Platinum Partners – Nordlicht, Levy and SanFilippo and A Crime So Complicated No One Understands it


If Mark Nordlicht, David Levy and Joseph SanFilippo are Acquitted, it will not be Because no Fraud was Committed but Because the Whole Story was Too Confusing, Even for Defense Attorney Baez

Jose Baez is representing Mark Nordlicht in Nordlicht’s fraud trial. Baez is a remarkable and seasoned attorney. He knows the law. He knows his jury. He tests the boundaries of his questions with a bright smile; and he knows how to defend his client with the sheer will of his conviction.  As defense counsel, Baez draws blood from stones. He pulls rabbits from hats. He colors the wings of butterflies while in mid flight; and he sets a scene creating doubt like a Picasso with a paintbrush shading his canvas.

So long as there is doubt, there cannot be a conviction. And the intricacies of the Platinum Ponzi Scheme were so savvy, we would be surprised if there were even a modicum of steadfast clarity for the jurors. We can only hope the government has some more tricks up its sleeves.

Unlike a murder trial where there are black and white lines drawn with very few grey areas, fraud is grey and murky. The waters one needs to navigate to convict a fraudster require a periscope that can see through a curved mirror and a jury that can see through the clouds.

Baez and the counsel for co-Defendants Levy and SanFilippo picked their jury well, not a jury of Platinum’s partners’ peers, but a jury of African Americans and young adults. There may not be a Jew among them. It is hard to tell. 

And the subject matter of the Platinum case, along with the Jewish identity associated with Platinum’s main partners and its investors is ripe for confusion, so much so that today even Baez seemed to falter.

Baez began his cross examination of the witness, Daniel Mandelbaum a former CFO for Platinum, by asking whether he was Hasidic. Mandlebaum responded with an unequivocal, “No”. Baez then attempted to somehow change Mandelbaum’s response by associating Hasidic with a wife covering her hair and a man wearing a kippa. Mandelbaum was almost offended.  A jury, like Baez, would not understand the distinction between Mandelbaum’s Orthodoxy and Hasidim. But the word “Hasidic” carries its own subliminal messages. 

Baez was playing on anti-Semitisim and associations and as such setting the stage for a cultural and religious sort of confusion.

The Platinum Partners’ partners are largely modern Orthodox. Many of them live in the same neighborhood. They share the same simchas (joyous events), attend synagogue together, break bread together raise their children together, gossip with the same people, sit shiva when someone dies and keep up with one another’s increases in wealth. There are very few secrets within this community, something the jury, like Baez will not understand.

And, the investors like the partners were community members, a part of the larger Jewish Zeitgeist, only too eager to hand over their money to Nordlicht whom they trusted. That trust defined the nature of the investment and by implication, the seriousness of the crimes. They were defrauded, and sadly blinded by their own sense of community. 

The investors were wooed by Mark Nordlicht and Murray Huberfeld, David Bodner and David Levy so much so that they did not see the signs, the patterns, the inconsistencies, the numbers and returns that made no sense. They were victims, Jewish or otherwise. Mark Nordlicht knew his craft and his audience; and he dictated and controlled the documents and hence the grift. For Baez, the documents protected Platinum and Nordlicht because they were a measure of “disclosure” a waiver of sorts. For us, they were confusing and confused. They represent an admission of guilt and by deviating from market standard, the fraud committed was all the more criminal.

The overly complicated investment documents, nuanced to give Nordlicht control over every aspect of the investment, including discretionary redemptions,  a/k/a proprietary redemptions were part of Mandelbaum’s discomfit. As a matter of general business course, when redemptions are to be distributed, they are done pari passu with other members of the class of investors requesting redemptions.

By their very nature, redemptions should not be discretionary, not even for a Holocaust survivor. One of the redemptions Nordlicht did satisfy was to a Holocaust survivor. This was not done out of the goodness of Nordlicht’s heart but out of a knowledge that he should not have taken the man’s money in the first place. That’s a story for another day. The goodness of an investment manager’s heart, or lack thereof, is not something that should play into a privately held investment vehicle.  Suffice it to say, proprietary redemptions of the sort advertised in the Platinum Partners’ private placement documents were inherently fraudulent insofar as they provided preferential and discretionary treatment. As such, investors of the same class were not pari passu with others of the same class. That is, by its very nature, a fraud. 

As Baez rightfully pointed out many times, Nordlicht had discretion. NORDLICHT HAD DISCRETION. But he also had the ability to move money from one fund to another virtually unhindered. It was all a shell game.

Mandelbaum was, during his shortlived employment with Platinum, savvy enough to see the problems, Mark Nordlicht controlled everything. There were too few checks and balances.

Baez emphasized that point by sharing screens and screens of Platinum’s various documents. But in his cross examination he stumbled over the mere suggestion that the level of discretion provided to Nordlicht was anything but acceptable. The purpose of disclosures and documents in the securities world is in short “fairness.” Investments, win or lose, high risk or low risk, are supposed to be, at the very least, fair. A jury will never understand that and Baez, as a defense counsel doesn’t have to.  

Baez asked Daniel Mandelbaum about a loan from one Platinum Partners fund to another, demanding to know whether Mandelbaum had the right, during his tenure, to question the propriety of that loan. Sixteen percent (16%) in 2015 was too high. Mandelbaum responded that generally the lender gets to decide the interest rate. The Lender was Platinum a/k/a Nordlicht. The Borrower was Platinum a/k/a Nordlicht. There was no interest rate that would have made legal sense given the financially incestuous nature of the funds and their investors. Sixteen percent was simply a shnorer-type number. Nordlicht might have wanted to choose 18% instead.

At the end of the day, Nordlicht and Platinums’ partners have likely convinced themselves and anyone who will listen that they are being wrongly accused. Why us?  The defense counsel have collectively done a splendid job keeping Murray Huberfeld’s name from being mentioned at Nordlicht’s trial. When Huberfeld is mentioned, the defense insures that his 30 month conviction for bribery is not disclosed to the jury. While Federal rules of evidence may preclude this information from being conveyed to the jury, the fact remains, it was this bribe that tipped the FEDS off to the nefarious and criminal behavior of Platinum Partners’ partners. Keeping the jury in the dark will not change this fact. 

In the event that Nordlict and his fellow Defendants are acquitted, which is not unlikely due to the complexity of the case and the ignorance of the jury, it will not be the last time that the house wins. The house always wins! 

Ultimately, the very fact that Nordlicht had the discretion in all things Platinum, a point drafted into Platinum’s funds’ documents, and emphasized repeatedly by Baez, should tell the whole story. But by and by, the jury gets to decide. We fear that Baez painted a very confusing picture by his own lack of understanding of the documents themselves. It was likely quite intentional. He is a gifted attorney. And if the Defendant’s are acquitted, he will have graduated from the Sorcerer’s apprentice to the Sorcerer himself.

We give Baez credit which cannot be understated. If you are confused, you are supposed to be.  If not, it’s a shame you are not sitting in the jury box.



A Platinum Response – Fear Would Prevent Reporting, The Nordlicht Hedge

LAW360 [by subscription]

Law360, New York (May 28, 2019, 8:15 PM EDT) — A former chief financial officer for Platinum Partners on Tuesday told a New York federal jury that Platinum co-founder Mark Nordlicht told him that “mutually assured destruction” would keep aggrieved investors from ratting the hedge fund manager out to regulators, despite Platinum’s inability to make timely repayments.

Daniel Mandelbaum, who was Platinum’s CFO for about 9 1/2 months in 2014 and 2015, said he spoke to Nordlicht amid a liquidity crisis that year at Platinum’s signature fund, Platinum Partners Value Arbitrage Fund.

Mandelbaum testified that he was protesting Platinum’s practice of preferentially repaying certain investors — including insiders and those with large stakes in PPVA — ahead of other investors who had outstanding redemption requests.

Nordlicht, however, told Mandelbaum at a meeting in Nordlicht’s office that investors wouldn’t complain to the Securities and Exchange Commission, since if the regulator got involved, PPVA would be shut down and its assets sold at fire sale prices, Mandelbaum testified.

To continue reading, click here.

CNO and Beechwood Re: The Platinum Zeroth’s Law and the Money that Isn’t Created Nor Destroyed, It Just Changes Hands


[To be updated]

Dear Reader:

The notion of entropy in thermodynamics is chaos. The same is true, in very simplified terms, of financial entropy. Investors who manage to understand the chaos of a given set of financial principles are generally the ones who fare the best. Investors who can manipulate the entropy and maneuver it are magicians. Platinum Partners chief strategists were and have always been that, financial magicians. We give them credit.

Understanding how the pieces fit together is key to understanding the magnitude and complexity of the slight of hand of Platinums’ partners. It is like they were counting multiple decks in a casino and doing so flawlessly, until they weren’t.

Platinum Parterns’ connections to Beechwood Re and to CNO were integrally intertwined. Each one was intended to provide Platinum with a more diverse portfolio of investments, though CNO claims there was some distance between itself and Platinum, that Beechwood was an intermediary and they did not know the involvement. It is our contention that Beechwood Re was Platinum’s alter-ego. As to CNO, that is a bit less clear. 

Beechwood Re  was an extremely clever and somewhat macabre strategy for making money. It required that nursing home patients take out insurance policies written to the benefit of the nursing homes and then to die quickly.  The key, as we saw it at the time, was in knowing who would die and when. Sadly, the success of that strategy required the Platinum/Beechwood guys to get that information from someone in the nursing home business willing to either or both of convince the patients to sign over policies and to then share that information outside of the privacy considerations of the patients. We have a idea who it was, an odd connection to President Trump and someone he met in the 80’s and who had an integral understanding of long term care and the associated insurance. As to that story, that’s for another day. 

In 2014, Beechwood Re had obtained significant funding from CNO, a “reinsurer” who was providing insurance on the insurance policies held by Beechwood. The policies being written for CNO were “backstopping” the Beechwood policies. And the CNO policies, it would appear to have been long-term care policies and not necessarily life insurance.

CNO’s problem at the time was that it had underwritten numerous “long-term-care insurance” policies in the 1980’s and the payouts 25-30 years later were far higher than anticipated. In the best of circumstances, they would have made enough money with their own investment strategies on those policies over the 25-30 intervening years that they would not have been struggling. The calculations for an underwriter for long-term care insurance is based in part on actuarial tables and the health of the population. For CNO to have been a lucrative endeavor, they would have had to invest well and people would have needed to drop dead long before they utilized the policies. For the few who manage to live long enough to use the underlying policy for which they have paid a lifetime, the hope of the insurer is that the care required would be less than the money made during the intervening years. What policy underwriters at the time did not consider was the rising costs of healthcare, that people would live longer and spend more time in long term care.

For Beechwood, the relationship with CNO initially provided it with a reputable firm, the sharing of capital and resources and an underlying “good-will”. In addition, CNO had relationships with other banks and other underwriters, as did Beechwood (through the Platinum guys) and as such, the two entities could name drop for the purposes of working together and as a cost-benefit to one another. The two insurance strategies were slightly different. Whether or not CNO knew Beechwood was an arm of Platinum is unclear and in retrospect, they likely would have stuck with Beechwood regardless so long as the money was flowing.

Beechwood has argued that they were not and alter-ego of Platinum and actually they, too were the victims of a the fraud. That is not even a rational argument, particularly given the familial relationships involved. Beechwood was, to simplify the story,  a feeder fund for Platinum and one of its many investment vehicles or arbitrage funds, just an altogether different strategy. 

CNO on the other hand, may have been a victim of Platinum; but we believe it was also a victim of its own poor planning and greed. We also believed that even when they realized they were dealing with Platinum they made a choice to stay in the game. Platinum at the time was coining money. 

But then there’s “Black Elk”. The Black Elk investment strategy was oil. Black Elk had discovered a clever way to drill the remnants of other wells and obtain the smaller amounts of oil at the bottom of old wells. It is akin to trying to get the last drop of cola from a can. If you can figure out how to get all of the drops out of all of the cans and resell  the cola bottled differently, you can make money. That was the theory behind Black Elk. But no matter which way you play it, once the CEO was removed from his position, Black Elk was, in simple terms, another of Platinum’s feeder funds. 

The people involved were ultimately the same:  Moshe Mark Nordlicht, David Levy,  Moshe “Mark” Feuer, Jeffrey Shulse (who has argued his innocence) [] Josephe SanFilippo, Scott Taylor [], Murray Huberfeld and a number of other Platinum Partners’ partners.

There are dozens of people whom we would argue should have been indicted, who were also original owners and/or initial investors in some of these strategies and were either family members or had previous relationships with the main funds’ players. How they have so far managed to remain outside the numerous indictments perplexes us.

Unfortunately for Platinums’ partners, we believe that the partners knew everything. There were no blind, deaf and dumb people playing in this game. There were no secrets amongst the men involved, just as there are no secrets the neighborhood where many of these men lived only blocks from one another. Many of these men were also related to one another, uncles, cousins, brothers. These were people who in large part had worked together before like Oceans 11 and were going to work together again like in Oceans 12 and 13. And, just like in the movies, they were extremely clever.

The strategies were hedged against one another. They could have gone on for years had a perfect storm of evens not occurred: Black Elk has an explosion on one of its rigs killing some of it’s employees, Beechwood being compelled to payout more than anticipated, and outside investors not deciding the funds’ returns were simply too high. 

Had Platinum Partners’ top brass not been so greedy, they would have succeeded in defrauding the financial systems. But, like Zeroth’s law of thermodynamics: “If two systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third system, they are in thermal equilibrium with each other.” Similarly, Black Elk was an alter-ego of Platinum Partners as was Beechwood Re. They were also an alter ego of one another. How CNO fits into this, it remains to be seen. We can’t discount he possibility that they were also in thermal equilibrium with Platinum.

Beechwood Re

Cayman Islands authorities to wind up Beechwood Re following fraud scandal

29th November 2018

The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has approved a petition for the winding up of Beechwood Re, a locally domiciled reinsurer that is being sued for fraud in the U.S and has ties to the hedge fund Platinum Partners, which collapsed after a federal investigation last year. Grand Court Justice … Read the full article

Beechwood sold after reputation loss from Platinum Partners scandal

3rd August 2017

Beechwood, a group of reinsurance and asset management companies, has been sold in a last ditch attempt to salvage the firm instead of shutting it down after it suffered reputation loss when hedge fund Platinum Partners collapsed after a federal investigation, Reuters reported. Platinum’s top executives and founder were arrested … Read the full article



Beechwood Re To Close $590 Million Reinsurance Transaction

Beechwood Re, Ltd. to Reinsure In-Force Long-Term Care Liabilities of CNO Financial Group Subsidiaries


Beechwood Re, Ltd. 

Feb 12, 2014, 09:56 ET

W YORKFeb. 12, 2014 /PRNewswire/ — Beechwood Re, Ltd., a life reinsurer, announced today that it had executed definitive documents to complete a reinsurance transaction with subsidiaries of CNO Financial Group, Inc. (CNO).

(Logo: )

The deal will have CNO’s subsidiaries cede $550 million of statutory reserves and approximately $40 million of other capital associated with closed blocks of long-term care insurance underwritten by Bankers Conseco Life Insurance Company and Washington National Insurance Company.  The reinsurance transaction and associated structures have obtained all required regulatory approvals necessary to proceed.

“We are very pleased to have entered into this agreement with CNO,” said Beechwood Re CEO Mark Feuer.  “These transactions exemplify the creative reinsurance solutions that Beechwood Re has to offer.  We look forward to working with our new partner through a smooth transition and providing them with ongoing reinsurance support.”

Ed Bonach, CEO of CNO said, “Our reinsurance agreements represent a meaningful step forward in addressing our run-off business. We are pleased to have Beechwood Re as our partner in this transaction and look forward to a successful relationship moving forward.”

As a part of the transaction, Bankers Conseco and Washington National will transfer to Beechwood the in-force reserves and liabilities associated with the blocks of business.  The transactions are to be completed on a 100% coinsurance basis, with Beechwood holding reserves and required over-collateralization in trusts, with investment guidelines and periodic true-up provisions.

Fuzion Analytics, of Carmel, Indiana, will provide data analytics and coordination of Third Party Administration services on behalf of Beechwood Re to ensure best-in-class policyholder services following the transition.  Willis Re, a global reinsurance intermediary, was instrumental in the deal, led by Michael Kaster of their Life Solutions Group.

The transaction is expected to be fully consummated by the end of February.

About Beechwood Re, Ltd and Beechwood Bermuda International Ltd.

The Beechwood family of companies includes Beechwood Re, a reinsurer domiciled in Grand Cayman and regulated by the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA), and Beechwood Bermuda International Ltd., a licensed long-term insurer located in Hamilton, Bermuda and regulated by the Bermuda Monetary Authority (BMA).  The companies were formed with the belief that there is a shortage in attractive capacity for the life markets, driven by a need for flexibility and creativity in underwriting the life and annuity reinsurance market associated with asset risk.  The Beechwood companies provide life and annuity reinsurance to primary insurance companies in the United States and Internationally.  Beechwood seeks to provide flexibility for companies to manage their balance sheets and risk profiles through a variety of solutions.  Target markets include reinsuring in-force blocks and ongoing quota-shares of fixed and indexed annuities, in addition to in-force, closed blocks of long-term care and long-term disability policies for primary writers.

More information is available by contacting Susan Sweetin, Media Relations at ssweetin@beechwoodreinsurance.comor (212) 260-5050 ext. 204

SOURCE Beechwood Re, Ltd.

Trying to Refute the Andrew Kaplan Testimony – a Platinum Trial Play [Law360]

Law360, New York (May 20, 2019, 8:22 PM EDT) — An attorney for the co-founder of Platinum Partners on Monday sought to refute the testimony of a former marketing executive turned cooperating witness in the securities fraud trial of Platinum co-founder Mark Nordlicht, citing multiple instances when Nordlicht urged others at the hedge fund manager to tell the truth.

Andrew Kaplan, Platinum’s former chief marketing officer, spent the better part of the day fielding questions from Nordlicht attorney Jose Baez, who sought to counter Kaplan’s prior testimony that Nordlicht misled potential investors about the financial health of Platinum’s main fund while it was struggling to pay back tens of millions of dollars to its existing investor base.

Baez played a September 2014 conversation between Nordlicht and Kaplan — which was surreptitiously recorded by Kaplan — ahead of an audit by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in which Nordlicht tells Kaplan to be truthful in an interview with SEC staff.

To continue reading click here.

Cayman Islands Liquidator, Another Platinum Colored Liquidation -Following the Money and Level 3 Assets

Liquidators sue Platinum fund founder

Liquidators of two feeder funds of Platinum Partners Value Arbitrage Fund are suing the group’s founder Mark Nordlicht and others in the Cayman Islands for overstating the value of the fund’s assets.

Nordlicht, Platinum’s founder and former chief investment officer, is facing a criminal trial in New York for allegedly defrauding investors. US federal prosecutors accuse Nordlicht and others of falsifying the firm’s performance figures for personal gain. Nordlicht has pleaded not guilty.

Platinum Partners Value Arbitrage Fund (International) Limited and Platinum Partners Value Arbitrage Intermediate Fund Ltd., which are both in liquidation, filed a suit against Nordlicht, the Estate of Uri Landesman, David Levy, Platinum Management (NY) LLC and Platinum Partners Value Arbitrage LP at the Grand Court on 7 May.

Landesman, the president and managing partner of Platinum, died in September 2018. Levy was a portfolio manager of the fund.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties through their “knowing or reckless overstatement” of the fund’s illiquid and difficult to measure assets, and as a result, the net asset value of the fund. If the performance of the fund was overstated, the management and incentive fees that the defendants received would have been inflated.

By reporting the overstated figures to boards and investors, Nordlicht, Landesman and Levy improperly received fees, bonuses, compensation and other payments, the writ states.

Platinum’s illiquid and hard to measure assets, so-called Level 3 assets, were crucial to the management and operation of the plaintiffs, the suit argues. “By their conduct, the Defendants acted in breach of their duties, made deliberate and/or negligent misstatements and/or engaged in willful misconduct by failing to act in accordance with their duties and by contributing directly or indirectly to the over-valuation of assets and provision of misleading financial information which caused loss to the Plaintiffs.”

To continue reading click here.



Jeremy Reichberg – 4 Year Sentence in Bribery Scandal -This was Not Hubris and Gluttony, it was Criminal

Image result for pics of jona rechnitz and jeremy reichberg

De Blasio donor Jeremy Reichberg sentenced to 4 years for bribery scandal

A former City Hall fundraiser who was convicted of taking part in a massive bribery scheme in which NYPD officers were bestowed with lavish gifts that included a private junket to Las Vegas was sentenced Monday to 48 months in prison.

Jeremy Reichberg, who was convicted in January of four counts, including conspiracy to commit honest services fraud and bribery, tearfully asked District Judge Gregory Woods for leniency moments earlier.

“I acted as an adolescent, wanting special attention, feeling that I was entitled to get special attention for my friends who were police officers,” Reichberg said in Manhattan federal court, struggling to read through prepared remarks and pausing often to wipe away tears and blow his nose.

His attorney, Susan Necheles, argued that her client committed crimes of “hubris … ego and gluttony,” saying he paid bribes to cops so he could pal around with them and look like a “big shot.”

She argued that the bribes didn’t get him any big favors or put the public in danger.

“What he got were things that made him look like a big shot,” she said. “He hung out them doing fancy things.”

But prosecutors said Reichberg’s bribes weren’t just to spruce up his image – arguing that he and his former pal Jona Rechnitz got police favors in exchange for their lavish gifts, including help with arrests and difficult-to-obtain gun licenses.

“This was not a crime that created an appearance of favoritism,” said Assistant US Attorney Martin Bell. “This was impropriety of the most basic sort. This was favoritism, bought and paid for.”

Reichberg also was sentenced for two years of supervised release.

“I believe the offenses were about more than dollars and cents. It’s about corruption of an important public institution,” the judge said.

To continue reading click here.



Businessman gets 4 years prison for police corruption scam

Brooklyn businessman who bribed NYPD cops deserves 6 years: prosecutors

Platinum Investor Conference Call – Landesman and Nordlicht – Distancing from Murray… and “Tickets”?


Platinum Investor Conference Call

June 14, 2016

Participants: Uri Landesman
Mark Nordlicht (“MN”)

Length of Recording: Approximately 23 minutes and 21 seconds

MN: But let me talk right at the get-go about the events that created a firestorm
for us last week. It’s uh obviously very, very painful uh for us to talk about
it. You know, the lawyers and the PR people would tell us to–we should
distance ourselves from Murray and uh, uh, just, you know, say we had
nothing to do with it. At the end of the day, that’s just not our nature.
That’s not the way I was brought up, and that’s not the way I think uh the
majority of Platinum um behaves and carries themselves. While it is true it
was specifically um, pretty much focused on Murray in this particular case–
there weren’t a lot of other people involved–we do feel very strongly that
uh that the allegations are false, will be proven false, hopefully. And you
know um, and we very much feel that–that none of that probably ever
happened. Um that having been said from my perspective, you know, I tell
my kids life isn’t fair, you have to deal with the repercussions. It is what
is, and you have to deal with it. And um, and so we have to deal with the
outgrowth, both with this terrible headline and and what’s come subsequent
to that. I would just make one point, by the way, even on the allegations
against Murray, we should just make, be very, very clear that this was
related to funds that were forwarded from the management company,
essentially personal funds, um, at the time. And, so no investor funds and
and that’s a good segue to just make the point that in terms of, of the
positions at Platinum, this has no direct effect on any of the positions, and
we feel very, very good about the positioning um of both funds, and in terms
of the outlook of them being successful and being successfully liquidated
over time. Um in terms of the outgrowth, I would say, the issue is it’s not
related—I think this headline in itself was one headline too far maybe? Um,
in and of itself, but, the problem that you have is, and you know what we
think is unfair, but what we have to deal with, is it doesn’t stop right there.
Based on that, on the same day, we started to receive a lot of questions from
1 The transcript contained herein is in draft form and is subject to revision.

Case 1:16-cr-00640-DLI Document 122-7 Filed 04/26/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 729


two separate regulatory agencies related to Platinum—related a lot to the
tickets and different, different things with Murray and Da– and uh, Murray,
but also some more general questions about Platinum. Primarily actually a
lot of questions that were already in the press and really just very, very
general questions which we’re very, very comfortable with. Um, you know
we are very comfortable with how we conduct Platinum, and we feel very,
very strongly that the likelihood is that nothing will come out of these
questions. But, it is a distraction, and uh we know from when we had just
a routine audit what kind of distraction that was in terms of the volume of
questions. This is actually less questions, but perhaps a little bit more
uncomfortable given the context that they’re being, that they’re being asked
right now.

MN: [M]y gut right now is to, certainly in regards to PPVA, is to unwind the fund
in an ordinary fashion.

MN: You know, to the extent that we’re winding down, certainly PPVA, we’re
winding down, we’re not closing down. . . . I want to not just get the money
back, I want to produce nice returns on the way out. . . . I really want to, you
know, do a bang-out job on the way out, certainly in terms of PPVA . . . .

MN: In terms of PPVA, um obviously the only thing I’m a little nervous about is
the energy positions because it’s a very, very wide delta in terms of what
the outcome could be.

MN: My initial inclination was also wind down that [the Platinum Partners Credit
Opportunities Fund (“PPCO”)], from a personal level I was thinking
actually that, you know what, maybe that’s um, certainly from a personal
level it’s probably better for me, um, but nevertheless we have gotten some
large investor feedback that, resisting, um, resisting taking the same
measures on PPCO. So I’m gonna hold back on making that decision . . . .
But really again that’s something that we’re gonna be looking at very, very
closely and by the end of next week, we’ll probably have made a, a
definitive decision . . . .

Case 1:16-cr-00640-DLI Document 122-7 Filed 04/26/17 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 730


MN: So I think in terms of the the, um, positions going forward we’ll leave it at
that, because obviously I think most of the concern was was just, you know,
what’s the outlook going forward and what’s going on. . . . Again, from my
perspective if it was just the headline – we’re fighters here, so I fought
through a lot. I worked very, very hard to get PPVA where it is now,
whereby we were just in the midst of breaking through, so it is frustrating,
but sometimes um a message is sent to you from outside that maybe it just
wasn’t meant to be. Uh that’s the way I feel in PPVA certainly right now,
and PPCO we’re going to outlook, we’ll have some answers for you
certainly by the end of next week.