Replies

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