FINAL DISTRIBUTION AUTHORIZED

State District Judge John Dietz has authorized the Receiver to make a final distribution.  

The letter to holders of Covered Claims is here. 

COURT ENTERS ORDER ON DISTRIBUTION

	On December 14, 2005 Judge John Dietz conducted a hearing to determine the
basis on which a distribution of the assets of the One West receivership would occur.
Judge Dietz has supervised this receivership since its inception and is very familiar with
the facts of this case.

	At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Dietz entered an order. Click here to view
a copy of the order. The key findings in Judge Dietz’s order are:

♦ Prior to the spring of 2001, Lanny Lown operated an investment program in
California. When he realized that the program was close to collapsing because it
could not bring in enough money to sustain itself, Lown opened a bank account
in Texas on or about May 19, 2001 and began operating the One West
investment program from Texas. When Lown opened the bank account in Texas
on or about May 19, 2001, there was virtually no money left from the California
program because Lown had already spent all the money.

♦ There are sufficient funds available to permit a 30% distribution to investors with
Covered Claims. Investors with Covered Claims who received nothing back
from One West prior to the receivership will receive 30% of their Covered
Claim. Investors who received an amount less than 30% of their Covered Claim
from One West prior to the receivership will receive a distribution that brings
their total return, pre-receivership and post-receivership, to 30%. Investors who
received more than 30% of their Covered Claim will receive no distribution from
the receivership and the Receiver may determine, in her sole discretion, whether
to sue those individuals for a return of the excess funds they received.

♦ Some investors gave their money to an intermediary to invest, but the
intermediary failed to turn over $43,000 of those funds to One West. Investors
with Covered Claims who gave their money to the intermediary will share in the
distribution on the same basis as other investors. The Receiver is directed to file
a complaint with the Harris County District Attorney’s Office concerning the
intermediary’s failure to turn over the $43,000 and is authorized to take whatever
action against the intermediary that she deems appropriate.

	On December 19, 2005, the Receiver mailed checks to all claimants
entitled to receive a distribution under the Court’s order. Claimants with
Covered Claims who had received no money back from One West when the
receivership began received a check for 30% of their Covered Claim.
Claimants who had received some money back from One West prior to the
receivership, but less than 30% of their Covered Claim, received a check that
brought their total distribution, pre-receivership and post-receivership, to 30%
of their Covered Claim. Claims based on funds deposited before May 19, 2001
were not Covered Claims according to the Court’s order, and those claimants
received nothing. Claimants who had already received an amount equal to or
greater than 30% of their Covered Claim from One West prior to the
receivership also received nothing.

	The receivership will remain open to permit the Receiver to continue to pursue
two litigation matters she filed to attempt to recover additional assets for investors.
One matter is a lawsuit the Receiver filed against one of Lown’s former criminal
attorneys concerning payments he received for Lown’s criminal defense prior to the
receivership. Those payments were solely derived from One West investors’ funds,
and the Receiver has asked the Court to require the attorney to return the funds to the
Receiver. The second matter involves the return of $90,000 that was used for
Lown’s initial bail bond. The trial court judge in Lown’s criminal trial directed the
bail bond firm to turn over the money to the Receiver. Lown’s attorney appealed,
claiming that Lown had assigned the money to him as part of his attorney’s fees.
The Court of Criminal Appeals recently denied the attorney’s petition for review but
has not yet ruled on the Receiver’s motion to require the bail bond firm to comply
with the order requiring it to turn over the funds.

	The receivership will also remain open to permit the Receiver to consider
litigation against the individual who acted as an intermediary for certain One West
investors and against the investors who received more than 30% back from One
West prior to the receivership. Even if all of these lawsuits and potential lawsuits
are successful, it is likely that they would result in an additional distribution to
investors of approximately 1% of each Covered Claim. At this time, the Receiver
does not know whether any defendant or potential defendant has money with which
to pay a judgment if the Receiver is successful pursuing any of these matters. Texas
court rules do not permit the Receiver to conduct discovery concerning a defendant’s
assets until the Receiver obtains a judgment.

	The Receiver and her staff are unable to answer individual inquiries
concerning progress of the litigation or requests for updates on the receivership.
Litigation proceeds very slowly, and there may be no significant developments for
months or even years. If any newsworthy events occur, we will post information on
the receivership’s web site. If considerable time elapses between postings, it is
because there is no news to report.