1) He can't refute the bogus LE claim. "He never, even mentions that the Life Partners margins are far higher than anyone else reported in the industry, despite having no technological or business advantage that would allow for such higher margins. THEREFORE, THE HIGHER MARGINS MUST RESULT FROM A LOWER LE BEING ATTACHED TO EACH POLICY PURCHASED BEFORE RESELLING THE POLICY TO FRACTIONAL INVESTORS. THERE IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION." Note: Quoted material from wormwin.
2) He can't refute Texas and other states want Life Partners out of business.
3) He can't refute that fraud is fraud, whether it is proved in court or not.
4) He can't refute that non-disclosure of things we may find material is unethical even if it is legal.
5) He can't refute that pumpers usually come on this board right before bad news hits, and bad news does seem to come during a time when most investors aren't looking (like during holidays).
6) He can't refute the huge number of resales and premium forwarding points to horrible returns for those investors. They are selling policies to raise cash, or borrowing funds because they don't have any.
7) He can't refute the stinking poor returns of the Regent portfolios managed by LPI.
8) He can't refute that he never mentions the trust portfolio, and I imagine there is now bad news there since previous pumpers said that portfolio would save Life Partners.
9) He can't refute that several posts have disappeared from this board. I imaging those posts hit a raw nerve. This is why I am putting posting this (unasked) for the wormwin, with a little cutting and pasting of his comments.
10) He can't refute this company is quickly running out of operating capital due to the fact that it pays a quarterly dividend that is greater than the most recent quarterly revenues.
11) He can't refute the civil suits are certified and all going forward.
12) He can't refute that quarter after quarter, ever since the WSJ and Citron articles, this company loses money.
13) He can't refute that the guy doing their LEs never attended life expectancy conference, and has no background in actuarial matters.
14) He can't refute that the advertising of these investments includes suggestions of double digit returns, and these suggestion (or promises as some may view it) were made by the majority shareholder, officer and member of the BOD in very, very public forums and recorded for the plaintiffs and judges to see.
15) He can't refute that the company does not present returns in a format or standard that is used by any other company in the financial industry because Life Partners does not include policies that have not matured!
I would not have bothered to post this but I did since several postings by others mysteriously disappeared. I do not like censorship, particularly when it interupts getting ready for a round of golf.
16) He can't refute the bank lending to that trust went broke and is out of business.
17) He can't refute the trust is highly leveraged.
18) He can't refute the trust was never impaired despite being pre-2008 VBT!
19) He can't refute the trust is on the books for $6 million plus, and it may not even be worth that!
20) He can't refute a conflict of interest between LPI and Advance Trust, which includes or included personal legal work done by the same attornies and the highly unusual splitting of interest of uninvested funds!
21) He can't refute the life settlement industry is now in decline, with only the tertiary markets showing good life.
22) He can't refute the industry doesn't like LPI/LPHI, based upon comments and articles found in The Life Settlements Report. Based upon h-grant-h's logic, everything there must be true since no court ruled to the contrary.
23) He can't refute many people selling the fractional investments are not registered and have no formal investment backgrounds. Some even have regulatory baggage that is not disclosed to prospective clients.
24) He can't refute the company can't seem to keep a CFO, with one lasting less than a week (showing poor hiring practices). Of course, any company practicing nepotism in the past didn't need adequate hiring practices.
25) He can't refute the company did really dumb things that the plaintiff's can, at their option, use in court including: 1) The amicus brief filed by Peden and Blount claiming LPI is different because it doesn't engage in "post transaction entrepreneurial effort"; 2) Pardo's NASDAQ Opening Bell statements promising double digit returns; and 3) Pardo's comments to Pimm Fox on Bloomberg suggesting the returns are "well above market" and that the reserve each investor ponies up is sufficient.