Simon Suspects Democratic Jurors Tainted Fraud Verdict

California Journal ^ | September 13, 2002 | David Lesher

[liberallarry]

I think you're referring to Riordan. I was. Care to document that charge?

[kellynla]

Okay Larry, it took me a while to find the information but here it is.Here you go. This was from a thread of August 24 which came from an article in the CALIFORNIA POLITICAL REVIEW ONLINE. www.cppf.org

For all the naysayers who said President Bush would not be seen in public with Bill Simon. And before you continue condeming Simon for the fraud conviction which he was not personally convicted or even named in the lawsuit. "Press reports of the Pacific Coin lawsuit failed to report evidence refuting plaintiff Paul Hindelang's fraud allegations against Simon & Sons. The Los Angeles Times reported that, in his lawsuit, "Hindelang argued that the Simon investors concealed from him -- until the last minute -- their plan to charge Pacific Coin several million dollars in investment banking fees. The Pacific Coin acquisition produced more than $1 million in fees for William E. Simon & Sons, but the firm denied hiding its intent to charge them." The Times failed to report:

* that trial Judge Chalfant wrote in his summary judgment decision that documentary evidence existed that Hindelang knew of the fees

* that Hindelang testified at trial that the $1.5 million fee was negotiated in advance of the February 1998 transaction, and that the negotiation included provisions for $1 million to be paid directly to him,

* that Hindelang signed documents agreeing to and acknowledging the fees before the transaction closed,

* and that, according to trial testimony, the competing investment bank (Seidler Haas) proposed $4 million in bank fees, more than twice Simon & Sons' $1.5 million fee. According to the Los Angeles Times, "Also hidden from Hindelang -- fraudulently, the jury found -- was the Simon group's high-risk plan to borrow tens of millions of dollars to expand Pacific Coin, then take it public a few months later in a stock offering. Had it worked, the plan could have made the Simon investors a fortune." Regarding expansion, the Times failed to report:

* that Hindelang's career in the payphone industry was characterized by growth by acquisition,

* that although Hindelang identified Pacific Coin's acquisition of Golden-Tel, Nevada's largest independent pay phone company, as evidence of an acquisition he opposed, he had tried to purchase Golden-Tel himself before entering business with Simon & Sons,

* that in January 1999, Hindelang signed a letter of intent, sent to Golden-Tel, agreeing to the $41 million acquisition price he later claimed was inappropriate and fraudulent,

* that Hindelang voted his 23 percent ownership in favor of the acquisition (without his votes, the 80 percent supermajority required for major acquisitions would not have been reached),

* that the new Pacific Coin had made eight prior acquisitions before Golden-Tel, and two more after, and that Hindelang supported them all, not exercising his right to stop them. Regarding the stock offering, the Times failed to report:

* that any IPO also required an 80 percent vote to undertake and that Hindelang testified that his 23 percent gave him "the vote to stop it,"

* that Hindelang testified that he was told in advance of the deal that an IPO was a possibility, and that he knew he had "complete control" to stop any such IPO, * that Hindelang admitted to receiving documents that revealed the possibility and procedures by which the company could be taken public,

* and that Judge Chalfant agreed with William E. Simon & Sons and the other cross defendants before trial that there was no basis for this fraud allegation. Regarding making "a fortune," the Times failed to report that Hindelang alone profited, collecting $26 million from the Simon investment in his company. Investors lost their money when the banks seized the company. For more check out www.cppf.org instead of believing all you read in the Left Angles Times as gospel.
Semper Fi

[rb22982]

oops sorry no i was referring to Davis.

[kellynla]

Now I was mistaken on the figure of $4.5 Million the competitor wanted. It was actually $4 Million as opposed to $1.5 Million that Simon & Sons offered and eventually charged. But the rest is there for you to see.

[liberallarry]

Auntie Mame, I just got off the phone with the Sacramento Bee. They had the same trouble with the Superior Court website but their reporter obtained a copy of the judgement through other channels. They promised to e-mail me a copy in pdf format. I hope I can find a way to post it. Any help would be appreciated.

kellynla, for the moment your info is best. We'll see whether it holds up.

[liberallarry]

Oh, oh.

Delsohn tells me he never got the promised PDF file from the lawyers, but worked from a FAX copy. If the PDF shows up, I will forward to you. Otherwise, sorry.

Dan Smith

Just got this from the Bee.

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"The judge found that newspaper articles were available to Simon - at the time the deal was made - which would have revealed Hildelang's past."

As is typical for v.c. firms, Simon & Sons hired a Big Four consultancy do to the due-diligence. In this case it was Deloitte & Touche. They came up clean on Hindelang.

At its root, this is yet another scandal that arose because a big accountancy firm was asleep at the switch.

What's your agenda, by the way? Clearly it isn't to save the state from that incompetent leftist, Grey Davis.

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

Furthermore, I have it on good authority that the plaintiff's attorney, Harland Braun, is a longtime DemocRat power player who has also represented Henry Waxman and Howard Berman (not to mention his other high-profile client, Robert Blake).

[liberallarry]

What's your agenda, by the way? Clearly it isn't to save the state from that incompetent leftist, Grey Davis.

Please. I don't think I have that option, given the choices afforded me - as you would have seen if you'd bothered to read the entire thread.

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"I think Simon's an inept crook"

He's neither. Do some research. I'd wager that from your screen-name that you have serious philosophical differences with him (and most of us here), but disagreement doesn't make him inept or a crook. To the contrary, he's a very successful venture capitalist and philanthropist.

Now, his campaign has certainly been inept... but in the past few days it's been doing better than before.

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

Oh, I've read the entire thread, and while your agenda remains a puzzle, your repeated assertions that Simon is "gullible" impress me as sheerest projection. The best example is your foundational contention that S&S did no investigation of Hindelang ...yet Deloitte & Touche's bobbling of the due-diligence they did for S&S is legendary and has been amply documented in the press for several years.

[liberallarry]

Post #66 should have been addressed to you.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Good work!

[cake_crumb]

"Simon spoke with the magazine before a Los Angeles judge Thursday overturned the jury's unanimous finding that William E. Simon and Sons defrauded a former business partner, who also turned out to be a convicted drug dealer"

Of COURSE it was politically motivated. This IS New Democrat, party 'politics' - i.e.: manufacture some bogus charge to throw them in a bad light at least long enough to lock the election - we're talking about.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

let's bump this thread to the top!

calgov2002:

California Laws for Sale

calgov2002: for old calgov2002 articles. 

calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles. 

Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register

[liberallarry]

My information came from the Los Angeles Times - which quoted the judge as implying that Simon was gullible (if not actually saying so).

This is the first I hear about Deloitte and Touche. The judge found that newspaper articles detailing Hildelang's past were available at the time the deal was arranged. Deloitte must have been not asleep but dead. Why hasn't Simon sued them?

Why is my position still a puzzle? I believe Davis to be incompetent and corrupt and Simon to be inept and crooked? How does choosing one over the other save the state from anything?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Davis Camp is now attacking the Judge as Biased!

California: The Davis camp discounts the judge's decision as partisanship.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

ON what grounds do you consider Simon to be crooked?

[liberallarry]

Strictly on what I presently know about this case. If it turns out he's been smeared I'll have to revise my opinion.

His ineptness is another matter, based not just on how he's conducted his campaign but on what I've read about him on other threads. I'll have to review that too if I have to revise my opinion of his honesty.

[Grampa Dave]

You only have so many boots.