hi U- V 1 8 2,0 5 is -! îf ' *'/ è i 7 '1 h z l '

Transcription

1 Case 9:03-cv KAM Document 3008 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2015 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU st L C SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORI l LED G-' '-----'----- Case No Civ-MARRA SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COM MISSION, Plaintiff, hi U- V 1 8 2,0 5 is -! îf ' *'/ è i 7 '1 h z l ' b ' t.,:%.i.7 1r.' - ' t t.1 lf'n l 5 ' 7! t l 1. Ct.... j., 2 ( 1 ẏ.(,. u ' 1., ' ' L 1i MICHAEL LAUER, Defendant. REFILED NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF LETTER FROM INVESTOR RICHARD W. LOM BARDI U ndersigned counsel herew ith retiles his notice of receipt of leter from Richard W. Lombardi. Counsel inadvertently failed to sign the previously filed notice (DE 3001 and is now signing it and retiling it in order to com ply with applicable rules. Respectfully subm itted D ated: N ovem ber 9, 2015 /. '..J 't- David M. Dorsen Suite K Street, N.W. W ashington, D C Telephone: E-M ail: Dorsen3s@ aol.com

2 Case 9:03-cv KAM Document 3008 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2015 Page 2 of 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 9th day of N ovember, 2015, a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been sent by USPC, first-class m ail, to: Christopher M artin, Esq. Securities & Exchange Comm ission 801 Brickel Avenue Suite 1800 M iami, FL and Juan C. Enjamio, Esq. David Bane, Esq. Hunton & W illiams l Brickell Avenue Suite 2500 Miami, FL k. David M. Dorsen

3 Case 9:03-cv KAM Document 3008 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2015 Page 3 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No Civ-MARRA SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COM MISSION, Plaintiff, M ICHAEL LAUER, Defendant. NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF LETTER FROM INVESTOR RICHARD W. LOM BARDI U ndersigned counsel herew ith notifies the Court that on October 22, 2015, he received the atached em ail letter dated October 22, 2015, from M r. Richard W. Lom bardi, who is an investor in Lancer Offshore, Inc., and/or Omnifund, Ltd. (Exhibit A. Counsel transm its the attached leter to the Court w ith the consent of M r. Lom bardi. M r. Lom bardi requests the Court to order the Receiver to deliver his letter to the investors individually by or other appropriate means, just as he has been delivering his own filings, or, alternatively, for the Court to so deliver his letter. Respectfu ly subm' d, N Dated: October 22, 20l 5 David M. Dorsen Suite K Street, N.W. W ashington, D C Telephone: E-M ail: Dorsen3s@ aol.com

4 Case 9:03-cv KAM Document 3008 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2015 Page 4 of 7 ExhibitA

5 Case 9:03-cv KAM Document 3008 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2015 Page 5 of 7 Dorsen, David From: Sent: To: SubjeG: profininc@ cs.com Thursday, October 22, :02 AM Dorsen, David Lancer Litigation David Dorse n, esq, Sedgwick LLP 2900 K Street, N. W. W ashington, DC October 22nd, 2015 Dear M r Dorsen, Thank you for speaking w ith m e. l have read with great interest your recent Coud filings regarding the Lancer Estate Receivership. l agree with you that the Receiver's com podm ent throughout his receivership, his outrageous expenses and fees, and now his request to close the Receivership while garnishing an additional $ as protection money is clearly unacceptable. Here's w hy: By m y calculation, the Receiver, over a 12 year period, has paid to himsejf and to interrelated third-pady service providers fees and expenses of approxîmately $77.2 m ilion, yes $77 m ilion plus. M eanw hile, the Receiver's recoveries to date for Lancer G roup investors stand at a substantialy Iower amount - i.e, about $44.4 milion. Fudher, I understand that some $8 milion remain in the Lancer Estate, presumably earmarked for investors. However, would these m onies stil! rem ain for an investor payout if the Receiver were to claim payback to him self of the 20% holdback negotiated with the Lancer G roup attorney, Sco t Berm ann, at the early days of the Receivership? Even then, investors were already stupefied at the clip at which the Receivership was running up his enorm ous fees and expenses, a I redacted; hence, the 10% discount to which the Courts agreed. And that was 12 years agof As l explained to you on the telephone, I and m y wife, Elisabeth M. Lombardi, m y wife': fam ily via her m other's Estate, are invested in Lancer Offshore and/or in the O m nifund. M y wife and I are invested via the Altar Fund, a Fund of funds in w hich yours truly is the founder and lnvestm ent M anager. M y Mother-in-law, Francoise Vinsot, now deceased, is invested in Lancer Offshore via the Societe Parisienne de Gestion Privee (SPGP in Paris, France. ln fudher petition, we are interested in your observation that there never should have been a Receivership in the first place im posed by the Florida Couds over the heads of qualified, sophisticated investors and their directors. You m ight note, in this sam e regard, that prior to the im position of the Receivership an Investm ent Com m ittee of key investors, of w hich l was a m em ber, was already in form ation to undedake an orderly disposition, as and if needed, of the Funds in question. This was just prior to the Receiver's disorderly raid -- like a 'drug bust' -- on the Park Ave o#ices of the Lancer M anagem ent Group. I wil not go into the 'shock and awe' that this

6 Case 9:03-cv KAM Document 3008 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2015 Page 6 of 7 entailed, the frivolous and costly Iitigation that folowed as we l as the decimation of whatever rem ained of the Lancer M anagement podfolios. This is history. Yes, bitter for ai! But can someone explain - the SEC'?, the Courts'?, the Receiver? -- why this costly behaviour was alowed to continue to this day unabated and continues to the tune of $77,000,000. My own Iawyer and others consider this a disgrace to the Iegal profession. I consider this a disgrace to the SEC in Florida as we l. By the way, where was the W ashington oversight after the Iights were shot out? Som ething is strange here. Could it be that the Receiver Iitigated against pro-active investors for the principal purpose of deflecting their subsequent analysis and criticism of his actions? Sadly, I suspect this to be the case. The silence of those offended has been frustrating to say the Ieast. As for the passive investors as we l as for their Iegal counsel, you we l know that reputation is everything in this business. Fighting a Coud appointed Receiver and the SEC is clearly not conducive to prom oting one's authority and good name. Hence, the treatment (and expenses we have received to date by a Receivership with deep pockets (our money and apparent knowledge of the industry's vulnerabilities. Too bad that the Receivership does not know som ething of podfolio m anagem ent as wel. In closing, would it be possible to obtain information for me and eventualy for my other investors on just how m uch the Receivership has been paid, and especialy just how much he claims is stil due to him. W e would also Iike you to obtain whatever inform ation exists on what the Receiver did for the investors versus what he did to finance and help, as you point out, the Government agencies involved in pursuing their ow n claims. Otherwise said, why have we, the investors, been paying for w hat the Government had undedaken itself in terms of oversight of the m arket by filing a Iawsuit and then an indictm ent a their ow n initiative? Put yet differently, why have we, the investors been paying for what the Governm ent should have been undedaking at their ow n cost, as you convincingly argued. You mentioned also that the Receiver's bils have been redacted, and that you have not been able to obtain unredacted copies of sam e? Please try again. Fina ly, we would like to see the com m unications to which you referred in your brief between the Receiver and the Governm ent. Did we not pay for them already? How can the Receiver keep this inform ation from us, his beneficiaries, to whom he has a specific duty to keep fu ly informed? This is what seem s to be your argument. Unfodunately, we are not in a position to pay you for Iegal services. The Altar Fund is dorm ant, awaiting closure of the Receiver's Iitigation. I am retired, etc. Can som ething be done to revisit the Receiver's conduct? Before the Receivership is shut down and the assets distributed, perhaps the Judge can work out something with you in order to estab ish needed clarity for ai1 investors. W e appreciate w hatever you can do to help. Sincerely yours, Richard W. Lombardi Investor 2

7 Case 9:03-cv KAM Document 3008 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2015 Page 7 of 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l HEREBY CERT1FY that on this 22nd day of October, 2015, a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been sent by USPC, first-class m ail, to: Christopher M artin, Esq. Securities & Exchange Com m ission 801 Brickell A venue Suite 1800 Miami, FL and Juan C. Enjamio, Esq. David Bane, Esq. Hunton & W illiams l l 1 1 Brickell A venue Suite 2500 Miami, FL ' ts- David M. Dorsen