Bear Hunt Excuse Used in Update to Most Bizarre Debt Industry Lawsuit

In March I wrote about the most bizarre debt industry lawsuit of the year. It involved Lloyd Regner and Kevin Devoto, guys that had a relationship with Lloyd Ward.

In the last article on this matter, which is a must read, the case against Devoto and others by Regner was laid out. The case involved characters identified as “Convict”, “Charlatan”, a loose woman and a church. I’m telling you, it’s a page turner.

Apparently new documents have been filed in this case, which I’ve received a copy of. These new documents have to speak for themselves since they lay out a new version of the events.

Kevin Devoto, Lloyd Regner Update

The following motion to consolidate with cause document is reported to have been filed in this case.

Two separate lawsuits have been filed involving the same fundamental dispute and same set of facts. Both of them ended up in this Court.

To understand why they should be consolidated-«and why they should be consolidated under the after­filed suit’s cause number–a statement of the underlying facts and the facts leading up to the filing of these suits is necessary.

Background Facts

Lloyd Regner and Kevin Devoto were in business together for over four years. They created a number of entities based on different business models (the “Entities”). These are the same entities that are now currently Plaintiffs in this suit.

Around the middle of 2011, David Glenwinkel became involved in various business matters with the Entities and their co-owners. In January 2012, NISCO Enterprises, LLC (“NiSCO”) purchased Mr. Devoto’s 50% ownership interest in the Entities with the consent of Mr. Regner and his counsel. These events feature prominently inthe two competing suits filed by Regner and NISCO.

In February 2012, not long after the sale to NiSCO, tension between Mr. Regner and Mr. Devoto, which had been growing over the past six months, reached a breaking point. Accusations of competing businesses and theft of employees began to fly as Mr. Regner took unilateral control of the Entities and barred Mr, Devoto and NISCO from ali access to the Entities.

As a result of Mr. Regner’s actions, NiSCO made r request to inspect the Entities’ books and records to determine, among other things, whether any distributions had been made, distributions which NiSCO was entitled to receive.

On February 28, 2012, NISCO, through its attorneys, made a formal demand to Mr. Regner for access to the Entities’ records and to provide an accounting. A true and correct copy of this demand is attached to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition in NISCO Enterprises, LLC and Devoto Regner, etal., Cause No. DC­12-03426.

In response to the demand, on March 8, 2012, Mr. Regner and several of the Defendants, including, Mr. Devoto and Mr. Gienwinkel, who was acting as NISCO’s representative, held a meeting at the law offices of Mr. Regner’s counsel, Gregory Shamoun and Brian Norman of Shamoun & Norman, LLP. Counsel for the each of the Defendants was also present at the March 8 meeting.

See also  I Was Looking at The Debt Answer Instead of Impact Debt Relief for Debt Settlement. - Oscar

The purpose of the meeting was to determine if there could be an amicable “divorce” between the two co­owners. No resolution was reached. But Regner’s counsel did agree to allow an independent auditor to have access to the Entities’ books and records to conduct an audit and business valuation.

Additionally, upon conclusion of the March 8 meeting, the parties’ attorneys-at the request of Mr. Shamoun«-agreed that neither side would file suit for the next week pending the independent audit ofthe Entities.

But despite this agreement, on March 9, 2012, the very next day after the meeting, Cause No. DC-12-02789 was filed and assigned to this Court, the 193rd. As originally filed, this suit (currently styled Regner, etal. Glenwinkel, etal. (hereinafter the “Regner Suit”)), was styled simply ABC D.R.L. Co. V. ll/I.G.B and involved allegations of conversion and trespass to chattel by a former employee; throughout, the original parties are only identified by their initials. Citation was issued for but never served. The Original Petition was signed by Jana Lambro, who listed her address but did not indicate any law firm. Ms. Lambro’s address, however, is the same as that of the law firm of Shamoun & Norman, LLP and she is an associate at Shamoun & Norman. ln reality, this petition was filed as a mere placeholder for Plaintiffs Second Amended Petition in the Regner Suit.

On March 15, 2012, while NlSCO was engaging an accountant to review the Entities books and records, Ms. Lambro filed Plaintiffs’ First Amended Original Petition in Cause No. DC-12-02789 The amendments added multiple additional plaintiffs and defendants. But again, all of them were identified by their initials only. (For example, the Plaintiffs were: ABC DRL Co., LR., R&D. MD., LLC, ABC A.S., LLC, L.A., LLC. C. LLC, L.S.M.D., Ine, RD., LLC, and T.D.A., LLC.) this petition was filed as a mere placeholder with no intention of ever being served on the named defendants.

Finally, on March 27, 2012, after several unsuccessful attempts to get its independent accountant access to review the Entities records (records because their own team was conducting a forensic accounting of the Entities’ NiSCO’s accountants were only seeking to review a limited amount of information for the period after which NISCO and Mr. Devoto had been denied access. This information could have easily been provided without interfering with Mr. Regner’s own accountants.) and after several unsuccessful attempts to set a reasonable date for formal medìation (Mr, Shamoun claimed he could not agree to a mediation date before the end of May because he was going on a bear hunt.) NISCO and Devoto filed the suit styled NISCO Enterprises, LLC and Devoto V. Regner, et al., Cause No. DC-12-03426 (the “NISCO Suit”).

Do You Have a Question You'd Like Help With? Contact Debt Coach Damon Day. Click here to reach Damon.

On March 28, 2012, after NlSCO’s counsel informed Mr. Shamoun that it had filed suit, Shamoun immediately filed his Second Amended Petition in the Regner Suit. Only then did Mr. Shamoun put his own name and his firm’s name on the pleadings and make an official appearance.

What had originally started as a three page petition with two parties-identified only by their initials–asserting claims of conversion and trespass of chattel became, over the course of three weeks, a thirty-six page suit with eleven causes of action and thirty parties.

See also  Judgment to be Secured With Cash or Bond in Lloyd Ward Kansas Default Judgment Case

Notwithstanding the seeming complexity and grandiosity of the claims in the Regner Suit, the dispute at the heart of that suit and the NISCO suit is relatively simple and involves from the same set of common facts: two business partners and oo-owners of multiple business have had a falling out. – Source

And There Are More Claims

In an attached affirmative defense document new claims against Lloyd Regner are made.

Defendants are not liable to Plaintiffs under the doctrine of estoppel. Plaintiffs are estopped from denying that a valid transfer of ownership interest in various entities that are plaintiffs in this suit occurred between Kevin Devoto and NISCO. Plaintiff Regner and his attorneys Brian Norman and Gregory Shamoun were involved in or aware of ongoing discussions with David Glenwinkel and Craig Beling regarding the sale of Devoto’s ownership interest to NISCO. Mr. Norman even expressed interest in learning more about the transaction so the he might structure a similar deal for his client, Mr. Regner. Consequently, Plaintiffs are estopped to deny knowledge or consent of the transfer, which was valid and binding. Plaintiffs are also estopped to claim interference related to this transaction because of their direct knowledge of and consent to the transaction.

Defendants are not liable to Plaintiffs under the doctrine of estoppel because of Mr. Regner’s own self-dealing and misappropriation of corporate assets. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Regner, on at least one and possibly more occasions, misappropriated funds from at least one, and possibly more, of the Plaintiff- Entities, including Lone Star Management and Development, LLC (“Lone Star”). Upon information and belief, Mr. Regner issued multiple checks from Lone Star to himself, which money Mr. Regner then used for gambling and/or deposited in his personal foreign bank accounts. Mr. Regner also caused all the stock in Lone Star to be issued to himself despite lacking the proper legal authority to do so. Upon information and belief, such action taken by Mr. Regner was done at the express counsel of his attorneys, Mr. Norman and Mr. Shamoun.

And the band played on.

This case might be an absolute train wreck but at least it’s got some entertainment value to it.

Damon Day - Pro Debt Coach

I can always use your help. If you have a tip or information you want to share, you can get it to me confidentially if you click here.

Follow Me
Steve Rhode is the Get Out of Debt Guy and has been helping good people with bad debt problems since 1994. You can learn more about Steve, here.
Steve Rhode
Follow Me

Comments are closed.