|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
----- Original Message -----
From: <A
href="mailto:chmeyer@xxxxxxxx"; title=chmeyer@xxxxxxxx>charles meyer
To: INTRUST MONEY MANAGERS
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 3:02 PM
Subject: Fw: INTRUST matter
Group:
This comes from attorney Shelist. I apologize for not
recalling the details; but Mr. Shelist
is involved in a class action suit. I believe I might
have posted some info about his
involvement in this case to the group at one time; but I can't
be sure. He doesn't know about any of your names or addresses, and he
certainly won't get that information from me. For
further information as to the details of his role in this matter; you will have
to contact him directly. Thank
you.
Chas
----- Original Message -----
From: <A
href="mailto:Rjsattorny@xxxxxxx"; title=Rjsattorny@xxxxxxx>Rjsattorny@xxxxxxx
To: Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 2:21 PM
Subject: INTRUST matter
Friends:
In case you are unaware,
the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court issued a 126-page ruling on
November 27, 2001 addressing all issues raised on appeal attendant to the
allocation of the $68.1 Million trust fund shortage, receivor's fees, etc., in
the Intrust litigation. The Appellate Court
has affirmed the trial court's allocation method in its entirety determining
that the court properly treated cash accounts and non-cash accounts as the same,
equally being subject to the allocation of the shortage. The court also
rejected all jurisdictional arguments. The
Appellate Court has however determined that the trial court erred in "rubber
stamping" the receivor's fee without conducting a reasonableness hearing and
also ruled that the receivor did not have the right to assess its fee directly
to the accounts. The matter was remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings relative to the receivor's fee.
Some of the appellants have now
petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court to review the matter further on appeal.
There is no present indication whether the Supreme Court will consider
taking the matter on appeal, something that it must consent to. Nor is
there an indication as to when the freeze will be lifted on the accounts, which
remain frozen to date. Lastly, our class
action suit remains stayed. At some point in the near future, we plan to
move to lift the stay, now that the Appellate Court decision has been handed
down. We will continue to update
you as appropriate. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to e-mail
me. Robert Shelist
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
|