Card # 2 - June 7, 2007 The Board is asked to vote to approve the resolution of the loan but can't see the written terms until after the resolution is passed. The resolution only shows the amount of the loan not the terms
Card # 3 - June 21, 2007 The terms of the loan are inconsistent with the terms explained to the Board and unit owners by Ellinger http://www.galaxyfacts.com/rfagreement.pdf
This is my opinion - This is how I see it and this is how I call it:
1) The loan was not rolled back to January 1, 2007 as Ellinger said it would be if the Board voted yes on May 19th, the inception date is June 21st, 2007
2) There is an additional 1.4 million borrowed over and above what was owed on the first two loans contrary to what Ellinger said; we will not be borrowing any additional money.
3) There is a 1% prepayment penalty fee. Ellinger said there was none in the May 3rd Board meeting, the May 18th R+R meeting and the May 19th Board meeting.
Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:52 pm Post subject: loan refinancing
The terms are not exactly like either of the scenarios presented to us in May.
The extra money is about the right amount to be a refund of the principal we paid from January to May.
There's a second prepayment penalty--called a yield maintenance fee. This says that if the loan is paid off early, we pay the difference between the remaining interest on the loan and what could be earned on a US Treasury Note or Bond with the same maturity date over the time between the payoff and the original due date. Right now, the difference is about 2%.
The real negative is that this is basically an interest only loan for the first 3 and a half years. We owe $15.9 million now and we'll still owe more than $15 million in 2011 when we begin paying back the principal for real.
We've been paying for the loans since 2003. At the end of 2007, we will have donated $9.2 million in maintenance payments to the loans.
Unfortunately, we'll still owe $15.9 million (on $18.5 million borrowed) By the time it's over in 2015, we will pay $27.7 million...almost $9 million in interest.
However, by that time, we will have paid $47 million for the loans and R&R and whatever...
At the end, we're supposed to end up with money in our replacement reserve fund...
Don't count on it. Our boards are addicted to spending our money--they always manage to spend every penny we give them...and then some.
It's up to us to decide if we want this to continue.
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:01 pm Post subject: Re: loan refinancing
if it's "refunded," you didn't pay it back...and of course we are continuing to pay interest on it.
The bad part with the refinancing is that we pay almost no principal in the first 3 and a half years...so on Jan 1 2011, we will still owe more than $15 million.
meanwhile, our board will have thought up new ways to waste our money--unless we hold the directors' feet to the fire.
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
The terms are not exactly like either of the scenarios presented to us in May.
The extra money is about the right amount to be a refund of the principal we paid from January to May.
But it wasn't refunded , we borrowed it again and will pay interest on it again correct?
Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:33 am Post subject: Thank for putting me back on the email
Forwarded Message:
Subj: Thank for putting me back on the email.
Date: 11/1/2007 9:25:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: slhaase_03@yahoo.com
To: mikerdeluca@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Why is it only Haase and Bolasco... Did I miss the rest who voted too? Oh I forgot it's political.
Steff
Slava and Fini voted NO on the refinance steff and the others are not on the recall list but you are correct, that doesn't excuse their actions. All Directors who signed the agreement had the responsibility to check to see if what they signed is the same as what was presented.
Mike
Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:45 am Post subject: Re: Thank for putting me back on the email
Miked,
Do you know who the remaining yes votes came from? I understand from your post that Slava Lerner and Fini Strumza voted "NO". ?
miked wrote:
Forwarded Message:
Subj: Thank for putting me back on the email.
Date: 11/1/2007 9:25:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: slhaase_03@yahoo.com
To: mikerdeluca@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Why is it only Haase and Bolasco... Did I miss the rest who voted too? Oh I forgot it's political.
Steff
Slava and Fini voted NO on the refinance steff and the others are not on the recall list but you are correct, that doesn't excuse their actions. All Directors who signed the agreement had the responsibility to check to see if what they signed is the same as what was presented.
Mike
Subj: Re: Thank for putting me back on the email.
Date: 11/1/2007 9:48:55 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: slhaase_03@ yahoo m
To: MikeRDeLuca @aol com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
He won't be there out of the country. Sadly I will also not be there, in Clevland.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
well you can always watch it on www . galaxyfacts com !!!!
mike
In a message dated 11/1/2007 9:52:24 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, slhaase_03 @ yahoo . com writes:
Just might
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
If I were a lawyer I would not allow my clients to borrow money with out seeing exactly all the papers that were part of the loan closing and explaining what they are signing in detail. For the attorney to take the position that it is a catch 22 basically is MALPRACTICE. He should know and agree with Fini that she needs to see, review and ask questions if necessary and not buy into the fact or statement which Mary Ellen and Elinger said that they just received this via email or fax. It is absurd that they were asked to sign loan documents on hypothetical tables prepared by Mary Ellen and Ellinger. I never heard of anything like this and it stinks. It looked like a fast count, a stacked deck and a poorly written play in which the show would close rather quickly.
Regulation Z Truth in Lending Act Good Faith Estimate
How come this lawyer did not volunteer, guide, counsel or recommend any of these above words when Fini and Slava were asking to see final loan documents that they were being asked to sign? He basically was pushing the two hypothetical amounts on spread sheets that Ellinger and Mary Ellen were passing out.
I’m not 100 % sure but the above words may apply only to residential loans and not commercial. If you have time check on the internet and see the govt’s intention and if it applies to all loans. I believe it does. If it does not Buckalew should have stated just this at the very least. Fini Slava what you are asking to see is Regulation Z Truth in Lending and a Good Faith Estimate. On a commercial loan these words do not apply. However he gave no advice, no counsel and sort of argued to go forward. This is the way it is almost like a catch 22. He needs to go.
Has it been disclosed to the owners where the 1.4 million went?
Has anyone requested this information?
follow the money ... follow the money....
THIS IS SERIOUS. IT IS ABOUT BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, MALFEASANCE AND MISLEADING OWNERS.
EITHER THERE SHOULD BE A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST ALL THOSE WHO VOTED YES. ALL THE *UCKERS WHO VOTED FOR IT SHOULD RESIGN OR BE PUT ON A NEW BALLOT TO BE REMOVED, IF THEY HAVEN'T RESIGNED OR ARE NOT ON THE FIRST REMOVAL MEETING.
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:31 pm Post subject: did Ellinger and the Board misrepresent the refinance loan?
Please read the minutes from May 17, 2007 then watch Buckalew's explanation of the 1.4 million additional money borrowed in the refinancing loan.
In last night's meeting, he used the words “money that came back to the galaxy" instead of "borrowing back" the money that was already paid. Is he trying to say that the 1.4 million extra we borrowed is not really additional money because we had paid that amount to the bank as part of the first loan? Is he for real?
A few years ago he fabricated the contents of the CUOG mission statement and then said in an open board meeting that it was equivalent to fraud. Well in my opinion what went on here with this refinancing is equivalent to a slime ball used car salesman selling someone a Mercedes and then delivering a title for a broken down Toyota. Could it be that Ellinger and Buckalew have done exactly what they wrongly accused me and CUOG of doing a few years ago?
Please watch the video clips, read the documents and minutes and decide for yourself . For me, I see it as it is written in plain English in the Bank Note below. The inception date is June 21 not January 1, there is a 1% prepayment penalty fee, if not more, and there was 1.4 million borrowed over and above what was owed; PERIOD.
This is a far cry from what was presented to the Board and owners by Mary Ellen Saks, Allan Ellinger and Robert Buckalew and I don’t care how much they spin it, it is what it is.
May 17th 2007 Now look at the June 7th meeting discussion where Slava and Fini ask for the Terms of the loan. This is notably missing from the minutes below from June 7th.
All times are GMT - 4 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4Next
Page 3 of 4
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You can vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
