real time problems and generallyreacted positively. In this era of openness, trust between thebench, bar and non-attorney practitioners bloomed andreceiverships operated efficiently and cost-effectively.

While the Receivership News, under the able direction first ofPeter Davidson, then Robert Mosier and Kathy Phelps, has madegiant strides in raising the level of competency in thereceivership world, it is unfortunate that communicationbetween the bench, bar and non-attorney receivers has laggedbehind. Suggestions from all sides are greatly appreciated.

This writer invites comments as to personal experiences withex parte applications, both approved and rejected.

Edythe Bronston

*Edythe Bronston is a founding director and past President of both the Los Angeles/Orange County

Receivers Forum and the California Receivers Forum. She is an attorney practicing in the area of receiverships

and provisional directorships.

My legal career representing receivers came about by chance,but it’s a perfect fit for me. I was born and raised in Los Angelesby a mother, father, and stepparents who were all teachers andlater principals of elementary and secondary schools. Needlessto say, I never got away with anything – although I tried – and Igrew up with a love for reading, writing, and politics. Maybe myeducator parents did something wrong, because I knew that Iwanted to be a lawyer as early as the sixth grade. I attended theUniversity of California at Santa Barbara for my undergraduateeducation, where I obtained a bachelor’s degree in politicalscience. During my final year in college, I was honored toparticipate in the UCDC program, where I spent time inWashington, D.C. working for Sen. Dianne Feinstein. Aftercollege, I spent time in Orange County working as a recordsclerk for a large regional law firm called Rutan & Tucker.Despite the warnings of the attorneys at Rutan, I applied for

law school, and spent my first year at Loyola of Los Angeles. Idid well that first year, and because I was at the top of my classwas able to transfer to and graduate from the University ofMichigan Law School, cum laude. Spending two years in AnnArbor was a phenomenal experience that I’ll never forget:attending classes taught by some of the nation’s brightest legalscholars and then walking tree-lined streets in the fall to watchthe Wolverines play at the Big House in front of 110,000 fanstruly can’t be matched. During law school I was also luckyenough to extern for a United States Magistrate Judge andsummer at a prestigious downtown law firm.I graduated from Michigan Law in the middle of 2008’s

financial crisis, which proved to be … well let’s call it aninteresting time to begin a career in law. With fellow grads andyoung associates being laid off or passed over on all sides, I was

truly fortunate to secure a yearlong clerkship – later extendedanother year based on my performance – at the San FranciscoSuperior Court’s Civil Division. I lived in Haight Ashbury fortwo years and assisted 20 different judges in figuring out theanswer to every sort of legal question under the sun. During mytime at the Superior Court I worked for some phenomenaljurists including, among many others, Hon. Katherine Feinstein(after all, I had worked for her mom Dianne on the Hill incollege), Hon. Curtis Karnow, and Hon. A. James Robertson.These judges were an invaluable source of knowledge andexperience, and taught me that there are a wide range ofjudicial styles and philosophies, but that nearly every judgetruly cares about getting things right and pays close attention tofilings. The Court was also a blessing in the diversity of legalissues presented to me: it cannot be overstated just howmonotonous a practice limited to a single issue can quicklybecome. After leaving the Court, I spent time at a boutique San

Francisco litigation shop before deciding that it was time toreturn to Los Angeles to be closer to family and friends; and sobegan my career in receivership law. I met with my now-lawpartner, David Pasternak, while I was still living in SanFrancisco, and just a month later had relocated my life to LosAngeles and was cutting my teeth on some of the largest andmost complex receivership matters in the country. I owe Dave agreat debt of gratitude for opening the door early in my career.Since then, I’ve been fortunate to have been mentored by thebest in the business, including Mike Wachtell, Peter Davidson,and, of course, Dave Pasternak, among many others who haveshowed me the ropes. Over the course of the past decade, I have found that there

are two things I love about this business: (1) unlike purelitigation, my experience with Receivers and their counsel hastypically not involveds c o r c h e d - e a r t hpersonalities, but ratherpeople who have endedup becoming closefriends; and (2)receivership presentsthe practitioner with awide range of issuesthat are interesting,challenging, andrequire problem-solving. I have had thegood fortune ofworking with andproviding counsel to agreat group of receiversincluding, amongothers, Kevin Singer,Tom Coleman, Dave

Professional Profile:

Blake Alsbrook


Blake Alsbrook, a member of the CRF LA/OC Board and the LACBA Remedies Section’sExecutive Committee, was recently named shareholder of Pasternak, Pasternak & Alsbrook,a Century City law firm.

Torres del Paine National Park in Chile is known forsoaring mountains and bright blue icebergs that cleavefrom glaciers. The park takes its name from the horn-shaped peaks called Cuernos del Paine.

| Fall 2018

Fall 2018 |

Wald, Rich Weissman, Ted Lanes, Ted Phelps, Andy Zimbaldi,and Dave Pasternak. This is truly a great community, and Iconsider all of these individuals friends. With respect to thework, I have found that my area of expertise could be describedas averting crisis. Whether it’s negotiating with lenders andciting case law that allows a contested, complex, lien-free sale toclose and fund a receivership estate; challenging improperattempts to wrest control away from the receiver by filing forbankruptcy relief; fighting off improper efforts to sue the receiveror go after his bond; or successfully getting potentially-damagingwrits and appeals dismissed, I have found a niche tacklingobstacles that other practitioners believe to be impossible. Myhope is to keep assisting receivers with the hard stuff in thefuture (I’ll always take the easy stuff too), and to begin serving asa receiver myself. When not at work I am passionate about Michigan football,

Liverpool soccer, photography, and travel. Most recently, Ispent time in South America eating my way through BuenosAires and trekking across Torres del Paine in Chilean Patagonia.During the holidays, I’ll be heading to Europe with my beautifulgirlfriend Madeleine visiting friends in London and Munich,then ringing in the new year skiing in Zermatt, Switzerland.Definitely packing a big jacket for this one.


Blake Alsbrook

Trekking “The W” inChilean Patagonia isexpedition travel at itsfinest, and imprintsotherworldlylandscapes onexplorers – an idealbreak from the life of a lawyer.

Kimberly SieblerManaging Director and Industry [email protected]

Runa Kargupta, CTPVice [email protected]

©2018 MUFG Union Bank, N.A. All rights reserved. Member FDIC. Union Bank is a registered trademark and brand name of MUFG Union Bank, N.A.

As an approved nationwide bankruptcy depository, Union Bank® Reorganization Services o�ers State and Federal Court Receivers specialized banking and treasury management services. Your dedicated team of professionals will provide in-depth knowledge and personalized attention. We’re committed to helping you succeed.

For over 150 years, Union Bank has o�ered a consistent and disciplined banking philosophy to our customers. Along with our superior asset quality and strong capital position, Union Bank is recognized by experts as having solid investment-grade credit ratings and strong capital ratios, key measurements of a bank’s financial strength.

unionbank.com/reorganization

Strength, service, and stability for over 150 years

| Fall 2018

Phil Seymour The Seymour Group Tel: 310-612-9800

[email protected]

is pleased to announcethe sale of

A Toys “R” Us Development site of 124,146 sq ft

for $17,200,000 on behalf of Kevin Singer, Partition Referee

Superior Court of CaliforniaCounty of Los Angeles–Van Nuys

Robb EvansRobb Evans & Associates LLC

Tel: [email protected]

is pleased to announce its appointment as

Receiver in the matter of Federal Trade Commission v. Bob Robinson, LLC, et al.

A Federal Regulatory Receivership

United States District CourtSouthern District of Texas

Houston Division

Robb EvansRobb Evans & Associates LLC

Tel: [email protected]

is pleased to announce its appointment as

Receiver in the matter of Federal Trade Commission v.

Credit Bureau Center, LLC, et al.A Federal Regulatory Receivership

United States District CourtNorthern District of Illinois

Eastern Division

Ryan C. BakerMosier & Company, Inc.Tel: 714 432-0800 [email protected]

is pleased to announce his appointment as

Receiver for a 110,000 Sq. Ft. Shopping Center

Superior Court of CaliforniaCounty of Merced

Ryan C. BakerMosier & Company, Inc.Tel: 714 432-0800 [email protected]


Partition Referee for a automobile dealership

Superior Court of CaliforniaCounty of Los Angeles

Robert P. MosierMosier & Company, Inc.Tel: 714 432-0800 [email protected]

is pleased to announce his appointment

as a Receiver to take charge of a hill-top mansion in Montecito

that involves a Department of Justiceseizure action.

Superior Court of California,County of Los Angeles

South District–Long Beach

Michael G. Kasolas, CPAMichael Kasolas & Company

Office: 415-992-5806Email: [email protected]

is pleased to announcethe successful completion

of his duties as

Liquidating Trusteefor the Hashfast Creditors Trust

San Francisco, CA

United States Bankruptcy CourtNorthern District of California

San Francisco



is pleased to announcethe successful completion

of his duties as

Referee for the Estate of Joseph Koon Lim Ng

Superior Court of CaliforniaCounty of San Francisco



is pleased to announcehis appointment as

Chapter 11 Trustee In re: Ramon Ramirez Lopez

Sacramento, CA

United States Bankruptcy CourtEastern District of California

Sacramento

Fall 2018 |

Dennis P. Gemberling Perry Group International

Tel: 800-580-3950 [email protected]

is pleased to announce the completion of his duties

as Receiver for Touyee LLC D/B/A Shao MountainRestaurant Operating Company,

Rents & Profits

Superior Court of California County of Santa Clara

Edythe L. Bronston Law offices of Edythe L. Bronston


is pleased to announce her appointment

as Receiver for Mendez Receivership

Health & Safety

Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles

Andrew Zimbaldi Kidder MatthewsTel: 949-887-0923

[email protected]

is pleased to announce his appointment

as Receiver for Navarette vs. Ruiz

Partition

Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles

Richard MunroInvenz, Inc.

Tel: 949 [email protected]


Receiver fortwo consumer direct marketing &

print media companies

Superior Court of CaliforniaCounty of Orange

Scott SackettFiduciary Management Technologies



Receiver for First Northern Bank v. Mission

Solano Rescue Mission Health & Safety

Superior Court of California County of Solano

Scott Sackett Fiduciary Management Technologies


as Trusteeis pleased to announce the confirmation of

CH 11 Plan of ReorganizationDistributing $12,029,427 to creditors

In Re Aiad and Hoda Samuel

United States Bankruptcy CourtEastern District of California

Take this opportunity to announce a new appointment,current or recently completed receivership as a

Tombstone announcement in issue 65.

It’s Easy! Visit receivers.org/rnadvertising.htm to complete the advertising application.

Interested in featuring your businessin the Receivership News?

| Fall 2018

In Issue No. 62, Ask the Receiver discussed the district court’saffirmance of a bankruptcy court’s order dismissing a bankruptcycase. A state court receiver for a corporation removed thecorporation’s board of directors and replaced them. Theunhappy, removed, board members filed a bankruptcy petitionfor the corporation. Sino Clean Energy Inc. by and throughBaowen Ren v. Seiden, 565 B.R. 677 (Nev. 2017). The districtcourt held state law determines who is authorized to filebankruptcy for a corporation. It rejected the petitioner’sargument that states cannot prevent a corporation from filingbankruptcy, explaining petitioners blurred the distinctionbetween barring a corporation from filing bankruptcy, whichstates cannot do, and the long standing rule empowering statesto determine who has the authority to file bankruptcy for anentity. The order appointing the receiver specificallyempowered the receiver to pick a new board of directors for thecorporation.In August, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court. In

re Sino Clean Energy, Inc., ____ F. 3d ___ (9th Cir. 2018). TheNinth Circuit explained that because the receiver had removedthe prior board of directors, they no longer had any authority toact for the corporation. As pointed out in Issue No. 62, Ask theReceiver, this is consistent with established receivership law.See, Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. FITC, Inc., 52B.R. 935, 937 (N.D. Cal. 1985) [“Once a court appoints areceiver, the management loses the power to run thecorporation’s affairs. The receiver obtains all the corporation’spower and assets. Thus it was the receiver, and only thereceiver, who this court empowered with the authority to placeFITC in bankruptcy.”]. See also, SEC v. Spence & Green, 612F.2d 896, 903 (5th Cir. 1980); U.S. v. Vanguard Inv. Co. Inc.,667 F. Supp. 257 (M.D.N.C. 1987); First Savings & Loan Ass’nv. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n, 531 F. Supp. 251, 255-256(D. Hawaii 1981) [“When a receiver is appointed for acorporation, the corporation’s management loses the power torun its affairs and the receiver obtains all of the corporationspower and assets.”].The Ninth Circuit further explained: “state law dictates

which persons may file a bankruptcy petition on behalf of adebtor corporation” and “state law includes the decision of itsstate courts,” which would include the receivership order.The Circuit rejected the cases relied on by the petitioners,

which held that states cannot enjoin a corporation from filingbankruptcy explaining, like the district court, enjoining acorporation from filing is different from determining who hasthe authority to file bankruptcy for a corporation. It specificallycited In re Corporate & Leisure Event Prods., Inc., 351 B.R. 724(Bankr. D. Ariz. 2006), relied upon by petitioners, and held tothe extent it is contradictory “it is wrong.”

I am the receiver for a small grocery store andrestaurant owned by an uncooperative divorcingcouple. I am in the process of selling the store andrestaurant and paying claims. I have been contactedby a few parties who say they have liens that need to

be satisfied. I have run a UCC search and obtained a title reportand I don’t see the liens they claim. I told this to one of theirlawyers and he said his clients have “secret liens.” What in theworld are “secret liens” and how am I supposed to know aboutthem and deal with them?

Unfortunately there are numerous “secret liens,”sometimes called “hidden liens,” that cannot befound by searching public records. They exist underboth California and federal law. They have beencreated by the legislature to protect various parties

and interests, without thought to how third parties can findthem. A report prepared by the State Bar, Business LawSection, in 2010 identified over 155 secret liens; some you mayhave heard of but not appreciated, others you likely never heardof. The Bar report lists the liens in six broad categories: (1)Liens arising in litigation, (2) Agricultural liens, (3) Liensarising in sales transactions, (4) Liens for performance ofservices, (5) Tax and governmental liens, and (6) Liens onparticular types of personal property.In the litigation arena, one of the most common “secret

liens” is a lien on all of a judgment debtor’s property whicharises when the judgment debtor is served with an order for hisjudgment debtor examination (known as an “ORAP” lien)(C.C.P. § 708.110). The lien lasts for one year after the order.In the agricultural area, the most common, and far reaching,

“secret lien” is the PACA lien, created under the PerishableAgricultural Commodities Act (7 U.S.C. § 499 et seq.). Insummary, if “perishable agricultural commodities” (whichinclude fruits and vegetables) are sold, which have been shippedthrough interstate or foreign commerce, and have not been paidfor by the buyer, the seller has a lien not only on the PACA

Ask The ReceiverBY PETER A. DAVIDSON*

Q

A

Continued on page 17..

commodities sold, but also on the products derived from thecommodities and the proceeds from the sale of the commodities.So, for example, if the commodities are turned into meals by arestaurant, or into some other product, the PACA seller has alien on the proceeds of the meals or product. JC Produce Inc. v.Paragon Steakhouse Restaurants, Inc., 70 F.Supp. 2d 1119 (E.D.Cal. 1999). The PACA lien is perfected by the seller simplyproviding notice to the buyer of the lien within 30 days of thebuyer’s default.There are far too many “secret liens” to list or discuss here,

However, a 2013 update of the Bar report can be found onlineby simply Googling: “California hidden liens.” One important“secret lien,” not listed, is the lien a receiver gets upon hisappointment. California Commercial Code § 9102 (52)(E)defines a “lien creditor” as, among other things: “A receiver inequity from the time of appointment.” The receiver’s lien issuperior to any unperfected security interest at the time of hisappointment. So, the receiver is ahead of unsecured creditorsand security interests that are not properly or timely perfected.Commercial Code § 9317(a)(2).

As to how to deal with the “secret lien” problem, the bestpractice is to file a motion to establish a claims procedure,requiring anyone who has a claim to receivership assets to filetheir claim with the receiver by a certain date. The claim formshould include a section asking the claimant if he or she asserts alien on any of the receivership assets and, if so, to providedetails. Once the time for filing claims expires, the receiver,after reviewing the claims, should file a motion asking the courtto approve the receiver’s determinations of who has allowedclaims and the amounts and directing the receiver who to pay.In this way, the receiver is immunized because when he thendistributes the estate’s funds he is doing so pursuant to courtorder.

Peter A. Davidson

*Peter A. Davidson is a Partner of Ervin Cohen &Jessup LLP a Beverly Hills Law Firm. His practice

includes representing Receivers and acting as aReceiver in State and Federal Court.

Fall 2018 |


Ask the Receiver

CRF LA/OC Chapter’s 10th Annual Holiday ReceptionCelebrate the holiday season with your fellow members of the California Receivers Forum Los Angeles / Orange CountyChapter. Enjoy the open house reception with treats featuring Argentine cuisine paired with wines from the region. CRFmembers are encouraged to bring a non-member guest to this social event.

Please note that 100% of the profit from this event will be donated to Children’s Hospital LosAngeles (CHLA) as part of the chapter’s annual community give back.

Thursday, December 13, 2018 | 4:30 pm – 7:00 pmOrmond Residence, Hancock Park, Los Angeles

(address will be provided with confirmation)

LA/OC Members: $50Member PLUS One Guest: $85

| Fall 2018

THE LISTWHILE THERE IS NO COURT-APPROVED LIST OF RECEIVERS, THE FOLLOWING IS A PARTIAL LIST OF RECEIVERS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE CALIFORNIA RECEIVER'SFORUM AND HAVE THE INDICATED EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE. INCLUSION ON THIS LIST SHALL NOT BE DEEMED AN ENDORSEMENT OF ANY OF THE NAMES LISTED

BELOW BY THE RECEIVERSHIP NEWS, THE CALIFORNIA RECEIVER'S FORUM, OR ANY OF ITS CHAPTERS. THIS IS A PAID ADVERTISEMENT.

S This symbol indicates those who completed up to 14 hours of advanced receivership education at the Loyola V, Complex Case Symposium in January 2013.

n This symbol indicates those who facilitated and attended the Loyola V, Complex Case Symposium in January 2013.

V This symbol indicates those who completed 9 hours of education at the Loyola VI Symposium in January 2015.

≠ This symbol indicates those who facilitated and attended the Loyola VI Symposium in January 2015.

l This symbol indicates those who completed 9 hours of education at the Loyola VII Symposium in March 2017

t This symbol indicates those who facilitated and attended the Loyola VII Symposium in March 2017

AREA PHONE E-MAIL AREA PHONE E-MAIL

Arizona & Hawaii

l Beth Jo Zeitzer 602-319-1326 [email protected]

Bay Area

lVS David Bradlow 415-206-0635 [email protected]

≠V Dennis Gemberling 800-580-3950 [email protected]

lV Michael Kasolas 415-992-5806 [email protected]

Gerard F. Keena, II 510-995-0158 [email protected]

tVn▲ Kevin Singer 415-848-2984 [email protected]

Van Tullis 510-995-0284 [email protected]▲

Robert D. Upton 707-721-1193 [email protected]

≠n▲ Joel B. Weinberg 310-385-0006 [email protected]

l≠S▲ Douglas P. Wilson 619-641-1141 [email protected]

n▲ Kevin J. Whelan 916-783-3552 [email protected]

Central Area

n▲ James S. Lowe 559.584.8982 [email protected]

Sacramento Valley

lVnz Michael C. Brumbaugh 916-417-8737 [email protected]

San Diego Area

Vn▲ Mike Essary 858-560-1178 [email protected]


ln Richardson “Red” Griswold 858-481-1300 [email protected]

tVn Kevin Singer 310-552-9064 [email protected]



Santa Barbara/Ventura County

l George R. Monte 626-930-0083 [email protected]

Los Angeles/Orange County/Inland Empire

l Albert Altro 310-809-5064 [email protected]

tVnz Ryan Baker 714-432-0800x229 [email protected]

Los Angeles/Orange County/Inland Empire

tVz Eric Beatty 909-243-7944 [email protected]

tn▲ Edythe L. Bronston 818-528-2893 [email protected]

S▲ Thomas Henry Coleman 661-284-6104 [email protected]

l≠nz Peter A. Davidson 310-273-6333 [email protected]

Howard M. Ehrenberg 213-626-2311 [email protected]

Louis A. Frasco 818-903-1883 [email protected]

Patrick Galentine 714-573-7780 [email protected]


Howard B. Grobstein 818-532-1020 [email protected]

z Gary Haddock 310-901-3852 [email protected]

tV▲ William J. Hoffman 858-242-1234 [email protected]

tn William Howell 310-642-0480 [email protected]

l≠Sz Byron Z. Moldo 310-281-6354 [email protected]

l George R. Monte 626-930-0083 [email protected]

l≠n▲ Robert P. Mosier 714-432-0800 [email protected]

l≠S Richard Munro 949-910-6600 [email protected]

tn David J. Pasternak 310-553-1500 [email protected]

l John Rey 562-500-7999 [email protected]

▲ Steve Speier 949-510-4018 [email protected]

tVn Kevin Singer 310-552-9064 [email protected]

tV David Stapleton 213-235-0601 [email protected]

≠n▲ David D. Wald 310-230-3400 [email protected]

S▲ Robert C. Warren III 949-900-6161 [email protected]


tV▲ Richard Weissman 310-481-6780 [email protected]


S▲ Andrew R. Zimbaldi 949-557-5022 [email protected]

Fall 2018 |

• Welcome Rebecca Meekma: The CRF LA/OC Chapter isexcited to announce that this past July it appointed RebeccaMeekma as its new Administrator. Rebecca has worked at JBS& Associates since 2012, and brings a wealth of experienceand knowledge in association management and eventplanning to the CRF. Previously, Rebecca directed manyaspects of the non-profit Sawdust Art Festival in LagunaBeach and focused on Public Relations and Marketing andWriting for many clients including the Festival ofArts/Pageant of the Masters and Parenting OC Magazine.When you RSVP for the 10th Annual Holiday Party (below),please make sure to also let Rebecca know how thrilled we areto have her join the CRF family.

• Welcome to Kristin Lydon: The new CRF Stateadministrator, Kristin Lydon, will be at the JBS office fulltimebeginning November 5th. Thanks for everyone’s patience aswe transition from Toni to finding the right long termemployee.

• The Young Professionals Council (YPC) of the LosAngeles and Orange County Chapters of the CaliforniaReceivers Forum Oktoberfest: The YPC hosted anOktoberfest Receivership Mixer at Bernadette’s (361 S. Broadway [DTLA], Los Angeles, CA) on October 25.It was free to all who registered, and lederhosen wereoptional. If you would like to be included on our mailer for future events, please contact Michael Davis [email protected] or Oren Bitan at [email protected].

• Los Angeles/Orange County 10th Annual Holiday Party:Mark your calendars!!!! The 10th Annual Holiday Party forthe Los Angeles and Orange County chapters of the CRF isset for December 13, 2018 from 4:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., at theresidence of Richard Ormond. This event always attracts abig and boisterous crowd. Expect a large assortment ofArgentinian cuisine and wine, and continuing on thetradition from last year, the CRF will conducting a charitydrive for Children’s Hospital. Bring your checkbooks, asRichard Ormond and his wife have agreed to match the totalcontributions received from CRF members. Please registeronline at LAOCreceivers.org/events

• First Education Program for 2019 LA/OC: the Educationchairs are working on the Kick-off Program. Checkwww.LAOCreceiveers.org for topic and date updates on theJanuary program.

• Title Insurance 101 For Receivers: The Insurer’s &Insured’s Perspectives: The Bay Area Chapter of the CRFpresented a panel discussion on title insurance issues affectingreceivers. Moderated by Gerard Keena, Receiver. The eventwas sponsored by Agency Group Real Estate, on October 16,at Sheppard Mullin’s S.F. Office located at 4 EmbarcaderoCenter, 17th Floor, San Francisco.

• CRF, Giving Back: The Bay Area Chapter of the CRF, inclassic CRF charitable form, hosted an event at the SF-MarinFood Bank on 900 Pennsylvania Avenue, San Francisco,California 94107 on August 22, 2018. Bolstered by a healthyturnout of CRF’s best and brightest, the Bay Area Chaptervolunteers packaged food for the Food Bank for distribution atlocal soup kitchens. If you would like to do your part forcommunities across California, please be on the lookout forfuture charity events hosted by the CRF.

• OC Event: On September 13, 2018 the Los Angeles andOrange County Chapter hosted “Receivership 101” at Snell &Wilmer, 600 Anton Blvd, Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, CA. Theturnout was exceptional and all those who attended thoughtthe event was very informative and entertaining. As always,information on all CRF events will be posted athttp://www.laocreceivers.org/events.htm.

*Michael J. Muse-Fisher is Senior Counsel at Buchalter,A Professional Corporation. Mr. Muse-Fisher specializes in

creditor’s rights, real estate disputes, corporate and partnershipdisputes, copyright and trademark disputes, cannabis law, and

alternatives to bankruptcy. Representative clients includeregional and national lending and financial institutions, stateand federal receivers, and companies ranging from family-

owned operations to Fortune 500 corporations. Michael J. Muse-Fisher

Welcome to the latest edition of Heard in the Halls. Pleaseprovide your snippets of news, questions or comments aboutreceivership issues or the professional community by telephone,mail, fax, or email to: Michael J. Muse-Fisher at Buchalter, A Professional Corporation, 1000 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1500,Los Angeles, CA 90017. Phone: (213) 891-0700; Fax: (213)896-0400; Email: [email protected]

Here is what we have Heard in the Halls …

Heard in the Halls: NOTES, OBSERVATIONS, AND GOSSIP RELAYEDBY MICHAEL J. MUSE-FISHER*

the Seymour groupElite Properties RealtyContact: Phil Seymour, Executive Vice PresidentPhone: 310.271.4040 Ext. 130 | BRE#00630158

Email: [email protected] S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, California 90212 www.theseymourgroup.net

real estatesolutions for

receivers

“Whether it’s selling Residential, Multi-Family or Commercial Real Estate we create Trust, Fidelity and Confidence by delivering RESULTS.”

theSeymour

group

REC NEWS Winter'03-FINAL - Receivers · 2018-11-18 · Continued on page 3... Continued on page...

Documents

Transcript of REC NEWS Winter'03-FINAL - Receivers · 2018-11-18 · Continued on page 3... Continued on page...