by Structured Settlement Watchdog
Genex Capital Corporation, which was sensationally sued by two California retirees in October who had invested in factored structured settlement payment streams originated by Genex Capital, is now facing suits brought by additional investors as set forth in the Amended Complaint filed on December 22, 2020 in Superior Court in Maricopa County Arizona. Roger Proctor, the CEO of Defendants, Genex Capital Corporation, a Delaware Corporation and Genex Strategies, a Canadian company, has been named as a co-defendant in the Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs are retirees who bought factored structured settlement payments as investments.
Genex Capital is alleged to have taken the structured settlement payments that plaintiffs originally bought from Genex, and then resold the payment rights to new investors, ostensibly raking in millions. The identities of the new investors are not known at this time, however it's seems only a matter of time. before the proverbial poop hits the fan. The Genex Capital Investor Lawsuits are a living breathing lesson for anyone thinking of investing in factored structured settlement payments. They are not annuities and have risks that you wouldn't have by investing in a legitimate annuity.
Download Keefer Amended Complaint v Genex Capital et al. 12-22-2020
RICHARD L. KEEFER and VICKI L. KEEFER, husband and wife; H.P., a married man; E. DWAYNE WALLS, a married man; and PANABCO, a partnership;
Plaintiffs, vs. GENEX CAPITAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; GENEX STRATEGIES, INC., a Canadian corporation; ROGER PROCTOR and JANE DOE PROCTOR, husband and wife; HAPPY STATE BANK & TRUST COMPANY, d/b/a/ GOLDSTAR TRUST COMPANY, a Texas corporation; SECURITY TITLE AGENCY, INC., an Arizona corporation. Defendants.
I've created the following infographic to show my understanding (and to help readers get a better understanding) of the status of the litigation and my thoughts on the big picture, following my review of publicly filed documents.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"You shouldn't have to beg, borrow or steal" and you should not have to NEGOTIATE" - Roger Proctor CEO Genex Capital March 15, 2010 Source: Genex Capital You Tube retrieved January 4, 2021. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Payment Rights From Structured Settlements Arising Out of These Cases Are Subject of Investor Lawsuit Against Genex Defendants
The Amended Complaint against Genex Capital, Genex Strategies, Inc and Roger Proctor et al. refers to factored structured settlement payment rights from cases involving original annuitants with the following surnames, that were allegedly converted by Genex Capital from Plaintiffs in Investor Group One and reassigned to as yet unidentified new investors who are referred to in the infographic as Investor Group Two:
- Perdun
- Miers
- Duran
- Power
- Martin
- Harrington
- McAdory
- Dacus
- Bender
- Tolentino
- Alamaraz
- Gibbons
- Diaz
The following are the Counts in the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint against the Genex Defendants and Proctor
Count One Breach of Contract (Keefers and H.P. v Genex Capital)
Count Two Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Keefers and Mr. Oak v Genex)
Count Three Enrichment (Keefers, H.P., PANABCO v Genex Capital )
Count Four Conversion (All Plaintiffs v Genex Capital, Genex Strategies and Roger Proctor, the CEO of Genex Capital)
Count Five Civil Conspiracy (All Plaintiffs v Genex, Genex Strategies and Roger Proctor
Count Six Aiding & Abetting (All Plaintiffs v Genex Strategies and Roger Proctor)
Count Seven Declaratory Judgment (Keefers and H.P. v Genex Capital)
Count Eight Declaratory Judgment Walls and PANABCO v Genex Capital)
Plaintiffs seek a judgment against Defendants:
A. Awarding the Plaintiffs compensatory damages of no less than the full value of the Converted Payments at the date payment was wrongfully diverted, and Plaintiffs’ rights and interests in the Converted Payments were converted, by Genex and GSI;
B. pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1831 et seq. and Rule 57, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, declaring:
- there is no enforceable Receivables Purchase Agreement between the Keefers and Genex;
- there is no enforceable Receivables Purchase Agreement between H.P. and Genex;
- to the extent there are fully executed and enforceable RPAs between the Keefers or H.P. and Genex, the Keefers and H.P. did not materially breach the RPAs when they reassigned and sold any of the Converted Payment Streams.
- to the extent there are fully executed and enforceable RPAs between the Keefers or H.P. and Genex, the Keefers and H.P. cured such alleged material breaches of the RPAs;
- regardless of whether there are fully executed and enforceable RPAs between the Keefers or H.P. and Genex, and regardless of whether the Keefers or Mr. P. materially breached any executed and enforceable RPA, Genex had no legal or equitable right to terminate the RPAs, or reassign and sell the Duran Payments, Perdun Payments, Non-Assigned Keefer Payments, or Diaz Payments to new third-party Investors, without notice to or consent by the Keefers or H.P.;
- the Keefers own the right to receive the Duran Payments, Perdun Payments, and the Non-Assigned Keefer Payments, H.P. owns the right to receive the Diaz Payments, and, pursuant to Investor Assignment Agreements between the Keefers or H.P. and Genex, Genex has not and cannot terminate the Keefers’ or H.P.'s rights in these payments;
- regardless of whether the RPAs allegedly entered between Thompson and Gibbons IRA and Genex are enforceable, and regardless of whether Thompson or Gibbons IRA materially breached any executed and enforceable RPA, Genex had no legal or equitable right to subsequently reassign, sell, or otherwise receive the Almaraz Payments or Outstanding Mier Payment, without notice to and consent by PANABCO and Walls; and,
- PANABCO owns and is entitled to receive the Almaraz Payments, and Walls owns and is entitled to receive the Outstanding Mier Payment.
C. pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1801 et seq. and Rule 65, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, ordering:
- Genex be enjoined from reselling or reassigning Plaintiffs’ structured settlement payments described herein;
- Genex be enjoined from advertising for resale or reassignment Plaintiffs’ structure settlement payments described herein;
- Genex be enjoined from seeking to amend court orders related to Plaintiffs’ structured settlement payments described herein or from changing the mailing address for such payments from going to any person or entity other than to Security Title;
- GSI be enjoined from receiving or distributing any funds related to Plaintiffs’ structured settlement payments described herein;
- Genex be mandated to abide by the terms of the relevant Investor Assignment Agreements between Plaintiffs and Genex;
- Goldstar and/or Security Title be mandated to direct all future structured settlement payments described herein to Plaintiffs, as the rightful owners of such payments; and,
- Genex, GSI, Proctor, Security Title, and Goldstar be enjoined from engaging in any further conduct that would deprive Plaintiffs of their rights in the structured settlement payments described herein.
- awarding Plaintiffs punitive damages to the extent permitted by law, sufficient to deter Genex, GSI, and Proctor from engaging in the same or similar conduct to that described herein;
D. awarding Plaintiffs punitive damages to the extent permitted by law, sufficient to deter Genex, GSI, and Proctor from engaging in the same or similar conduct to that described herein;
E. awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on any award of damages at the rate provided under Arizona law, from the date of judgment until paid in full;
F. awarding Plaintiffs its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action plus interest thereon, at the maximum rate permitted by Arizona law, from the date of judgment until paid in full pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-341, 12-341.01, 12-1840; and,
G. in the event judgment is obtained by default, for Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees of $25,000.00 pursuant to Rule 55(b)(1), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, and for costs expended, plus interest on those sums, at the maximum rate permitted by Arizona law, from the date of Judgment until paid in full;
H. the continuing jurisdiction of this Court to review and determine the reasonableness and award of any post-judgment costs and attorneys’ fees sought by Plaintiffs, pursuant to Rule 54, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure
Plaintiffs allege: (Note: the numbers refer to the line in the Pleadings of the Amended Complaint in Keefer et al v Genex et al. captioned above"
200. The Keefers rightfully own the Converted Keefer Payments.
201. H.P. rightfully owns the Converted H.P. Payments.
202. PANABCO rightfully owns the Converted PANABCO Payments.
203. Through its unlawful and unauthorized sale and re-assignment of the Converted Payment Streams to third-party Investors, Genex has intentionally exercised control over the Converted Payment Streams to the exclusion of the Keefers, H.P., and PANABCO.
The Keefers, H.P., and PANABCO have demanded Genex return control over the Converted Payments to the Keefers, and Genex has failed to do so.
205. The Keefers, H.P., and PANABCO have been damaged by Genex’s conduct in the minimum amount of the full value of the Converted Payments that Genex wrongfully took from each of them.
206. Upon information and belief, Proctor, in his capacity as Genex’s CEO, had personal knowledge of Genex’s transfer, sale, and reassignment of the Converted Payments to third-party Investors, without notice to or consent by the Keefers, H.P., or PANABCO.
207. Upon information and belief, Proctor, in his capacity as Genex’s CEO, supervised, managed, directed, and participated in and benefitted from Genex’s transfer, sale, and reassignment of the Converted Payments to third-party Investors.
208. Mr. Walls rightfully owns the Outstanding Mier Payment.
209. Through its unlawful and unauthorized direction to Security Title to withhold the Outstanding Mier Payment, Genex has intentionally exercised control over the Outstanding Mier Payment to the exclusion of Mr. Walls.
210. Mr. Walls has demanded Genex return control over the Outstanding Mier Payments to Mr. Walls, and Genex has failed to do so.
211. Mr. Walls has been damaged by Genex’s conduct in the minimum amount of
the full value of the Outstanding Mier Payment.
212. Upon information and belief, Proctor, in his capacity as Genex’s CEO, had personal knowledge of Genex’s direction to Security Title to withhold the Outstanding Mier Payment, without notice to or consent by Mr. Walls.
213. Upon information and belief, Proctor, in his capacity as Genex’s CEO, supervised, managed, directed, and participated in and benefited from Genex’s direction to Security Title to withhold the Outstanding Mier Payment.
214. As a result of Genex’s, GSI’s, and Proctor’s intentional misconduct, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter Genex, GSI, and Proctor from engaging in conduct similar to that described herein.
216. Upon information and belief, Genex and GSI agreed to work together to divert
the Keefers’ ownership, rights, and interests in the Converted Keefer Payments, which the Keefers had already purchased from Genex for good and valuable consideration, and reassign and sell the Keefers’ rights and interests in the Converted Keefer Payments to third-party Investors, thereby depriving the Keefers’ of their rights and interests in the Converted Keefer Payments.
217. Upon information and belief, Genex and GSI agreed to work together to divert
the H.P. ownership, rights, and interests in the Converted Pak Payments, which the P's had already purchased from Genex for good and valuable consideration, and reassign and sell the H.P. rights and interests in the Converted H.P. Payments to third-party Investors, thereby depriving H.P. of their rights and interests in the Converted H.P. Payments.
218. Upon information and belief, Genex and GSI agreed to work together to divert
PANABCO’s ownership, rights, and interests in the Converted PANABCO Payments, which PANABCO had purchased for good and valuable consideration, and reassign and sell the PANABCO’s rights and interests in the Converted PANABCO Payments to third-party Investors, thereby depriving depriving PANABCO of its rights and interests in the Converted PANABCO Payments.
219. Upon information and belief, Genex and GSI agreed to work together to divert
Mr. Wall’s ownership, rights, and interests in the Outstanding Mier Payment, which the Mr. Walls had purchased for good and valuable consideration, and direct Security Title to withhold the Outstanding Mier Payment from Mr. Walls, thereby depriving Mr. Walls of his rights and interests in the Outstanding Mier Payment
220. Genex and GSI accomplished such diversion, reassignments, and sales by instructing Security Title and/or Goldstar to make payments to GSI, rather than to the Plaintiffs.
221. Genex’s and GSI’s agreed upon acts constitute conversion of the Plaintiffs’ property and are unlawful.
222. Upon information and belief, Proctor, in his capacity as Genex’s CEO and otherwise, had personal knowledge of Genex’s and GSI’s agreed upon conversion of the Plaintiffs’ property.
223. Upon information and belief, Proctor, in his capacity as Genex’s CEO and otherwise, supervised, managed, directed, and participated in and benefitted from Genex’s and GSI’s agreed upon conversion of the Plaintiffs’ property.
224. Plaintiffs have been damaged by Genex’s, GSI’s, and Proctor’s conspiracy to unlawfully redirect and convert the Converted Payments purchased by and owed to Plaintiffs in an amount to be proven at trial.
225. As a result of Genex’s, GSI’s, and Proctor’s intentional misconduct and conspiracy, the Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter Genex, GSI, and Proctor from engaging in conduct similar to that described herein.
Has Investor Group Two Been Informed by Genex Capital, Genex Strategies, Inc. and Roger Proctor?
At this stage it is unclear whether or not the as yet unidentified investors from Investor Group Two were notified of the origin of the payments (1) at the time Genex sold them to the investors that make up Investor Group Two, or (2) when the Keefer's filed suit in October, or (3) whether they will be notified and when, now that the Amended Complaint has been filed. How many more investors are out there? We shall see. Stay tuned.
"You shouldn't have to beg, borrow or steal" and you should not have to NEGOTIATE" Roger Proctor CEO Genex Capital
Comments and Trackback Policy