Wow everyone!
Catching up on all the posts.
In terms of what was discussed in this article:
http://alamedasun.com/news/john-beck-still-missing-his-case-unfolds
About Chapter 11 Bankruptcy (what JB originally filed, which would allow him to reorganize & remain in biz) vs. Chapter 7, what the bankruptcy trustee urged the court convert it to (force liquidation to pay creditors).
JB was an attorney and I also wonder how much his counsel had to do with advising him on Ch11 vs Ch7 as a delay tactic. This sounds to me like a pretty standard and familiar defensive play by attorneys.
Delay delay delay.
Motions motions motions.
Appeal, rinse & repeat!
etc that kind of legal process.
I also believe his attorneys would have been FULLY aware that he was selling real estate (assets) PRIOR to filing Ch 11.
I'm not defending any of it. Just saying it seems like legal tactics.
In cases like this, when a legal team is aware that it is a protracted battle, they probably revert to something like trench warfare... defending what little they have inch by inch... Does that make sense?
This is just my opinion... anyone with law experience pls weigh in.
2 things I find difficult to stomach:
1- The company JB kept. He was an educated man who clearly had to know that this was a shady enterprise.
His biz partners do not seem like people on the up and up
2- How could JB allow himself to be the front of the biz? To allow it to carry his name and image... I find that very difficult to understand.
Even if there was a zealous govt crackdown (thanks to the subprime mess) I still feel that JB's company was in the cross-hairs for a reason. There were clearly disgruntled consumers, I googled Ripoff report and John Beck and there are complaints dating back to 2006.
Here's a link to the Better Business Bureau article from 2012.
http://www.bbb.org/blog/2012/05/john-beck-amazing-profits-not-so-amazing/
"John Beck Amazing Profits LLC, the company responsible for the John Beck infomercial, has earned an F rating at
www.bbb.org. The BBB asked this company to substantiate its advertising in 2007, but was not satisfied with its response. The court found that this company falsely represented that consumers could purchase homes at tax sales for pennies on the dollar and that they could make money easily with little financial investment."