Okay,
So control of Aleritas is only implied, not named in the header?
The "et al." refers to unnamed "non-debtor affiliates" and "debtor affiliates."
There is one more document which has relevence. They put forth a motion in 2009 to abandon control, but that motion was withdrawn. The reasoning for the withdrawal may provide a clue.
That would be found in 1088.
Maybe they didn't need to officially withdraw because Aleritas had ceased operation? That sounds good, but Aleritas should have had tails to collect for years. Maybe the tails were already gone?
The "BASC" documents clearly indicate that bonuses were supposed to flow through Aleritas. The bonuses would have been warranted on a "combined sales volume," and would not necessarily represent the interest of separated sales entities, ie. Aleritas was the correct final recipient, IMHO. (That might be a stretch) As I remember, other suits were specifically created to collect those bonuses with Aleritas as a (the) plaintiff. Aleritas would certainly be entitled to proceeds of any long term loans. The tail would also contain proceeds of certain asset recoveries and foreclosures. I can't imagine those are tied to other entities, Mr. Orr's personal guarantees notwithstanding.
It just doesn't make sense that they haven't filed financial condition documents on Aleritas unless control was abandoned or ceded. It makes even less sense because Aleritas and BASC seemed to be the cash cows of the whole debtor network.
It seems possible, but not likely that the tails had been tied up by December 2009, and that the money was already gone. Even if they are just "sitting on" the reserves, they are supposed to file a report every six months.
