Hayman filed their appeal in the appellate court. See below for how they summarized the major allegations from the SEC against UDF. Now compare this to all the allegations (and actions) Bass/Hayman made in attacking UDF.
The SEC had Bass research/allegations, apparently investigated everything in detail and only could come up with the following allegations of wrongdoing that they did not have to prove. Perhaps they could have, but UDF had a defense for each one, so we'll never know if the charges would have been proven:
• UDF used money from a newer fund to pay distributions to investors in an older fund, without adequately disclosing the use of funds and the nature and status of loans made to developers.”
• UDF “told investors that none of its loans were invested in unimproved real property” when, in reality, UDF “had loaned money for acquisition of unimproved properties designated for multi-phase development” that “n some cases . . . remained in the entitlement [i.e., undeveloped] phase even after they had been in UDF IV’s portfolio for years.”
• UDF “knew or should have known . . . that it was unlikely to fully collect on an approximately $80 million loan to its second largest borrower” but “took no specific impairment on the loan and told investors that full collectability was probable.”
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
