Rent Increase Survey

Have you submitted your latest rent increase data to the rent increase survey?

Bench Warrant to Apprehend Former SunCal CFO Issued

Update, May 6th, 6:56 pm: Edward Nolan says that the bench warrant has been rescinded. He declined to provide a copy of the recission notice, and said he didn’t want his name in print, and would have his attorneys contact Action Alameda News if any story went to press about the matter. Also, on further inspection, this document is not the warrant itself, but a notice that the warrant had been issued.

Action Alameda News has obtained a copy of a court bench warrant issued by the Superior Court of California, Orange County, to apprehend former SunCal CFO Edward Nolan in the case of Gray CPB 1 LLC v. SCC Acquisitions LLC and Bruce Elieff.

A copy of the warrant is reproduced below.

In November of 2008, Action Alameda News reported that Mr. Nolan had left Suncal. A bench warrant is typically issued by the court to apprehend an individual and bring them to the court to comply with a court order.

Action Alameda News will have more information on this breaking story later….

Gray Bench Warrant

4 comments to Bench Warrant to Apprehend Former SunCal CFO Issued

  • Barb

    Looks like the matter was set for trial and the guy failed to show up. A warrant was issued – and not held – which is sometimes the case if there is a legitimate reason the person didn’t show. Such as an emergency appendectomy, missing flights, etc. Put over a week and the guy still didn’t show. Should be in the court file if the Judge recalled the warrant. Otherwise, we just wait until he is arrested and taken into custody.

    Gosh I just wish it would be this easy to get rid of the rest of SUNCAL. Lock em up. Why would anyone do business with this type of entity? In addition to all its bankruptcies, its official’s assets are being seized pre-litigation?

    Maybe the City Attorney should join before the line gets too long.

  • We’re trying to find a copy of the recission. Nolan refused to provide it. He says the warrant was recalled.

  • Incredulous

    It could be that Mr. Nolan refused to show up for a deposition, after being ordered to do so by the judge in the case. Then again, the bench warrant was issued in the same order setting the trial date, so it could be that the judge was convinced Mr. Nolan would not show up for the trial even though subpoenaed…probably because Mr. Nolan was not cooperative in appearing for his deposition. In any event, it’s pretty unusual that a judge has to go this far (issuing a bench warrant) to force the appearance of a mere witness in a CIVIL lawsuit where the reluctant witness is not even a defendant. Bench warrants are typically used to force the appearance and testimony of reluctant witnesses in criminal cases involving gang bangers, it it kind of makes you wonder what Mr. Nolan is afraid of.

    In any event Mayor Johnson, Councilwoman Tam and most of the rest of the City of Alameda officialdom are literally “Fiddling While Rome Burns” in terms of any contract with SCC Alameda Point LLC, any promises by SCC Alameda Point LLC or by any “SunCal” employee, or any “plans” for development of infrastructure or community benefit improvements.

    What part of “Creditors have seized Bruce Elieff’s assets” and “Creditors have seized SCC Acquisitions, Inc.’s assets” do these foggy brained morons not understand?

    The City of Alameda is negotiating with the equivalent of a homeowner who will be foreclosed-out-next-month.

    Any promises made to the City by SunCal employees are illusory and unenforceable.

    There should be no negotiations, and no “agreements” binding the City of Alameda, until the City Attorney can issue an opinion letter to the City Council, as to who will actually own the party to the ENA, SCC Alameda Point, LLC, after the June 1, 2010 trial in Orange County Superior Court, assuming the creditor wins a judgment against Elieff and SCC Acquisitions as defendants.

    Per the Writs of Attachment posted by Action Alameda, the Orange County Superior Court has already made a specific factual finding “2.c THE COURT FINDS: Plaintiff has established the probable validity of the claim upon which the attachment is based.”

    What is attached and what will be sold to pay SCC Acquisitions Inc.’s $7.9 Million debt?

    “All corporate property of defendant SCC Acquisitions Inc. which is subject to attachment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 487.010(a)”

    What is attached and what will be sold to pay Bruce Elieff’s $7.9 Million debt?

    “All interests in real property owned by Bruce Elieff, individually or together with other persons”

    “All securities held or owned by Bruce Elieff, either alone or together with other persons.”

    For those who don’t know, under Federal securities law a membership interest in an LLC is a “security”.

    Bruce Elieff, SCC Acquisitions, Inc. and SCC Alameda Point, LLC are in a Sword of Damocles position. If they claim they have successfully “hidden” or “insulated” cash and ownership of SCC Alameda Point, LLC from attachment by creditors, the creditor can simply file a motion in the exiting Orange County Superior Court case, under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, to take the hidden or insulated asset away from them. Alternatively, if Elieff and SCC Acquisitions, Inc. tell the truth (as they have in previous bankruptcy court declarations) that they own and control all SunCal entities…meaning that upon judgment in the Orange County Superior Court case, they will no longer own or control SCC Alameda Point, LLC when judgment is entered and the Writs of Attachment become Writs of Execution.

    If Bruce Elieff and SCC Acquisitions, Inc. can win this June 1, 2010 trial, Mazeltov to them. However, they have the burden of proving, to a jury, more than $7.9 Million in bad acts by the plaintiff involved in this case.

    Alternatively, if Bruce Elieff can’t come up with $7.9 Million CASH to make these attachments go away, then it will be all over.

    And, of course, there is the additional matter of the attorneys fees Elieff and SCC Acquisitions, Inc. will owe to all of the other parties in the case if they lose at this trial.

    So, once again, the City of Alameda should not be making any contracts or agreements with SCC Alameda Point, LLC until they know, for sure, who will own and control the membership interests (securities) in that entity by July 31, 2010.

  • Readers should note that Gray 1 CPB LLC v. SunCal and Bruce Elieff is in Civil court, not bankruptcy court. This case is different from all those DE Shaw/SunCal and Lehman/SunCal bankruptcy cases.