Here, this isn't on the PACER yet. There were 50 some pages of exhibits, so it might take them a while to scan.
There may be text errors due to the OCR.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
In re: Case: 07-10940
PRIVADA INC. Chapter 7
f/k/a NETCO INVESTMENTS, INC.,
Debtor.
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS BANKRUPTCY AND DECLARATION OF FREDERICK BANKS
I, Frederick Banks, in opposition to the motion to dismiss bankruptcy, declare and state under the penalty for perjury that the following is true and correct (28 USC §1746):
1. My name is Frederick Banks.
2. I have read the motion to dismiss filed by other creditors in this case. I oppose the motion for the following reasons:
The debtor does not have legal counsel in the New York case that the creditors refer to;
The debtor appears to have no bona fide officers and the creditors seeking dismissal have not identified who is the control person of the company;
The debtor does not appear to be paying its debts (indeed, the creditors that seek dismissal admit that they are not being paid);
My claims are bona fide and the other creditors lack standing to challenge my claims. $8,300 is past due, and a total of $29,975 is contracted and will be due. Once appointed, the trustee will investigate the various claims; and
The debtor appears to have previously engaged in a widespread fraud scheme, admitted by past officers of the company, which warrants the appointment of an independent trustee.
3. In this case, an involuntary bankruptcy petition was commenced by three petitioners. The company appears to have been served with the bankruptcy summons on either July 5 or July 7, 2007, and it has not answered the petition. Based on information, this is because the company has no bona fide officers.
4. Three creditors have moved to dismiss the bankruptcy alleging a confusing set of insinuations about anonymous internet discussions and an attack on the credibility of the petitioning creditors (including the undersigned). I lack knowledge about most of the allegations.
5. The primary claim of the creditors who seek dismissal appears to be that there is a lawsuit pending against the debtor in the Eastern District of New York to determine control of the company. I am not a party to that lawsuit, so my claims cannot be made in that proceeding. However, I have reviewed documents in that case and it appears that the debtor’s legal counsel withdrew from the proceeding and nobody represents the interests of the company. See Exhibit A. Certainly, the debtor cannot receive a fair adjudication in the New York proceeding without legal counsel. The debtor appears in default in that proceeding and this alone demonstrates the insolvency of the company and the need for a trustee to be appointed immediately.1
6. The secondary claim of the creditors who seek dismissal of this case appears to be that they believe one of the petitioning creditors, Keith Maydak, is seeking control of the debtor using a nominee or via identity fraud. I have no knowledge in this regard. However, the creditors have not identified who should be controlling the company. It appears that nobody is in control of the debtor and that no officer exists. This appears to be all the more reason to place the debtor into the court’s control.
7. The purpose of an involuntary bankruptcy is for courts to be able to take control of an insolvent debtor. The creditors seeking dismissal do not appear to claim that the debtor is not insolvent. As shown by the attached documents that were disclosed to Banks by Rodrigo Calderon, the debtor does not appear to be paying its bills at all. See Exhibits B and C. Based on information, documents filed in Texas show the company has only $5.00 in assets. The creditors seeking dismissal provide no information showing the company is not insolvent.
8. As for my claim as a petitioner, I have filed a proof of claim concurrently with this opposition as to the funds presently owed to me. $8,300 is past due, and an additional $27,275 is due in the future. The creditors admit that they lack standing to challenge the claims of other creditors at this point. See ¶60 of the Motion to Dismiss, citing In re: Marketxt Holdings Corp., 347 B.R. 156 (Bk. S.D.N.Y. 2006); In re: Jr. Food Mart of Arkansas Inc., 234 B.R. 420, 421-22 (Bank. E.D. Ark. 1999). The debtor is the party to dispute my claims, but without an officer, it cannot do so. Thus, the bankruptcy should proceed and a trustee can dispute my claim if there is a basis to do so.2
9. Finally, as shown from the attached affidavits filed in other court actions, it appears that the company has engaged in widespread fraud. See Exhibit D. According to press releases, the company had millions of dollars. It is unclear where the money went. This is why bankruptcy is necessary – a trustee needs to track down the millions of dollars and all of the customers and collect the revenue. It also appears that forged stock certificates existed and the trustee can rescind them. I do not have personal knowledge of these events, but the affidavits present a prima facie case of widespread abuses that warrant a trustee.
WHEREFORE, Creditor Frederick Banks requests that this Court deny the motion to dismiss.
(Footnotes could not be read by the OCR).
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________________
Frederick Banks
PO Box 5000
Yazoo City, MS 39194
CREDITOR
AI
