|
We do not buy
or sell
viatical contracts
(not the actual cover)
   
In sympathy
with people
from 86 nations
who lost loved ones
on 9-11 | |
Reports on Life Partners, Inc.
 |
1996: CA dept. of
insurance issues cease and desist orders against LPI for transacting viatical settlements
with California residents without a viatical license. |
|
1996: LPI sues
California for these orders, charging the dept. of insurance with interfering with its
right to do business.
 |
1999: Life Partners
dismissed this suit with prejudice.
|
|
| 1999: LPI files
SLAPP lawsuit in state court in Waco, TX
| LPI charges Wolk and Bialkin
Books with libel |
|
Suit was not legally served but LPI's
lawyer, Scott Peden, tells court that Wolk knew about the suit because a reporter from the
Waco Tribune-Herald phoned her.
|
|
LPI goes to court on default motion. |
|
LPI asks court to ban Wolk's books
and confiscate all that are in libraries and in inventory. |
|
Britton Monts, Esq., of Dallas, takes
on defense of Wolk, Bialkin Books, and the First Amendment. |
|
Suit settled by mutual agreement
6/00. |
|
| 11/1/99 LPI
issues misleading media release that drew the wrong conclusions from their lawsuit
against Life Insurance Co. of No. America.
| Appeals court's decision was ordered
"unpublished, but LPI went ahead and published their own interpretation. |
| Professor emeritus Joseph Belth, one
of the nation's leading authorities on insurance issues and insurance law, convinced the
Court to publish their opinion, thereby refuting the spin given it by LPI's media release.
For details, order the February 2000 issue of Belth's The Insurance Forum
(888-876-9590). |
|
March 2000. The 5th
Circuit Court of Appeals
publishes its opinion in Life
Partners v. LINA. |
|
| Life Partners files for registration
with the SEC. Documents reveal that
| Mrs. Pardo is paid $10,000 a month
for services her company provides to LPI, and |
|
LPI bought new office building in Waco, TX. |
|
|
October 2000: Life Partners
named in investor class action
|
Texas superior court judge dismisses the suit |
|
Class action lawyer files appeal of the dismissal |
|
| Jan. 2001: LPI
admits in SEC filing that attempts to raise funds through private placements of its common
stock "may not have conformed to the legal requirements" under the Securities
Act of 1933 (the 'Act') and applicable state securities laws."
To correct this, LPI's plans
| "(1) to
update its disclosure documents; |
|
"(2) to cause the broker to
conduct the offering in conformity with applicable private offering requirements,
including requirements relating to the manner of sale and the nature of offerees; and |
|
(3) to afford all
prior purchasers the choice of rescinding their purchase or subscribing
under revised offering terms." |
|
| March 2001: LPI threatens to
sue Forbes magazine. Irate about their references to Gloria Wolk and her book on viatical
investments, they cite their complaint to the Waco court -- as if it were evidence to
support their position. And, as if their in-house counsel is unaware that this breaches
our settlement agreement. |
| April 2001:
Texas Attorney General charges Life Partners with "Deceptive Trade Practices."
Asks for restitution for investors (4/01 - ) |
| LPI buys back 250,000 shares of common stock @
$3.50 - $4.50 (12/13/01)
|
The buy back comes several months after Peden,
Pardo and others sold their stock @ $9.00 share. (12/13/01). |
|
Proceeds of
750,000 shares sold by Pardo were $675,000; proceeds of 75,000 shares sold
by Pardo Family Holdings Inc. were $675,000. News release from LPI claims the buy back is due
to current market value not reflecting true value of the company. |
|
| Wisconsin cites
Clare O. Carpenter
and his company, Innovative Securities, Inc. At one time Carpenter marketed
viatical investments provided by Life Partners, which may be the reason why he
claims he consulted with LPI's attorney/president, Scott Peden in regard to
the Wisconsin action. This action, however, did not involve Life Partners. |
| Arizona and California charge Glen Liberatore,
LPI reseller. However, neither state brought any action
against LPI. |
| LPI has accrued losses of $435,346 for policies sold
to investors on which the insurance companies denied or
short-paid
claims upon the deaths of the insureds. (05/31/02) |
| LPI's affiliate in
Australia slammed by regulators,
later revoked. (09/02) Life Partners was not directly named in this. The
action was limited to the Australian company that markets the viatical
investments. |
| Texas resumes its
lawsuit charging LPI with deceptive trade practices (02/04) |
|
Life Partners Inc. is sued by a
Pennsylvania viator. Local media claim that Life Partners is angry because the
lady did not die on time. Philadelphia attorney Jacob Cohn is representing the
viator pro bono (no charge). Details and descriptions of court hearings are in
several news articles on the Web site of
AIDS Law Project Pennsylvania. (03/06)
|
|
Life Partners Inc. is sued by
investors in Pennsylvania and San Diego, California. (03/06)
|
|
Utah securities department issues orders to LIfe Partners and Mark Bruce Sutherland of Nevada, charging them
with violations of the state securities law. (10/20/06)
|
LPI responds by filing suit against the Utah director of securities. (11/17/06)
|
|
|
Virginia acts to stop LPI from purchasing policies without a viatical license.
|
LPI responds by filing a lawsuit against Virginia, charging interference with its business under the Commerce
Clause.
|
|
Federal judge for the Fourth Circuit Court rules that states have the right to regulate insurance business
under McCarren-Ferguson Act, which preempts any claims under the Commerce Clause. (04/30/07)
|
|
|
Colorado securities department issues cease and desist to LPI and associates for selling investments. Judge
orders LPI to stop. (05/30/07)
|
Free
Information:
This
website has more than 300 pages of free information. More information is
available through our books, many of which can be borrowed from your local
library. Please do not contact us for additional free information. We have
neither the time nor the resources to allow us to respond -- and we do receive
many inquiries each week. However, when there are a number of questions on the
same issue, such as "Should Investors Pay Premiums?" we will publish a Special
Report.
| |
|
