Source: http://oneidaeye.com/timeline-part-11/
Timestamp: 2017-11-17 21:12:21
Document Index: 667615853

Matched Legal Cases: ['ART 10', '§ 893', '§ 7', '§362', '§1112', '§1112', '§362', '§1112', 'ART 12']

T-11 « Oneida Eye
CLICK HERE FOR TIMELINE PART 10
08/21/17 : Law360.com: United States Dept. of the Interior sued by Oneida Indian Nation of New York over decision to allow Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin to officially change name to ‘Oneida Nation’
ANSWER (zip file):
The CHEBOYGAN / CHEYBOYGAN ENERGY DOSSIER
08/25/17 : August 25, 2017 Defendant Ronald Van Den Heuvel’s Reply Brief to the Government’s responses to the pretrial motions, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64, United States of America v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel
August 25, 2017 Defendant Kelly Van Den Heuvel’s Reply in Support of Motion for Discovery, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64, United States of America v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel
August 25, 2017 Defendants’ (TAK Investments, LLC and Sharad Tak) Motion for Hearing Before Trial on all of the Defendants’ pending motions, U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division Case No. 14-CV-1203, Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp. v. TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak
August 25, 2017 Defendant Sharad Tak’s Rule 12(C) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division Case No. 14-CV-1203, Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp. v. TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak
August 25, 2017 Defendant Sharad Tak’s Rule 56 Motion for Summary Judgment, U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division Case No. 14-CV-1203, Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp. v. TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak
August 25, 2017 Defendant Sharad Tak’s Proposed Findings of Fact In Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment, U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division Case No. 14-CV-1203, Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp. v. TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak
August 25, 2017 Declaration of Jonathan T. Smies, counsel for Defendants Tak Investments, LLC and Sharad Tak, U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division Case No. 14-CV-1203, Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp. v. TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak
August 25, 2017 TAK Investments, LLC’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact, U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division Case No. 14-CV-1203, Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp. v. TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak
August 25, 2017 TAK Investments, LLC’s Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division Case No. 14-CV-1203, Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp. v. TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak
08/28/17 : August 28, 2017 Defendant Wayde McKelvy’s Reply Memorandum in Support of His Amended Motion to Dismiss Counts 1-8 of the Indictment, Based on the Statute of Limitations, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 15-CR-398, United States of America v. Troy Wragg, Amanda Knorr & Wayde McKelvy re: Mantria Corp. / EternaGreen Global / Speed of Wealth ‘Waste-to-Energy’ Pyrolysis Ponzi Scheme [47 pages]
08/29/17 : August 29, 2017 Order that the Clerk of Court docket the attached letter from counsel for Defendant Wayde McKelvy dated August 28, 2017, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 15-CR-398, United States of America v. Troy Wragg, Amanda Knorr & Wayde McKelvy re: Mantria Corp. / EternaGreen Global / Speed of Wealth ‘Waste-to-Energy’ Pyrolysis Ponzi Scheme
August 29, 2017 Order granting Defendant Wayde McKelvy’s uncontested request for leave to file a Reply Memorandum, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 15-CR-398, United States of America v. Troy Wragg, Amanda Knorr & Wayde McKelvy re: Mantria Corp. / EternaGreen Global / Speed of Wealth ‘Waste-to-Energy’ Pyrolysis Ponzi Scheme
August 29, 2017-dated Cease & Desist/Threat Letter Postmarked 08/30/17 from ONWI Law Office / OLO Staff Attorney Krystal John to Oneida Eye Publisher Leah Sue Dodge re: use of the ONWI ‘Oneida Casino’ logo in a news/anti-crime blog
The Oneida Casino was made aware of the Oneida Eye’s unauthorized use of the Oneida Casino’s logo on a recent blog entry discussing the July 2017 election. The Oneida Casino’s logo is proprietary to the Oneida Casino. As permission was not provided for the Oneida Eye’s use of the Oneida Casino’s logo, the Oneida Casino respectfully requests that the logo be removed from the blog page and that the Oneida Eye refrain from any future use of the Oneida Casino’s logo on its blog page.
If the Oneida Casino’s logo is not removed from the Oneida Eye’s blog page within three (3) business days from the date of this letter, the Oneida Casino may consider legal enforcement of its request for removal.
The Oneida Casino appreciates your understanding and your timely response to its noted concern.
By: Krystal L. John, Staff Attorney
Wisconsin State Bar No. 1093818
CC: Interoffice with Return Receipt at Oneida Casino
Oneida Casino General Manager, Louise Cornelius
‘NO-IDEA ABOUT LAW’ OFFICE.
August 29, 2017 USA’s Response to Defendants’ Motions for Disclosure, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64, United States of America v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel
08/30/17 : August 30, 2017 Order Denying as Moot Defendant Ronald Van Den Heuvel’s Motion to Compel Discovery, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64, United States of America v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel
August 30, 2017 Order Granting Defendant Kelly Y. Van Den Heuvel’s Motion to Sever trial from that of husband and co-defendant, Ronald Van Den Heuvel, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64, United States of America v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel
August 30, 2017 Stipulation, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64, United States of America v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel
August 30, 2017 Letter from Defendant Wayde McKelvy’s Counsel that the Defendant does not oppose the Government’s Motion to Admit Tape Recordings and Transcripts, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 15-CR-398, United States of America v. Troy Wragg, Amanda Knorr & Wayde McKelvy re: Mantria Corp. / EternaGreen Global / Speed of Wealth ‘Waste-to-Energy’ Pyrolysis Ponzi Scheme
08/31/17 : August 31, 2017 Order granting the Government’s Motion to Admit Tape Recordings and Transcripts, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 15-CR-398, United States of America v. Troy Wragg, Amanda Knorr & Wayde McKelvy re: Mantria Corp. / EternaGreen Global / Speed of Wealth ‘Waste-to-Energy’ Pyrolysis Ponzi Scheme
August 31, 2017 Memorandum of Law in Support of Oneida Nation of Wisconsin’s Motion to Clarify Burden of Proof, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Green Bay Division, Case No. 16-CV-1217, Oneida Nation v. Village of Hobart, Wisconsin
August 31, 2017 Plaintiff Oneida Nation of Wisconsin’s Motion to Clarify Burden of Proof, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Green Bay Division, Case No. 16-CV-1217, Oneida Nation v. Village of Hobart, Wisconsin
• Freedom of Information Act / FOIA Request results re: Documents relevant to the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin / ONWI’s ’Fee-to-Trust’ land status conversion efforts with the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Midwest Regional Office / BIA MRO [335 pages]
August 31, 2017 Exhibits Received by Clerk of Court’s Office, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64, United States of America v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel
09/01/17 : September 1, 2017 Order Denying Defendants Ronald and Kelly Van Den Heuvel’s Motions to Disclose Grand Jury Materials, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64, United States of America v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel
September 1, 2017 Letter from Defendant Ronald Van Den Heuvel’s Counsel requesting amending the pre-trial scheduling for the October 23, 2017 Trial of Ronald Van Den Heuvel, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64, United States of America v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel
September 1, 2017 Supplemental Declaration of Jonathan T. Smies, counsel for Defendants Tak Investments, LLC and Sharad Tak, U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division Case No. 14-CV-1203, Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp. v. TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak
09/05/17 : September 5, 2017 Motion Hearing Minutes, U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division Case No. 14-CV-1203, Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp. v. TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak
The Court states that the matter is set for court trial on September 18, 2017.
The Court inquires as to why the case should be dismissed now as the record is very confusing.
Mr. Smies responds.
Mr. Ganzer responsds that they will be prepared for trial on 9/18. Ganzer states that [Sharad] Tak’s ownership interest has been transferred.
The Court comments on the election of remedies. The Court states that this case needs factual development. The business agreements, transaction, and notes are confusing and the record is unclear. The Court believes two claims survive at this time, the specific performance claim and the breach of promissory notes claim.
Mr. Ganzer responds.
The Court denies the motions. The case will proceed to trial on 9/18. The Court gives directions regarding exhibits and instructs them to confer on joint exhibits and to talk to the clerk.
Mr. Smies states that the plaintiff can’t prevail on both claims. The Court responds. Mr. Ganzer responds.
The Court directs the parties to file pretrial documents, including exhibits by Wednesday September 13, 2017.
September 5, 2017 Order Granting Defendants Ronald and Kelly Van Den Heuvel’s Motions to Disclose Fed. R. Evid. 404(B) Evidence, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64, United States of America v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel
September 5, 2017 Settlement Reached in FRAUD Complaint, Case No. 2016-L-007891 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, IL, Law Division from the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division Case No. 16-CV-08251, ChrisKen Group LLC and CK Property Management LLC v. HAS Capital LLC, Stephen A. Wheeler, Eric R. Decator LLC; Eric R. Decator; Adam Peterson, Louis Stern, BMO Harris Bank NA; and Konstantino Apostolou
09/07/17 : According to the September 12, 2017 Letter from Oneida Gaming Commission / OGC Exec. Dir. Tamara VanSchyndel to Records Clerk Lee Cornelius re: OGC’s 09/07/17 acceptance of recently ‘elected’ Commissioner Cristina Danforth’s RESIGNATION effective 09/25/17:
The Gaming Commission took official action on Friday, September 7, 2017 to accept the resignation of Commissioner Cristina S. Danforth effective Monday, September 25, 2017.
The Gaming Commission would like to initiate the posting of the vacant Commissioner position. Upon closing the posting the Gaming Commission may provide their recommendation of the vacant Commissioner position.
According to the ONWI Gaming Ordinance 501.6-13:
501.6-13: Vacancies. Any vacancy in an unexpired term of office, however caused, must be filled by appointment by the Oneida Business Committee of a person qualified pursuant to sections 501.6-5 and 501.6-6 pursuant to the Comprehensive Policy Goveringing Board, Committees and Commissions.
September 7, 2017 Letter from Atty. Robert G. LeBell to Judge William Griesbach re: Stipulation and Return of Ron Van Den Heuvel’s Property, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64, United States of America v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel
September 7, 2017 Defendant Wayde McKelvy’s Memorandum in Reply to the Government’s Response to McKelvy’s Motion to Dismiss Counts 1–9 of the Indictment, and to Strike Part of Count 10, for a Failure to State an Offense, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 15-CR-398, United States of America v. Troy Wragg, Amanda Knorr & Wayde McKelvy re: Mantria Corp. / EternaGreen Global / Speed of Wealth ‘Waste-to-Energy’ Pyrolysis Ponzi Scheme
09/08/17 : September 8, 2017 Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Severance of Counts, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64, United States of America v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel
Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel is charged for his role in two schemes to defraud financial institutions by using straw borrowers to obtain loans for his personal benefit. The government alleges in Counts One through Thirteen that Mr. Van Den Heuvel, his wife, and a loan officer participated in a scheme to defraud Horicon Bank by obtaining a series of loans through straw borrowers [Nature’s Way Tissue Corp. Partner & General Manager Steven Peters; Nature’s Way Tissue Corp. Vice-President Debra Stary; Vos Electric, Inc. Vice-President William Bain / Bill Bain; Philippine-national live-in nanny Julie Gumban; and wife Kelly Yessman Van Den Heuvel‘s sham company KYHKJG, LLC (the Horicon bank scheme). The government further alleges in Counts Fourteen through Nineteen that Mr. Van Den Heuvel alone participated in a scheme to defraud several other financial institutions by having his employee [& son-in-law Patrick Hoffman] attempt to obtain loans using fraudulent employment information and backed by two vehicles that Mr. Van Den Heuvel had titled in the employee[ / son-in-law]’s name (the car loan scheme).
Mr. Van Den Heuvel has moved to sever the car loan counts from the Horicon Bank counts, arguing that the charges were improperly joined and, alternatively, that he will suffer unfair prejudice if the charges are all tried together. The United States opposes the motion. For the following reasons, the Court finds that the car loan counts are properly joined with the Horicon Bank counts and that a joint trial on all counts will not unfairly prejudice Mr. Van Den Heuvel. The Court therefore will deny Mr. Van Den Heuvel’s severance motion. …
The following allegations are taken from the Superseding Indictment. … In 2008 and 2009, Paul J. Piikkila was a loan officer for Horicon Bank, working at the branch in Appleton, Wisconsin. … He had authority to make loans up to $250,000 on his own, but he needed approval from the bank’s Business Lenders Committee for loans above that figure.
In late 2007 or early 2008, Ronald Van Den Heuvel approached Mr. Piikkila seeking loans from Horicon Bank to himself and his business entities. Mr. Van Den Heuvel represented himself as a Green Bay businessman. At the time, he was married to Kelly Van Den Heuvel. On or about January 17, 2008, Mr. Piikkila authorized a loan to one of Mr. Van Den Heuvel’s business entities. … Two months later, Mr. Piikkila sought approval for a $7,100,000 loan to a different entity owned by Mr. Van Den Heuvel. The Business Lenders Committee refused to authorize that loan because, based on their investigation, Mr. Van Den Heuvel was not a good credit risk. Mr. Piikkila’s supervisors instructed him not to make any more loans to Mr. Van Den Heuvel or his business entities.
Mr. Piikkila ignored those instructions and issued a series of loans that were used to benefit Mr. Van Den Heuvel and his businesses. Those nine loans, each of which was for $250,000 or less, were issued to individuals who did not receive the loan proceeds and who did not regard themselves as responsible for repaying the loans. … Mr. Piikkila and the Van Den Heuvels knew that those loans did not go to the straw borrowers.
One of Mr. Van Den Heuvel’s business entities was a company called EARTH. In June 2013, Mr. Van Den Heuvel persuaded an EARTH employee [and son-in-law Patrick Hoffman], to apply for loans from financial institutions that would be used by Mr. Van Den Heuvel and his business entities. … To help [Patrick Hoffman] qualify for loans, Mr. Van Den Heuvel transferred the titles to two Cadillac Escalades from EARTH to [Patrick Hoffman]. The Escalades, however, remained in EARTH’s custody and control. Mr. Van Den Heuvel also had pay stubs created for [Patrick Hoffman] that substantially inflated his income, and he had [Patrick Hoffman] falsely represent his job title, responsibilities, and income on loan applications. … [Patrick Hoffman] used this fraudulent information to apply for loans from Community First Credit Union, Nicolet National Bank, and Pioneer Credit Union, offering the two Escalades as security. …
WDFI.org says EARTH – Enviornemental Advanced Reclamation Technology HQ, now named RECLAMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, LLC / RTS – was Organized on 05/29/08 and was first named NATURE’S CHOICE TISSUE, LLC …
Mr. Piikkila and the Van Den Heuvels were indicted in the Eastern District of Wisconsin on April 19, 2016. Count One charges all three defendants with conspiracy to commit bank fraud and to make false statements to Horicon Bank from on or about January 1, 2008, through on or about September 30, 2009…. Mr. Van Den Heuvel alone is charged in Counts Two through Thirteen…. Ms. Van Den Heuvel is charged along with her husband in Counts Ten and Eleven …
…DURING THE SAME PERIOD AS THE FAILURE & STATE TAX WITHHOLDING LITIGATION OF RON & OSGC’s NATURE’S WAY TISSUE CORP. …
The grand jury returned a superseding indictment on September 20, 2016, charging Mr. Van Den Heuvel alone with devising and participating in a scheme to defraud federally insured financial institutions and to obtain loans from those institutions by means of false and fraudulent pretenses and representations from on or about June 10, 2013, through on or about July 2, 2013. …
… JUST AFTER GTC VOTED TO PROHIBIT OSGC & SUBSIDIARIES FROM PYROLYSIS ON THE ONWI RESERVATION, WHICH OSGC THEN PARTNERED WITH RON VAN DEN HEUVEL’S AQUA 2MG, INC. / RECOVERING AQUA RESOURCES, LLC ‘INVESTMENT’ SCHEME ASSOCIATE
GAYLEN LACROSSE’s company –
GENERATION CLEAN FUELS, LLC –
TO DO ANYWAY, JUST BEFORE GCF SUED ONWI & OSGC & SUBSIDIARIES FOR $400 MILLION) …
The matter is assigned to United States District Judge William C. Griesbach for trial and to this Court for resolving pretrial motions. Mr. Piikkila has pleaded guilty to Count One of the Indictment and is currently awaiting sentencing. … On August 30, 2017, this Court granted Ms. Van Den Heuvel’s unopposed motion to sever her trial from that of Mr. Van Den Heuvel.
On June 16, 2017, Mr. Van Den Heuvel filed a motion seeking to sever Counts Fourteen through Nineteen from Counts One through Thirteen. … The United States filed its response on July 12, 2017. …
A review of the Superseding Indictment demonstrates that the car loan counts and the Horicon Bank counts are categorically related. … Both schemes involve Mr. Van Den Heuvel allegedly using straw borrowers and making false statements to obtain loans from financial institutions for his personal gain.
Mr. Van Den Heuvel maintains that a joint trial would be highly prejudicial to him because of the disparate nature of the car loan and Horicon Bank schemes, the significant passage of time between the two schemes, the inadmissibility of evidence of one scheme in a separate trial on the other, and the strong potential that the jury will use evidence introduced to support one scheme as proof of guilt regarding the other scheme. … These potential sources of prejudice, according to Mr. Van Den Heuvel, cannot be alleviated by curative or cautionary jury instructions.
The Court finds that Mr. Van Den Heuvel has not made the strong showing of prejudice necessary to justify severance under Rule 14(a). The two schemes took place during distinct time periods and involved Mr. Van Den Heuvel allegedly attempting to obtain separate loans from different financial institutions. The risk of jury confusion is therefore minimal, given that the evidence to support each scheme appears to be relatively short and simple. … As such, the Court is not convinced that a jury could not keep separate the evidence used to support each scheme. Likewise, given that both schemes involved Mr. Van Den Heuvel allegedly making false statements to obtain loans for his personal benefit, the Court is not persuaded that evidence of one scheme could not be used to prove motive, intent, plan, or absence of mistake under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2) with respect to the other scheme.
Mr. Van Den Heuvel’s assertion that no jury instruction could cure the prejudicial effect of a joint trial is unavailing. It appears that a jury could capably sort through the evidence, and juries are presumed to follow limiting instructions to consider each count separately. … Accordingly, severance of the the car loan counts under Rule (14)a is not necessary to provide Mr. Van Den Heuvel a fair trial in this case. …
For all the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Mr. Van Den Heuvel’s severance motion.
09/11/17 : Green Bay Press-Gazette –
09/12/17 : September 12, 2017 Letter from Oneida Gaming Commission / OGC Exec. Dir. Tamara VanSchyndel to Records Clerk Lee Cornelius re: OGC’s 09/07/17 acceptance of recently ‘elected’ Commissioner Cristina Danforth’s RESIGNATION effective 09/25/17
09/13/17 : September 13, 2017 Plaintiffs’ Final Pretrial Report, U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division Case No. 14-CV-1203, Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp. v. TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak
PLAINTIFFS’ FINAL PRETRIAL REPORT
NOW COME the plaintiffs, Tissue Technology, LLC, Partners Concepts Development, Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc. and Tissue Products Technology Corp., and hereby submit the following as their final pretrial report in reference to this action:
The plaintiff companies seek enforcement of the Notes and Agreements they made with defendant Tak Investments, LLC surrounding the sale of the Oconto Falls tissue mill from those plaintiff companies to various companies owned by Sharad Tak. The parties had been working on a sale agreement for quite some time, going back to 2005, which was finally consummated at a closing with transfer of all assets of the mill on April 16, 2007. Leading up to that time, there were several agreements which anticipated a level of funding so as to satisfy debts of the OFTI Group and ensure “clean title” to those assets upon sale.
The course of dealings between the parties clearly established that there was a substantial shortfall in funding which was to be made up by 4 Promissory Notes that are now the subject of this action. In exchange for the transfer of the assets of OFTI Group, which are all companies controlled by Ronald Van Den Heuvel, Defendant Company, Tak Investments, LLC, and individual defendant, Sharad Tak, provided the Van Den Heuvel entities three (3) different avenues of income in order to facilitate the transaction and satisfy the obligation. The parties entered into a Sales & Marketing Agreement which provided a small percentage of gross revenues to Tissue Technology, LLC. In addition, four (4) Notes were executed at closing called the “Seller Notes” with the combined value of $30,589,000.00. Those Notes are payable to the Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc. and were subordinated to the debt of Goldman Sachs, which has now been paid in full and has released the Tak companies from liability therefore. Also executed at the time of the closing were the Notes that are the subject of this lawsuit, termed the “Investment Notes”. These three recovery avenues for the plaintiff are all discussed together since none of the Tak companies have paid any of them and all three are currently in litigation, with the Sales & Marketing Agreement and the Seller Notes cases pending in Oconto County, Wisconsin.
At the time of the closing, the Final Business Terms Agreement was also executed by and between the parties hereto and serve as some additional complications to this lawsuit. The Final Business Terms Agreement provided that the Investment Notes could be satisfied in two ways. First, the Final Business Terms Agreement provided that if the plaintiffs deemed the Notes canceled, they would receive a 27% interest in Tak Investments, LLC. Demand was made for that 27% and the defendant’s denied the plaintiffs that avenue of recovery. The second avenue was cancelation of the Investment Notes if Tak Investments, LLC and associated companies would enter into a construction contract with the Spirit Construction, Inc., a Van Den Heuvel family company, in the amount of $315 million. No such contract was ever consummated. All of the above having been said, that leaves the parties hereto with simply the Notes which currently provide for outstanding principal and interest in the amount of $37,028,423.00. The Notes also contemplate payment of attorney’s fees. Plaintiff’s respectfully request judgment in that amount and an award of attorney’s fees. Finally, in defense of the plaintiff’s allegations, Sharad Tak and Tak Investments, LLC take the position that the Notes and Final Business Terms Agreement make no sense, that they were issued favorably toward Tak and his companies in that he has testified that the Notes were meant to be vehicles so that his company could borrow against them. His explanations make no sense such that the only credible interpretation of the contract is that proffered by the plaintiffs such that the Notes must be enforced.
1. Are the Promissory Notes issued validly executed?
2. Was consideration given for the Notes?
3. How much is currently due under the Notes?
Short answer: $37,028,423.00 plus attorney’s fees.
4. Election of Remedies. Note, the plaintiffs seek a money judgment and hereby elect that as their requested remedy herein.
WITNESSES EXPECTED TO TESTIFY
1. Ronald Van Den Heuvel
2303 West Dauphin Road
2. Sharad Tak
3. Steven Van Den Heuvel
4. David Van Den Heuvel
5. Robert Cera c/o Greenwood State Bank
6. William Bain
7. Records Custodian Associated Bank
Suite 200 Milwaukee, WI 53202
8. Edward Kolasinski
6760 Kawula Lane
Note: witnesses may be culled depending upon admissibility of documents.
Edward Kolasinski did some simple math to come up with the current damages amount. He is a Certified Public Accountant who was worked both as a Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer and consultant. His curriculum vitae is attached hereto.
DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION OR PORTIONS OF TRANSCRIPTS
The plaintiffs will offer the deposition testimony of Sharad Tak at pages 74-76; 81, 89 and 91, if necessary. Otherwise, all transcripts will be used in the normal course of cross- examination, refresh recollection, etc.
TIME TO TRY CASE
The plaintiffs anticipate it will take two to three days to try this matter.
The proposed Findings of Fact are submitted herewith. Dated this 13th day of September, 2017.
TERSCHAN, STEINLE, HODAN & GANZER, LTD. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS,
By: MICHAEL J. GANZER
September 13, 2017 Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division Case No. 14-CV-1203, Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp. v. TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak
NOW COME the plaintiffs, Tissue Technology, LLC, Partners Concepts Development, Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc. and Tissue Products Technology Corp., by its attorneys, Terschan, Steinle, Hodan & Ganzer, Ltd., by Michael J. Ganzer, and pursuant to Civ. L. R. 16 (c)(1)(i), hereby submit the following Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
1. The plaintiff companies, Tissue Technology, LLC, Partners Concepts Development, Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc. and Tissue Products Technology Corp., are domiciled in the State of Wisconsin.
2. The principal of each of the four (4) plaintiff companies is Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel.
3. Defendant Tak Investments, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company.
4. Defendant Sharad Tak is the managing member of Tak Investments, LLC.
5. In 2005, Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel and Sharad Tak commenced discussions about a business relationship between their respective companies which revolved around the purchase and construction of tissue mills, including an existing tissue mill in Oconto Falls, Wisconsin and other prospective mills to be built around the country.
6. Through the course of their dealings in 2005 and into 2006, the parties entered into several memoranda of understanding.
7. The memoranda included discussions of the purchase of the Oconto Falls tissue mill and funding for that purchase by a Goldman Sachs consortium for approximately $84 million.
8. A short time before the closing, which occurred on April 16, 2007, the prospective funding from Goldman Sachs was reduced from $84 million to $65 million.
9. In order to continue with the transaction and to satisfy various debt holders to a reduced level so as to ensure that the transaction would move forward, the plaintiff companies agreed to be responsible for various debts of the seller, Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc., and defendants Tak Investments, LLC and Sharad Tak agreed to the issuance of four (4) Notes in the amount of $16,400,000.00.
10. In addition to the foregoing, the parties had previously entered into a Sales & Marketing Agreement by and between Ronald Van Den Heuvel’s companies and ST Paper, Inc., the company which ultimately owned the tissue mill after closing.
11. In support of the four (4) Promissory Notes, the parties agreed to and executed a Final Business Terms Agreement regarding the prospect of business between the parties on those Notes.
12. In addition to the foregoing, at closing, plaintiff Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc. was issued Notes by ST Paper, which is owned by Tak Investments, LLC, deemed subordinated notes and referred to by the parties as “Seller Notes”, in the approximate amount of $30,589,000.00.
13. The Final Business Terms Agreement supporting the four (4) Notes herein, termed the “Investment Notes”, called for those Notes to be canceled in the event the parties entered into a contract with Spirit Construction, Inc. for the building of tissue mills in the amount of $315 million.
14. The construction of those prospective paper mills was never consummated. No agreements were reached with Spirit Construction for the $315 million construction contracts.
15. The Final Business Terms Agreement also provided that the Notes could be canceled and the plaintiff companies would receive a 27% interest in Tak Investments, LLC. 16. The plaintiff companies made due demand for issuance of the 27% by Tak Investments, LLC and Sharad Tak. They refused and failed to deliver the 27%.
17. Tak Investments, LLC and Sharad Tak took the position that the Notes could not be canceled.
18. Since the defendants failed to offer 27% of its interest in Tak Investments, LLC and since Spirit Construction never entered into a $315 million contract with Tak Investments, LLC or any of the Tak related companies, the plaintiffs sought enforcement of the Notes themselves.
19. Defendants Tak Investments, LLC and Sharad Tak received consideration for the issuance of the four (4) Promissory Notes.
20. The four (4) Promissory Notes were issued as the result of a funding gap when defendant, Tak Investments, LLC purchased the mill from the plaintiff companies. Despite due demand having been made, defendant Tak Investments, LLC and Sharad Tak have failed and refused to honor their Notes.
21. The plaintiff companies hold all of those Notes, though proceeds of the Notes have been pledged to various parties.
22. The only Note that was assigned outright was assigned to William Bain, who later returned the Note to the plaintiffs.
23. The plaintiffs have pledged proceeds from those Notes as collateral to Associated Bank and VHC Inc.
24. The Notes held by the plaintiff companies are valid and enforceable.
25. Sharad Tak, the managing member of defendant Tak Investments, LLC, has testified that the Notes were for the benefit of his company so that he could obtain financing for his company and as a line of credit.
26. The testimony of Sharad Tak regarding the purpose of the Notes and Final Business Terms Agreement makes no commercial sense.
27. The Notes remain unpaid and there is currently due and owing on those Notes as of September 1, 2017 the principal and interest amount of $37,028,423.00.
28. According to the terms of the Notes themselves, the plaintiffs are entitled to attorney’s fees for having to enforce the Notes.
September 13, 2017 Exhibit & Witness List By by All Plaintiffs, U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division Case No. 14-CV-1203, Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp. v. TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak
According to the 12/01/07 issue of The Washingtonian, ‘Living the American Dream,’ by Madhu Jain:
Mahinder Tak, a radiation oncologist and retired US Army colonel, is another player on Washington’s cultural scene. Her home in a wooded area in Bethesda, where she lives with her entrepreneur husband, Sharad, houses arguably the largest personal collection of modern and contemporary Indian art in the United States. Last year Art & Antiques magazine listed her among the top 100 collectors of art in the country. …
Tak’s company, ST Systems Corporation, provided programming and systems integration to agencies including NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration. He brought in other Indian-Americans to work with him, including Frank Islam[.]
Hillary Clinton fundraiser at Mahinder & Sharad Tak residence
September 13, 2017 Defendants’ Pretrial Report, U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division Case No. 14-CV-1203, Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp. v. TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak
DEFENDANTS’ PRETRIAL REPORT
Defendants Tak Investments, LLC (“Tak Investments”) and Sharad Tak (“Tak”), by and through their attorneys, Godfrey & Kahn, S.C., submit the following pretrial report pursuant to Civil L.R. 16(c):
I. Short Summary of Facts, Claims and Defenses.
Plaintiffs filed this action on September 30, 2014, seeking specific performance of the Final Business Terms Agreement’s provision requiring a transfer of a 27 percent interest in Tak Investments to the Plaintiffs upon the Plaintiffs’ deeming cancelled four Investment Notes made by Tak Investments, seven years earlier, on April 16, 2007. This action is the second Plaintiffs have filed in this Court seeking this relief. The Court dismissed the prior suit, Case No. 12-C-1305.
With their now Amended Complaint here, Plaintiffs seek relief under two mutually contradictory theories. First, they seek enforcement of the Investment Notes themselves against Tak Investments, asking between $30 million and $37 million in damages. That assumes the notes have not been cancelled. They also again seek specific performance of the Final Business Terms Agreement by Tak, requesting that Tak personally transfer a 27 percent interest in Tak Investments to the Plaintiffs. That assumes the notes have been deemed cancelled. It also assumes Tak owns an interest that can be transferred.
The Defendants assert a series of factual and legal defenses to the Plaintiffs’ claims. In its motion for summary judgment, Tak Investments contended that the claims for enforcement of the Investment Notes are barred by the statute of limitations and that the Investment Notes were without consideration. Mr. Tak was only recently made a party to this action. He filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the basis of the election of remedies doctrine, as well as a motion for summary judgment on the basis that he has no ownership interest in Tak Investments, precluding him from being able to transfer any interest in Tak Investments. Beyond these issues, which will be re-presented at trial, discovery has now uncovered that at least two third parties are in possession of the Investment Notes. Specifically, documents produced by Nicolet National Bank indicate that the Investment Note in the amount of $4,400,000 was assigned to Baylake Bank and remains assigned to Nicolet Bank as a result of the merger of Nicolet Bank and Baylake Bank. In addition, documents produced by Associated Bank demonstrate that the Investment Note in the amount of $4,000,000 was assigned to Associated Bank. This evidence defeats the Plaintiffs’ claims for enforcement of the Investment Notes as well as the equitable claim for enforcement of the Final Business Terms Agreement against Mr. Tak.
II. Prior Decisions/Judicial Analysis.
The Court has entered at least three substantive decisions and orders prior to the trial that begins on Monday: a summary judgment decision dismissing the 2012 Complaint and a summary judgment decision dismissing, in part, the 2014 Complaint and giving rise to the Amended Complaint that will be the basis of trial. In addition, the Court has denied Tak Investments’ section 1292(b) motion for permissive appeal based on the second summary judgment decision. In the course of these decisions, the Court has reached a series of, at the least, informal conclusions about the claims. It is not necessary to engage in a discussion about whether or not they form part of the “law of the case” because their relevance is readily apparent. The defendants replicate them here without advocacy:
On the purpose and effect of the Investment Notes:
In light of these indemnification provisions [binding the Plaintiffs], it is evident that the parties to the Final Agreement did not intend the notes to function as traditional promissory notes. The payee, OFTI, effectively promised that it would never seek to collect the $16,400,000. Instead, it appears that the notes functioned as an incentive for Tak to consummate Phase 2 Financing and enter into an additional contract worth over $315,000,000. Paragraph 2(H) stated that if Tak consummated Phase 2 Financing on or before the tenth anniversary of the notes, the Notes would be deemed cancelled. In addition, ¶ 2(G) provided that if Tak consummated Phase 2 Financing after the notes had been cancelled and the 27% share had been transferred, OFTI would return the 27% share to Tak. Thus, the notes provided Tak an incentive to consummate Phase 2 Financing quickly. If Tak consummated Phase 2 Financing before the third anniversary of the notes, Tak would not be required to transfer a 27% share to OFTI. If OFTI deemed the notes cancelled after the third anniversary, Tak would suffer the 27% loss until it consummated Phase 2 Financing.
Order on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 4, Apr. 28, 2014 (Case No. 12-C-1305, ECF No. 37.).
On the effect of the assignment of one or more of the Notes:
Accordingly, the Court concludes that because [Ron] Van Den Heuvel assigned [even] one of the four Investment Notes to [Bill] Bain, OFTI lacked authority to deem all four notes cancelled on April 20, 2010. As a result, OFTI could not satisfy the condition precedent required to trigger the ownership transfer outline in ¶ 2(G) of the Final Agreement at that time. There is also no evidence that Bain properly assigned his interest in the note back to [Ron] Van Den Heuvel at any subsequent time. OFTI has therefore failed to meet its burden at summary judgment, and Tak is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on OFTI’s contract claim.
Order on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, p.14, Apr.28, 2014 (Case No. 12-C-1305, ECF No. 37.).
On the significance of the indemnity provisions to which the Plaintiffs agreed:
Paragraph 2(G) provided that through the third anniversary of the notes, OFTI agreed to pay any payments due for interest or principal as required by the notes. OFTI also agreed to indemnify Tak and hold it harmless against any “damages, losses, deficiencies, actions, demands, judgments, fines, fees, costs and expenses, including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees, of or against Investments [Tak]” resulting from OFTI’s failure [to] make such payments. This indemnification included claims made against Tak by any future holder of the notes. (Id.) Paragraph 2(I) provided that OFTI agreed to indemnity Tak against all claims to enforce the notes brought by OFTI or future holders, “other than the enforcement of the pledge described above,” presumably referring to the 27% ownership transfer provision. Paragraph 2(I) did not contain a termination date for this indemnification.
Order on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 3, Apr. 28, 2014 (Case No. 12-C-1305, ECF No. 37.).
On the transfer of ownership interests:
The Plaintiffs protest that LLCs have, under state law, all kinds of rights to convey interests and dispose of property. That, of course, is true. But none of the statutory provisions Plaintiffs cite stands for the principle that an LLC may convey something it does not possess, namely, an ownership interest in itself.
Decision and Order, p. 3, Dec. 2, 2016 (ECF No. 40.).
On the status of pending legal issues:
It is possible that Plaintiffs do not have a viable claim against Tak Investments for the breach of the promissory notes, either because the amended claim does not relate back to the original complaint and is thus barred by the statute of limitations or because the claim is incompatible with Plaintiffs’ principal claim that the notes were canceled. Plaintiffs’ claims largely survived at summary judgment and at the amended pleading stage because the record required further development. I was unable to conclude at summary judgment that judgment should be entered in the Defendants’ favor on the entire case due to an underdeveloped record. (ECF No. 40 at 7.) I allowed Plaintiffs’ amended claim against Tak Investments to proceed because I could not conclude at the pleading stage that such a claim would necessarily be futile. (ECF No. 48 at 8.) The upcoming bench trial provides an opportunity to potentially resolve both of Plaintiffs’ claims or, at the very least, produce a more developed and clear record for any subsequent litigation. There is no clear and controlling question of law for the Court of Appeals to resolve that would speed up this case. The currently schedule trial will.
Order Denying Motion to Certify an Interlocutory Appeal, p. 4, June 21, 2017 (ECF No. 57.).
III. Statement of the Issues.
A. Whether the Investment Notes are supported by consideration.
B. Whether the statute of limitations bars Plaintiffs’ attempt to enforce the Investment Notes against Tak Investments.
C. Whether any of the Investment Notes are assigned to third parties, precluding their enforcement.
D. Whether Sharad Tak possesses any membership units of Tak Investments.
E. The extent of any damages resulting from any breach of the Investment Notes.
IV. The Name and Address of Any Witnesses Expected to Testify.
1. Sharad Tak
200 S. Washington St., Ste 100
2. Brad Hutjens
Nicolet National Bank111
3. Ed Kolasinski
2107 American Blvd.
4. Ronald Van Den Heuvel
5. David Van Den Heuvel
3909 Holmgren Way
The defense reserves the right to call rebuttal witnesses who have not been identified above, as well as any witness identified by Plaintiffs. V. Background of All Expert Witnesses. Defendants do not anticipate calling any expert witnesses. VI. Defendants’ Listed Exhibits. Defendants will file a separate Exhibit List. While the parties have conferred regarding the exhibits to be offered at trial and will stipulate to the admissibility of exhibits (with exceptions), the Defendants anticipate at least one evidentiary issue with respect to the exhibits. The four Investment Notes are central to the litigation. The Defendants contend that they were given without consideration, that the Plaintiffs suffered no pecuniary damage as a result of their issuance, that they have been deemed cancelled and, finally, that one or more of the notes has been assigned to other parties, depriving the Plaintiffs of the ability to try to enforce them. Accordingly, the Defendants will request that the Plaintiffs produce the original Investment Notes for trial. See Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
VII. Deposition Designations.
Defendants do not intend to offer any testimony through portions of transcripts or other recordings or depositions to be read into the record or played at trial as substantive evidence.
VIII. Estimated Time Needed to Try the Case.
Defendants estimate that the trial in this matter will take no more than two days. This matter is scheduled for a trial to the Court.
IX. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
1. On April 16, 2007, Tak Investments, Tak and Plaintiffs Tissue Technology, LLC, Partners Concepts Development, Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc., Tissue Products Technology Corp., and Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel entered into a Final Business Terms Agreement.
2. Paragraph 2G of the Final Business Terms Agreement provides that upon the deemed cancellation of the four investment notes by the OFTI Group, “the OFTI Group shall receive an undiluted 27 percent ownership interest of the highest class in investments and such ownership interest shall be above and beyond the ownership interest in Items 2.K of this agreement; provided however, if Phase II, as defined below, occurs after the transfer of ownership interest and prior to the tenth anniversary of the date of the investment notes, the OFTI Group shall return any ownership interest received from the investment notes.”
3. On the same day that the Final Business Terms Agreement was signed, Tak Investments made four notes totaling $16.4 Million in favor of Tissue Products Technology Corp. These are referred to by the parties as the “Investment Notes” and in the Final Business Terms Agreement.
4. Tak Investments, as maker of the Investment Notes, received nothing in exchange for making the Investment Notes. No money was paid to Tak Investments and no credit was given to Tak Investments as a result of it making the notes.
5. On April 17, 2007, Tissue Products Technology Corp. assigned the Investment Note in the amount of $4,400,000 to William Bain.
6. On April 24, 2007, Tissue Products Technology Corp. assigned the Investment Note in the amount of $4,000,000 to Associated Bank, N.A. to secure indebtedness of Partners Concepts Development, Inc.
7. On July 12, 2007, Tissue Products Technology Corp. assigned the Investment Note in the amount of $5,000,000 to VHC, Inc. for existing debt owed by Tissue Products Technology Corp., Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc. or Partners Concepts Development, Inc. to VHC, Inc.
8. On July 12, 2007, Tissue Products Technology Corp. assigned the Investment Note in the amount of $3,000,000 to VHC, Inc. for existing debt owed by Tissue Products Technology Corp., Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc. or Partners Concepts Development, Inc. to VHC, Inc.
9. On March 5, 2008, Tissue Products Technology Corp. and Tak Investments signed documents amending the Investment Notes to change the payee to Tissue Technology, LLC.
10. On March 12, 2008, Ronald Van Den Heuvel, through Tissue Technology, LLC, assigned the Investment Note in the amount of $4,400,000 to Baylake Bank. This assignment was collateral for a $650,000 loan from Baylake Bank to Ronald Van Den Heuvel as documented in Note No. 490474 dated March 12, 2008. The assignment was accepted by Baylake Bank as collateral to secure all debts and obligations of Tissue Technology, LLC and Ronald Van Den Heuvel.
11. On June 30, 2008, Associated Bank charged off two loans to Partners Concepts Development, Inc., one in the amount of $517,630.60, and the other in the amount of $341,746.93. Associated Bank’s records indicate that the collateral for these loans was a note from Tak Investments valued at “$0.”
12. On December 28, 2009, Ronald Van Den Heuvel, through Tissue Technology, LLC, assigned the Investment Note in the amount of $4,400,000 to Baylake Bank. This assignment was collateral for a $702,485.83 loan from Baylake Bank to Ronald Van Den Heuvel and Nature’s Choice Tissue, LLC as documented in Note No. 513406 dated December 24, 2009. The assignment was accepted by Baylake Bank as collateral to secure all debts and obligations of Tissue Technology, LLC and Ronald Van Den Heuvel.
13. Nicolet National Bank, as a result of a merger with Baylake Bank, holds the $4,400,000 Investment Note.
14. Records kept by the Plaintiffs concerning the Investment Notes reflect the assignment of the Investment Notes to VHC, Inc. and Associated Bank.
15. Plaintiffs, through Ronald Van Den Heuvel and counsel, have repeatedly notified the Defendants of the fact they have deemed the Investment Notes cancelled.
1. The Investment Notes are Void for Lack of Consideration. For a contract to be valid under Wisconsin law, it must be supported by consideration. This includes the conferral of value in exchange for the note. In making the notes, there was no benefit conferred on Tak Investments. No money was paid to Tak Investments as a result of it making the notes, and no credit extended. Similarly, there was nothing done by Tissue Products Technology Corp. to its detriment as a result of Tak Investments making the notes. As the Investments Notes were not supported by consideration, they are void and unenforceable.
2. The Statute of Limitations Bars Plaintiffs’ Claim to Enforce the Investment Notes. The Investment Notes matured on April 16, 2010. Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of the Investment Notes accrued on that date for purposes of the applicable six-year statute of limitations, Wis. Stat. § 893.43. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint asserting claims for breach of the Investment Notes was not filed until April 3, 2017. Since this is beyond the six-year period of the statute of limitations, and these claims do not relate back to the Complaint filed on September 30, 2014, Plaintiffs’ claims are barred. That Complaint nowhere sought the enforcement of the Investment Notes, nor did it implicate Sharad Tak personally. 3. Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Enforce the Investment Notes Assigned to Third Parties. Since all of the Investment Notes have been, and remain, assigned to third parties, Plaintiffs are without standing to enforce the Investment Notes. The assignment of any one note precludes their enforcement.
4. The Specific Performance Sought Against Sharad Tak is Impossible. Because he does not possess any units in Tak Investments, Mr. Tak cannot be compelled to transfer a 27 percent interest in Tak Investments to Plaintiffs. 5. The Specific Performance Sought Against Sharad Tak Cannot Be Ordered Given the Plaintiffs’ Failure to Satisfy a Condition Precedent. The assignment to third parties of the Investment Notes precludes the Plaintiffs from being capable of deeming the Investment Notes cancelled so as to require Mr. Tak to transfer the 27 percent interest in Tak Investments.
6.The Election of Remedies Doctrine Precludes the Plaintiffs’ Claims. Plaintiffs cannot proceed with their mutually-inconsistent claims. “A party to a contract cannot both affirm and disaffirm it to suit the party’s purposes at different times. Rather, a party must elect to treat it either as void or as valid and then stand by that election.” 1 Jay E. Grenig, Wisconsin Pleading and Practice § 7.6 (5th ed. 2017). Plaintiffs’ claim for enforcement of the Investment Notes is inconsistent with, “and repugnant to, another certain state of facts relied on as the basis of another remedy,” Jarosch v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins., 837 F. Supp.2d 980, 1017 (E.D. Wis. 2011) (quoting Bank of Commerce v. Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, 39 Wis. 2d 30, 38, 158 N.W.2d 350 (1968)), namely, Plaintiffs’ deeming the Investment Notes cancelled.
By: Jonathan T. Smies
State Bar No. 1045422
September 13, 2017 TAK Investments LLC Exhibit & Witness List, U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division Case No. 14-CV-1203, Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp. v. TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak
09/14/17 : As published in the Late October 2017 Oneida Times:
September 14, 2017 Letter from Oneida Indian Nation of New York / OINNY Representative Ray Halbritter to Oneida Nation of Wisconsin [ONWI] Business Committee Chair ‘Tehassi’ Ron Hill Jr. regarding a government-to-government meeting scheduled by Fmr. OBC Chair Cristina Danforth – who predictably failed to show up
• August 17, 2017 Complaint and Exhibits, U. S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, Case No. 5:17-CV-913, Oneida Indian Nation v. United States Department of the Interior [86 pages]
09/18/17 : PRESS RELEASE –
Members of Oneida Nation of WI electorate file Petition to retain CA law firm Gross & Klein LLP as legal representation for General Tribal Council
Wisconsin tribe members seek to recover losses & damages from ‘green’ fraud schemes
Oneida, WI – On Monday, September 18, 2017, at 8:00 a.m., enrollees of the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin (ONWI) delivered to the ONWI Business Committee (OBC) Secretary’s Office a Petition signed by 124 members of the General Tribal Council (GTC – the Tribe’s governing body) in order to convene a special GTC meeting to hear a presentation from Gross & Klein LLP and to vote on retaining the California law firm’s services with the aim of recovering millions of dollars in losses and damages from ‘green energy’ fraud schemes.
On July 17, 2017, the ONWI GTC adopted new requirements for the OBC’s processing of GTC petitions and the scheduling of GTC meetings: “General Tribal Council petitions submitted to the Tribal Secretary’s Office shall be processed and a General Tribal Council meeting be convened within 120 days of receipt by the Tribal Secretary’s Office.”
On June 28, 2017, ONWI-chartered Oneida Seven Generations Corporation (OSGC) and its Delaware-registered subsidiary, Green Bay Renewable Energy LLC (GBRE), filed an appeal with the 7th Circuit Court (Case #17-2341) following U.S. District Court Judge William Griesbach’s June 6, 2017 Order granting the dismissal of OSGC & GBRE’s December 23, 2016, lawsuit against the City of Green Bay in the Eastern District of WI (Case #16-C-1700). Chief Judge Griesbach’s August 24, 2017 Order stated, “Pursuant to Circuit Rule 33, briefing in this appeal is SUSPENDED pending further court order.”
OSGC & GBRE’s lawsuit stems from the City’s Common Council’s 2012 vote to rescind a Conditional Use Permit for OSGC to build a facility purported to safely and profitably convert trash to electricity and other products. Some ONWI members contend that the endeavor was another version of long-time OSGC-associate and Lawrence / De Pere, WI, resident Ron Van Den Heuvel’s international “Green Box Investment Fraud Scheme” currently under investigation by the Brown County Sheriff’s Office and five federal agencies.
OSGC & GBRE are represented by the Wisconsin law firm of Godfrey & Kahn S.C., which successfully sued Green Box NA Green Bay LLC for breach of contract on behalf of individual investor Dr. Marco Araujo (Brown Co. Case # 13-CV-463), and prevailed on appeal (WI Court of Appeals, District III, Appeal # 2014AP2846).
Araujo was later joined in another lawsuit against Green Box NA Green Bay LLC (Brown Co. Case #15-CV-769) with GBNAGB creditors as Co-Plaintiffs, including the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. (WEDC). From 2009 to 2011 the WI Dept. of Commerce and quasi-public WEDC loaned $1.2 million to Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC, $2 million to OSGC, and another $2 million loan to OSGC subsidiary Oneida Energy, Inc.
In July 2015, the Brown County WI Sheriff’s Office issued Search Warrants for Van Den Heuvel and Green Box NA Green Bay LLC, and GBNAGB subsequently filed bankruptcy in April 2016 (USBC, Eastern WI, Docket #16-24179).
Ron Van Den Heuvel and his wife, Kelly Van Den Heuvel, also face federal bank fraud charges for schemes using straw borrowers (USDC, Eastern WI, Docket # 16-CR-64). Co-conspirator Paul Piikkila, a former loan officer and former Interim Director of the Green Detroit Regional Center’s EB-5 Immigrant Investor program regarding another Green Box NA endeavor in Michigan, has already pled guilty for his role.
Additional counts were added regarding fraudulent loan applications by Ron’s son-in-law / employee using two vehicles owned by Green Box NA parent-company Reclamation Technology Systems (RTS), formerly known as Environmental Advanced Reclamation Technologies HQ LLC (EARTH, previously known as Nature’s Choice Tissue Corp., a different entity than either Nature’s Way Tisue Corp. – in which OSGC was Ron’s partner – and a different company than the ‘other EARTH,’ Everett Advanced Reclamation Technology HQ LLC, which was administratively dissolved on September 16, 2017). RTS is currently under the management of Stephen A. Smith of Chicago-based Glenarbor LLC / Glenarbor Partners Inc.
Gross & Klein LLP has focus areas in representing Native American tribes and in complex civil litigation and cases involving antitrust and trade law, as well as in cases involving environmental and natural resource issues.
“General Tribal Council will have an opportunity to select its own legal representation, as guaranteed by the ONWI Constitution, and have attorneys advocate for the interests and rights of the full ONWI membership. In order to have someone look out for all of us, GTC needs to hire legal representation which isn’t related to any of us,” said petition organizer Leah Sue Dodge.
09/18-19/17 : September 18-19, 2017 Court Trial Minutes, U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division Case No. 14-CV-1203, Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp. v. TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak
09/19/17 : September 19, 2017 Complaint, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 17-CV-1261, United States Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC] v. Ronald Van Den Heuvel & Green Box NA Detroit LLC
8. Based on Van Den Heuvel’s representations, the investors believed that they were investing in a new, environmentally-friendly project to recycle waste. In reality, they unwittingly provided the financing for Van Den Heuvel’s improper spending spree.
FOX 11 WLUK: Federal government files complaint against De Pere businessman
Arraignment is scheduled for Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 2:00 P.M. in Courtroom 201, 125 S. Jefferson St., Green Bay, WI 54301 before Chief Judge William C. Griesbach.
09/20/17 : September 20, 2017 U.S. Dept. of Justice Press Release,
‘De Pere Businessman Indicted for $9 Million Green Energy Fraud’
For Additional Information Contact: Public Information Officer Dean Puschnig 414-297-1700
September 20, 2017 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Litigation Release No. 23938, ‘Businessman Charged with Stealing Investor Funds for Packers Tickets,’ Docket No. 17-cv-1261, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ronald Van Den Heuvel, et al. [filed Sept. 19, 2017]
09/21/17 : FOX 11 WLUK – Search begins for record of human remains in Green Bay’s 9/11 memorial
USA TODAY / Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article as published in the Green Bay Press-Gazette:
09/22/17 : USA TODAY / Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
Matthew Krueger nominated by President Trump to be U.S. Attorney for Eastern District of Wisconsin
09/27/17 :
September 27, 2017 ONWI Business Committee / OBC Regular Meeting Agenda
Regarding the September 12, 2017 Letter from Oneida Gaming Commission / OGC Exec. Dir. Tamara VanSchyndel to Records Clerk Lee Cornelius about the OGC’s 09/07/17 acceptance of recently ‘elected’ Commissioner Cristina Danforth’s RESIGNATION:
A. Post one (1) vacancy on Oneida Gaming Commission with a term end date of 8/31/22
Requestor Kathleen Metoxen, Records Tech II/BC Support Office
Sponsor: Lisa Summers, Secretary
September 27, 2017 Plea Agreement, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 17-CR-92, United States of America v. Jay L. Fuss [Fmr. Oneida Housing Authority Construction Supervisor]
See also: Whistleblower Report to FBI about alleged HUD Funding & Materials Theft from Oneida Housing Authority, as well as claims of retaliatory physical violence:
• February 21, 2016 Dawn M. Delebreau Privacy Act Release Form & Report to U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin regarding FBI investigation of Case No. 194B-MW477598
• Sauk Co. Case No. 2013CF208, State of Wisconsin vs. Spencer A. Cornelius; Substantial Battery / Intend Bodily Harm (Felony; Repeater), regarding Spencer Cornelius’ brutal assault on fellow OHA employee Jonathan Delabreau during an OHA training trip to the Wisconsin Dells when harassment & intimidation of Jonathan just wasn’t enough to satisfy Spencer’s bloodlust, and was allegedly done in order to please Spencer’s and Jonathan’s boss, former OHA Construction Superintendent Jay Fuss. That assault was not the first time Spencer Cornelius has violently attacked people as seen by Brown Co. Case No. 2009CF630
• Vince Biskupic’s Shady ‘Justice For Sale’ Deals & The Oneida Business Committee’s Employment of Biskupic Legal Group As Counsel for Oneida Housing Authority / OHA Audit Matters
• Judge Vince Biskupic’s Conflict Of Interest In Outagamie Co. Case #2014-CF-1027, State of Wisconsin v. Jay Fuss; Plus: Oneida Housing Authority Problems Linger [UPDATE: Biskupic Recused Himself]
September 27, 2017 Telephone Status Conference Minutes, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64, United States of America v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel
Mr. Lebell informs the court that Ronald Van Den Heuvel and the government have a tentative agreement on this case. The parties have scheduled a change of plea hearing with the clerk for October 10. Mr. LeBell states that the jury instructions and motions in limine were due today and that the final pretrial can be removed from the court’s calendar.
The Court holds the deadline for jury instructions and motions in limine in abeyance.
Mr. Johnson asks that the final pretrial and jury trial remain on the court’s calendar until the plea is entered. The Court states that the case will remain on the trial calendar. The final pretrial scheduled for October 6 is moved to the scheduled change of plea hearing date on October 10.
Mr. Sanders states that a guilty plea has been entered by Piikkila and he is awaiting sentencing.
Mr. Johnson states that the case against Kelly Van Den Heuvel may resolve as part of the agreement with Ronald Van Den Heuvel.
Mr. LeBell informs the court that they have discussed any concerns or conflicts regarding the plea agreement and the case against Kelly Van Den Heuvel.
The Court states it can inquire into the condition regarding Kelly Van Den Heuvel at the plea colloquy. The Court asks if it needs to address the objection to the order regarding grand jury materials.
Mr. Porter states that he has not seen the plea agreement for Ronald Van Den Heuvel. He agrees that the objection can be held in abeyance. Mr. Johnson states that the government will be filing a response by Friday.
The Court makes finding and excludes time under the Speedy Trial Act.
Change of Plea Hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 1:30 P.M. in Courtroom 201, 125 S. Jefferson St., Green Bay, WI 54301 before Chief Judge William C. Griesbach.
09/29/17 : September 29, 2017 United States’ Response to Defendant Kelly Van Den Heuvel’s Objection to Order Denying Motion for Discovery of Grand Jury Materials, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64, United States of America v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel
[T]he defendant’s objection errs in claiming that the government has not “articulate[d] a theory of fraud” with respect to the KYHKGJ loan. … The United States’ response [Doc 119] … and the evidence in discovery explain clearly the government’s theory that the KYHKGJ loan benefitted Ronald Van Den Heuvel by helping him satisfy his marital support obligations to his ex-wife [Jan Marie Summers Van Den Heuvel] who was living in the property refinanced with the loan. The defendant simply disagrees with the government’s theory, which is precisely the purpose for a trial.
[T]he Magistrate Judge’s order requires the United States to disclose grand jury transcripts 14 days before trial. … That is two weeks earlier than the United States customarily provides the transcripts. The defendant thus is already receiving an accommodation, and she has not shown a need for any further benefit.
For the reasons given above and those stated in the United States’ prior response, the defendant’s motion should be denied.
September 29, 2017 Return of Service on Green Box NA Detroit LLC, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 17-CV-1261, United States Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC] v. Ronald Van Den Heuvel & Green Box NA Detroit LLC
September 29, 2017 Information, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 17-CR-92, United States of America v. Jay L. Fuss [Fmr. Oneida Housing Authority Construction Supervisor]
September 29, 2017 Change of Plea Hearing Minutes, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 17-CR-92, United States of America v. Jay L. Fuss [Fmr. Oneida Housing Authority Construction Supervisor]
10/03/17 : October 3, 2017 Second Renewed Motion of Ability Insurance Company for Relief from Automatic Stay Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §362(d) or, In the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §1112(b), U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Wisconsin Eastern District Docket No. 16-24179-beh, Chapter 11, Green Box NA Green Bay LLC
7. Debtor [Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC] did not successfully “roll up” the Plan by September 30, 2017. …
8. Cause exists for relief from the automatic stay pursuant to Section 362(d)(1) of Bankruptcy Code. Specifically:
A. Debtor has failed to facilitate the “roll up” within the time period allowed in the confirmed Plan.
B. Debtor has no equity in the Real Estate, as evidenced by the terms of the Plan.
C. Debtor’s reorganization attempts have failed, so the Real Estate is no longer necessary for its successful reorganization.
D. Debtor consented to relief from the automatic stay in the Plan. …
9. Debtor’s failure to facilitate the “roll up” evidences the absence of a reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation.
10. Debtor has also failed to effectuate substantial consummation of its confirmed Plan.
11. Debtor is in material default with respect to its confirmed Plan.
12. Each of the above constitutes cause for dismissal of this action pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §1112.
10/04/17 : October 4, 2017 Defendant Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel’s Plea Agreement, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64, United States of America v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel
• September 20, 2016 Superseding Indictment, U.S. District Court, WI Eastern District Docket No. 16-CR-064, United States of America V. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul J. Piikkila, and Kelly Y. Van Den Heuvel
• July 1, 2016 Paul Piikkila Plea Agreement, U.S. District Court, U.S. District Court, WI Eastern District Docket No. 16-CR-064, United States of America V. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul J. Piikkila, and Kelly Y. Van Den Heuvel
10/10/17 : October 10, 2017 Change of Plea Hearing Minutes, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64, United States of America v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel
October 10, 2017 Order Setting Conditions of Release. U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 17-CR-160, United States of America v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel
ABC 2 WBAY, De Pere ‘businessman’ reaches plea deal in bank fraud case
Wisconsin State Journal, ‘Businessman’ accused of defrauding Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. / WEDC pleads guilty to bank fraud
Green Bay Press-Gazette, De Pere ‘businessman’ Ron Van Den Heuvel will plead guilty to bank fraud
Ron Van Den Heuvel & extended ripped-off family [click to enlarge]
FOX 11 WLUK, Ron Van Den Heuvel pleads guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud
USA TODAY / Green Bay Press-Gazette: De Pere ‘businessman’ Ron Van Den Heuvel pleads guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud in Green Box case
The Press-Gazette link continues to inexplicably host a wildly misleading video suggesting that ‘Green Box is ready to emerge from bankruptcy,’ which is demonstrably false given that the October 3, 2017 Second Renewed Motion of Ability Insurance Company for Relief from Automatic Stay Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §362(d) or, In the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §1112(b), U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Wisconsin Eastern District Docket No. 16-24179-beh, Chapter 11, Green Box NA Green Bay LLC plainly states:
Soon after the Press-Gazette first published its phony claims about the Green Box Investment Fraud Scheme the failing newspaper issued the following Correction when Oneida Eye’s Publisher contacted them with facts DESTROYING THE GBPG’s LUDICROUS FRONT PAGE ‘FAKE NEWS’ CLAIM THAT GREEN BOX NA IS “READY TO EMERGE FROM BANKRUPTCY”:
So why does Green Bay Press-Gazette Editor Robert Zizzo insist on continuing to publish falsehoods that seem designed to try to help Ron Van Den Heuvel’s fraud scheme duplicitously entice low-info or foreign victims?
Contact the Press-Gazette at 920-435-4411 or metro@greenbaypressgazette.com and ask Bob yourself.
10/11/17 : October 11, 2017 Motion for Leave to Dismiss Charges in Indictment Against Kelly Van Den Heuvel, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64, United States of America v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel
10/12/17 : October 12, 2017 Oneida Nation of Wisconsin / ONWI Brief on Motion to Clarify Burdern of Proof, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Green Bay Division, Case No. 16-CV-1217, Oneida Nation v. Village of Hobart, Wisconsin
10/13/17 : October 13, 2017 U.S. Gov’t Opposition to Defendant McKelvy’s Motion to Continue, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 15-CR-398, United States of America v. Troy Wragg, Amanda Knorr & Wayde McKelvy
The government primarily objects because the victims and the public in general have a right to a speedy trial. The defendant has had more than adequate time to prepare for trial. The government has not opposed prior motions to continue the trial date because the defendant certainly needed a significant amount of time to prepare. However, two years is more than sufficient time to prepare in a case of this nature.
Secondarily, the government objects to the defendant’s motion because of the undue burden it would place on the victims of the defendant’s fraud scheme and other government witnesses. The government notes that almost all of the government’s witnesses, including the victims of this fraud scheme, live out of district. Making travel arrangements for all of those witnesses and victims to appear at trial has been a very challenging task.
Over the past year, the parties have engaged in extensive plea negotiations. In light of huge logistical undertaking required to produce these witnesses, the government gave the defendant a firm deadline of September 22, 2017 to accept the government’s final plea offer. The defendant rejected that offer and indicated that he wished to proceed to trial. As recently as a phone conversation between counsel on Tuesday, October 10, the defendant, through counsel, indicated that he planned to go forward with trial on November 13.
Since the deadline passed on September 22, the government has been making flight, hotel, and other travel arrangements for victims and other witnesses. Victims and other witnesses have been scheduling time off work, rearranging holiday travel plans, making child care arrangements, and canceling other commitments in order to appear at trial. To postpone the trial at this juncture would be a tremendous burden on the victims and other witnesses. Many plans they have made to accommodate the current trial schedule simply cannot be undone. Furthermore, the victims and other witnesses would have to take additional time off work and spend additional time rescheduling their lives in order to appear at whatever new trial date the Court ordered.
October 13, 2017 Defendant Wayde McKelvy’s Motion for Continuance of the Scheduling Order for Trial, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 15-CR-398, United States of America v. Troy Wragg, Amanda Knorr & Wayde McKelvy
10/16/17 : October 16, 2017 Response by Defendant Wayde McKelvy to the Government’s Opposition to the Defendant’s Motion for Continuance, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 15-CR-398, United States of America v. Troy Wragg, Amanda Knorr & Wayde McKelvy
10/17/17 : October 17, 2017 Order Granting Defendant Wayde McKelvy’s Motion for Continuance, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 15-CR-398, United States of America v. Troy Wragg, Amanda Knorr & Wayde McKelvy
Wisconsin State Journal, Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. / WEDC delays vote on Foxconn contract after discovering problem
Sen. Tim Carpenter, D-Milwaukee, declined to describe the problem but characterized it as a “nuclear bomb” that, had it not been addressed, would have resulted in a contract that “would not have protected taxpayers whatsoever.” …
FLASHBACK: At the September 9, 2015 Joint Legislative Affairs Committee, Fmr. WEDC Board Member & WI State Sen. Julie Lassa testified:
On July 21, 2015 the Green Bay Press-Gazette reported in its physical edition:
WEDC provided the $1.1 million loan to Green Box NA, LLC in 2011 in exchange for a pledge to create 115 jobs by Dec. 31, 2014.
The company stopped making payments in 2013, got the loan terms restructured in 2014 and WEDC declared the company in default in March. …
Brown County court records indicate that SC Acquisitions LLC of Winnetka, Ill., sought repayment of $28.3 million in a 2010 mortgage foreclosure case filed against four Van Den Heuvel companies – Eco Fibre Inc., Custom Paper Products Inc., Partners Concepts Development Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp.
The company’s struggle to repay existing debt didn’t stop Van Den Heuvel from continuing to pursue loans from WEDC. …
A WEDC statement on Green Box indicates it authorized Green Box’s 2011 loan less than a month after the quasi-public agency was created [by Governor Scott Walker].
June 8, 2016 Order by U.S. Tax Court Judge Kathleen Kerrigan for the subpoena of accounting firm Schenck SC regarding the schemes of VHC Inc.’s estranged debtor, Ron Van Den Heuvel
These consolidated cases are calendared for a Special Session commencing on August 15, 2016, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. On May 31, 2016, petitioners filed a motion for leave to serve subpoena and notice of deposition of non-party Schenck, S.C. pursuant to Tax Court Rule 74(c)(2)(B). Attached to the motion, petitioners included the notice of deposition with proof of service. The Court granted petitioners’ motion on June 7, 2016.
ORDERED that the deposition of Schenck, S.C. shall take place on June 30, 2016, from 10:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., at the offices of petitioners’ counsel, One Law Group, S.C. [formerly doing business as Stellpflug Law, S.C.], 444 Reid Street, Suite 200, DePere, Wisconsin 54115.
ORDERED that in addition to the usual service, the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on: Dennis J. Langenberg, Schenck S.C., 200 E. Washington Street, Appleton, WI 54911, and on Brian C. Spahn, Godfrey & Kahn, S.C., 780 North Water Street, Milwaukee, WI 53202-3590.
Atty. Mark Bartels of SC Acquisition Company, LLC, is the ‘Registered Agent’ for One Law Group/Stellpflug Law…
…and, oh… by the way…
Nancy Stellpflug – wife of One Law Group/Stellpflug Law partner C. David Stellpflug who retired in January 2016 – just happens to be Secretary of VHC, Inc.
On July 20, 2015 the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported in its physical version:
A Milwaukee Journal Sentinel review found that WEDC failed to run adequate checks and gave two awards worth more than $1.2 million to a financially troubled De Pere businessman who had not disclosed his money problems to the state. Despite those omissions in 2011 and 2012, WEDC kept working with Ron Van Den Heuvel and his ‘clean’ energy company, Green Box, into 2014, state records show.
There is no record so far of WEDC notifying the City of De Pere about the company’s money troubles even though Green Box was working with the city in an unsuccessful attempt to get federally tax-exempt bonds — in part to repay the state’s soured loan. …
[Ron Van Den Heuvel, a] financially troubled businessman who has since defaulted on more than $1.2 million in loans from Wisconsin’s flagship jobs agency voiced frustration with state officials for not giving him more money.
Ron Van Den Heuvel wrote to an official with the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation in spring to say his energy company, Green Box, was “disappointed” it had not received more money from the agency.
“Green Box is disappointed in the amount of assistance we got bringing in $200,000,000 of capital and 500 manufacturing jobs in to the state of Wisconsin,” Van Den Heuvel wrote.
Those figures are disputed by the state, who say the company created a small fraction of the jobs numbers he cited.
The De Pere businessman, who did not disclose his problems to the state when he applied for the loans, suggested that Wisconsin’s lagging job creation figures may be the result of failing to give more money to companies like Green Box.
“In 5 other states that Green Box is building new facilities with less jobs, no one is under $17,000,000 of assistance,” Van Den Heuvel wrote in the March 21 letter. “Now reading in the Milwaukee newspaper that Wisconsin new job growth is lagging other states, maybe there’s a reason.”
Despite Van Den Heuvel’s omissions in 2011 and 2012, Gov. Scott Walker’s administration kept working with him and Green Box into 2014. But he made it clear he wasn’t impressed with their efforts.
“Green Box supports Governor Walker’s programs everywhere and cannot understand why this program is lacking behind the other states,” he wrote in the letter to Steve Sabatke, an economic development consultant with WEDC. “The other states business development and jobs area promotional personnel are more persistent, aggressive and hardworking; maybe that’s why they are winning.” …
Despite the troubles with Green Box, WEDC suggested a company representative go on a May trip to East Africa as recently as March of this year.
On March 20 — just one day before Van Den Heuvel voiced concern that Green Box hadn’t received more money — Katy Sinnott, the vice president of the Division of International Business Development, wrote in a letter to Green Box’s human resources director that the agency was planning a trade venture to Tanzania and Kenya.
“Your project is extremely exciting and we are proud to have Green Box in Wisconsin making a difference in waste management,” she wrote to Phil Reinhart. “I look forward to hearing more about the next project — cleaning the seas!”
More like cleaning out victims’ wallets.
Racketeering Influenced & Corrupt Organization / RICO activities.
October 17, 2017 Debtor Green Box NA Green Bay LLC’s Consent to Motion to Dismiss, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Wisconsin Eastern District Docket No. 16-24179-beh, Chapter 11, Green Box NA Green Bay LLC
5. Ultimately, Mr. Van Den Heuvel was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on certain charges alleged by the SEC. Immediately thereafter, the Investment Banker withdrew from the engagement as it became apparent that the project was too closely associated with Mr. Van Den Heuvel, at least in its eyes, in order to spend any further time on it, as no assurances could be given to it that the government’s investigation would not somehow involve the entity into which the asset were to be rolled.
6. Lacking any immediate additional funds to continue to finance the roll up or engage a new investment banker, the Debtor has determined that there is no other option at this time for continuing with the proposed roll up and, therefore, there is no point to continuing this Chapter 11 case.
7. Significant sums of money invested post-petition in this project will be lost by investors other than Mr. Van Den Heuvel. No assets, other than assets which are fully pledged over their value to secured creditors remain. The major asset owned by the Debtor is the real estate, subject to the Motion for Relief from Stay and the Motion to Dismiss. There appears to be no equity in it.
10/18/17 : GreatLakesEcho.org /
Major ‘recycling’ scam in Michigan & Wisconsin sparks indictment,
A bogus scheme to build an eco-friendly “green energy” waste processing facility in Detroit defrauded lenders and investors — including Chinese investors hoping to qualify for U.S. visas — of $4,475,000, according to a federal grand jury in Milwaukee.
Project promoter Ronald Van Den Heuvel promised the victims that his Green Box-Detroit would build and operate a facility to recycle paper, process other waste and produce synthetic fuel, the indictment charged. …
TIMELINE PART 12