American Homeowner Preservation (AHP) Fund
Most Popular Reply
Investor · Kingston, WA · Member since 2008 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
6yThe virus has impacted a fund like AHP mostly in administrative delays with foreclosing on properties and getting them converted to REO properties for resale. One large component of their business model is to acquire distressed mortgage debt then foreclose and resell the property as REO on the open market.
Due to moratoriums on both foreclosures and evictions, as I understand it, AHP is essentially experiencing a log jam on the back end of their exit cycle to recover investor capital and profit.
They've recently introduced a program called "pre REO" which gives them a strategy to help pull investment capital from these assets which are waiting for foreclosure and exit so that they can recover some of the investment capital from the assets to meet redemption and capitalization requirements for the fund.
It's an innovative program, but seems like an over-complicated solution rather than just waiting for the moratoriums to be lifted and proceed was foreclosures and evictions. Even when the moratoriums are lifted there's going to be a backlog for scheduling especially in judicial states so exits on these assets will be much longer than anticipated.
I suspect AHP has most of its investors capital deployed into these type of assets and now it's jumping through major hoops to meet their capital requirements. This may be why many of you are experiencing delays in redemptions and distributions.
In the fund which I co-manage, we've stopped foreclosure activity on many of the non-performing assets since it doesn't make sense to pay our legal resources for activities that are in moratorium. We've also postponed any new capital raising activities since deploying new subscriber capital into distressed assets that we cannot resolve quickly does not make sense.
This virus has definitely forced distressed-debt managers to become more creative and patient in a market that they cannot effectively control.
384 Replies
- Investor · VA · Member since 2015 · 21k+ posts · 19k+ votes1y
Quote from @Akash Gaur:
Quote from @Mark Ruda:
Thanks Mark. I'm an in-the-dark investor who has been unable to get an email address updated despite emails through the siteand a coupleof actual phone conversations. I'll try to reach out directly as we can't share email addresses and phone numbers here.
Glad to hear this might wrap up in 2025. At this point, it's worth taking pennies on the dollar so I can close a self-directed IRA.
Take all their updates with the all mighty pinch of salt and as an e-mail campaign to raise money for the lawyers they have hired. Every penny raised for litigation support further dilutes any redemption chances for the original investors
IF you have a PACER account all of these cases are in federal courts so you can easily see the status of what is going on as there are multiple suits filed in multiple jurisdictions.
7e investments53 Reviews Hi, does anyone have any insights on what's going on with the lawsuit? I see the email updates and signed up for a PACER account, but my understanding of all this legal jargon is pretty limited. I've accepted that this could be a loss, but wanted to know how others are feeling.
- Member since 2019 · 26 posts · 10 votes1y
Does anyone know what the ruling was from the trial at the end of April on the RICO case…
Quote from @Jason Monaco:
Does anyone know what the ruling was from the trial at the end of April on the RICO case…
Edit- AHP just sent an update via email. Guess a ruling was not issued.
Looks like a ruling was issued May 6, trying to dig up the ruling now. I assume it’s not good news if an update wasn’t sent but could be wrong.
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/56655965/AHP_Capita...
- Investor · VA · Member since 2015 · 21k+ posts · 19k+ votes1y
Quote from @Mark F.:
Quote from @Jason Monaco:
Does anyone know what the ruling was from the trial at the end of April on the RICO case…
Edit- AHP just sent an update via email. Guess a ruling was not issued.
Looks like a ruling was issued May 6, trying to dig up the ruling now. I assume it’s not good news if an update wasn’t sent but could be wrong.
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/56655965/AHP_Capita...
that is just one of many cases that are out there as cases were filed in multiple states - some were combined since its basically the same lawsuit but not everywhere.
7e investments53 Reviews
- Ridgefield, CT · Member since 2017 · 101 posts · 60 votes1y
I can never get a definitive answer from AHP.... I just get a series of Emails with details about court visits? Im assuming I am never going to see my capital again?? Anyone know anything I dont?
- You won’t get an answer because they went from about 50-60 employees to 2. Yes, two employees. The CEO and some lady. Those two are probably prioritizing fighting the legal battle with the attorneys than answering the hundreds of emails they get from investors asking the same question over and over and over and over….
Quote from @Andrew Frishman:
I can never get a definitive answer from AHP.... I just get a series of Emails with details about court visits? Im assuming I am never going to see my capital again?? Anyone know anything I dont?
If they answered all the questions that came from us investors, they wouldn’t get anything done. Instead, just read the emails on the court updates and that’ll have to suffice. Once in a while (every 3 or 4 months) the CEO will do a webinar where at the end, he answers the same 5 questions people ask where he answers them in the beginning info part of the webinar. The main attorney will usually join too. Until then, sit back and act like the money is gone. And yeah, I have money invested too.
- Investor · Memphis, TN · Member since 2016 · 279 posts · 257 votes1y
I can't ever seem to get included on the webinars or email updates. If anyone has info in the future about an upcoming update, please post the info here. I know it is a lot to ask, but I also know others have posted the same thing and would greatly appreciate it. Thank you for the updates above.
- Member since 2019 · 26 posts · 10 votes1y
Has anyone heard anything? I think court was April 29th and Jorge said the ruling would come a few days later.. this is on whether or not the RICO stands.
- You can read at the link below but it may be another week or two, if not longer. I have quite a bit of experience on when a judge wants to rule and it’s on their timeline. Jorge will update us as soon as he gets the ruling. If you don’t get the email, you can assume the judge hasn’t sent out a ruling yet.
Quote from @Jason Monaco:
Has anyone heard anything? I think court was April 29th and Jorge said the ruling would come a few days later.. this is on whether or not the RICO stands.
https://ahpservicing.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d44d7...
- Real Estate Investor · Dallas, TX · Member since 2016 · 20 posts · 19 votes1y
Did anyone listen to the court case live yesterday? Not sure if everyone got it but on Monday Jorge,
sent out an email letting us know that there would be the ability to listen in.
- Investor · VA · Member since 2015 · 21k+ posts · 19k+ votes1yFYI Here is what Pacer is noting - which shows this is still on for trial next year. (note this is for just one of the cases as there are multiple cases filed in multiple states)
Quote from @Carrie Young:
7e investments53 Reviews
There’s been a bunch of small updates but the big one they just sent out is they completed the sale of AHP Title. They are distributing 50% of everyone’s principal today and will do a smaller distribution later this month. They are hoping next year, after the litigation is complete, to return the other 50% of the outstanding principal plus accrued returns. Haven’t seen it yet but I’ve since switched bank accounts. Hopefully someone can confirm later this week they received their funds.
- Investor · VA · Member since 2015 · 21k+ posts · 19k+ votes1y
Quote from @Mark F.:
There’s been a bunch of small updates but the big one they just sent out is they completed the sale of AHP Title. They are distributing 50% of everyone’s principal today and will do a smaller distribution later this month. They are hoping next year, after the litigation is complete, to return the other 50% of the outstanding principal plus accrued returns. Haven’t seen it yet but I’ve since switched bank accounts. Hopefully someone can confirm later this week they received their funds.
Was this 50% of your money back from investing in AHP Servicing?
Or was AHP title its own separate fund? If it was a separate fund, I am curious, how was it tied to the lawsuit regarding the purchase and repurchase of loans?
7e investments53 Reviews - Second part, AHP Title was a separate fund and its finances were not severely affected from the lawsuit. All of this is from memory so I could be off on some parts. They were looking to sell AHP Title before the lawsuit I believe. They also have PreREO and SkidRow that were separate funds. Didn’t invest in SkidRow (great name… not) and had a small amount in PreREO but don’t remember the status of either of those funds.
Quote from @Chris Seveney:
Quote from @Mark F.:
There’s been a bunch of small updates but the big one they just sent out is they completed the sale of AHP Title. They are distributing 50% of everyone’s principal today and will do a smaller distribution later this month. They are hoping next year, after the litigation is complete, to return the other 50% of the outstanding principal plus accrued returns. Haven’t seen it yet but I’ve since switched bank accounts. Hopefully someone can confirm later this week they received their funds.
Was this 50% of your money back from investing in AHP Servicing?
Or was AHP title its own separate fund? If it was a separate fund, I am curious, how was it tied to the lawsuit regarding the purchase and repurchase of loans?
However I was under the impression we’d be made whole on the sale (regarding whoever invested in AHP Title only) but I’ll take a bit over 50% of my investment back in AHP Title at this point.
So to recap, AHP Servicing is still under litigation, AHP title will fully redeem if litigation is successful, and not sure on SkidRow and PreREO. It’s interesting how some syndications are failing due to market conditions and this happens to be one of the few I assume failing not because of the state of the market but because of malfeasance.
Separate note, I replied to the last email and they got back to me within the hour and fixed the account payment issue. Someone else said to update my account on the website. I did but they just went through email to sort it as the funds had been kicked back. Should see it within a day or two I imagine. - Investor · VA · Member since 2015 · 21k+ posts · 19k+ votes1y
Quote from @Mark F.:
Second part, AHP Title was a separate fund and its finances were not severely affected from the lawsuit. All of this is from memory so I could be off on some parts. They were looking to sell AHP Title before the lawsuit I believe. They also have PreREO and SkidRow that were separate funds. Didn’t invest in SkidRow (great name… not) and had a small amount in PreREO but don’t remember the status of either of those funds.Quote from @Chris Seveney:
Quote from @Mark F.:
There’s been a bunch of small updates but the big one they just sent out is they completed the sale of AHP Title. They are distributing 50% of everyone’s principal today and will do a smaller distribution later this month. They are hoping next year, after the litigation is complete, to return the other 50% of the outstanding principal plus accrued returns. Haven’t seen it yet but I’ve since switched bank accounts. Hopefully someone can confirm later this week they received their funds.
Was this 50% of your money back from investing in AHP Servicing?
Or was AHP title its own separate fund? If it was a separate fund, I am curious, how was it tied to the lawsuit regarding the purchase and repurchase of loans?
However I was under the impression we’d be made whole on the sale (regarding whoever invested in AHP Title only) but I’ll take a bit over 50% of my investment back in AHP Title at this point.
So to recap, AHP Servicing is still under litigation, AHP title will fully redeem if litigation is successful, and not sure on SkidRow and PreREO. It’s interesting how some syndications are failing due to market conditions and this happens to be one of the few I assume failing not because of the state of the market but because of malfeasance.
Separate note, I replied to the last email and they got back to me within the hour and fixed the account payment issue. Someone else said to update my account on the website. I did but they just went through email to sort it as the funds had been kicked back. Should see it within a day or two I imagine.As someone who runs funds - how does this not appear to be commingling of funds? If AHP Title was its own fund, what does the lawsuit have anything to do with the other company?
This would be like investing in a Multi family offering and them telling you, "you get your money back when another property sells that is in another fund". Call me crazy but this is making zero sense.
7e investments53 Reviews
- Investor · Memphis, TN · Member since 2016 · 279 posts · 257 votes1y
@Mark F. That's actually great news. I hope it goes as planned. Can you copy that update? Despite all attempts, We've never received a single update. Also, I wonder how to update banks...you can't change it on the website, and if they're running a skeleton crew- good luck. I'm in the same boat as you. Our SDIRA custodian sold and our bank info has changed.
I did receive a distribution yesterday. There's a discrepancy on my account balance so it wasn't the full 50%, but I did receive a deposit in my bank account yesterday. I hope everyone gets theirs too.
You should be able to edit bank account information under the Bank Account tab. I just checked and it worked.
@Mark F. is correct. AHP Title and AHP Servicing were different companies and different "funds". if you were in AHP Title, congrats you got 50% of your $ back. if you are in AHP Servicing, then no dice.
AHP Servicing: latest is court rejected the lawsuit paperwork filed by Jorge Newberry attorneys bc it was too long. Sounds like the attorney has no experience. Of all the attorneys I worked with and are friends with, they all told me their court submission is short sweet to the point, and they bring all the other evidence with them to court but only show when judge asks for additional evidence/info. Rookie mistake on AHP Servicing attorneys part! OR the attorney is trying to ring up the hours to get more $. Either way these attorneys are shady MF's.
- Investor · Member since 2023 · 5 posts · 4 votes1y
Quote from @Dani Sung:
@Mark F. is correct. AHP Title and AHP Servicing were different companies and different "funds". if you were in AHP Title, congrats you got 50% of your $ back. if you are in AHP Servicing, then no dice.
AHP Servicing: latest is court rejected the lawsuit paperwork filed by Jorge Newberry attorneys bc it was too long. Sounds like the attorney has no experience. Of all the attorneys I worked with and are friends with, they all told me their court submission is short sweet to the point, and they bring all the other evidence with them to court but only show when judge asks for additional evidence/info. Rookie mistake on AHP Servicing attorneys part! OR the attorney is trying to ring up the hours to get more $. Either way these attorneys are shady MF's.
100% agree. Every month we get a new story and shifting goalposts
And unfortunately, people still believe in them and keep on pouring crowdfunded investments to support these dubious lawyers and the owner
- Real Estate Investor · Dallas, TX · Member since 2016 · 20 posts · 19 votes1y
I’m assuming many of you who invested received the recent emails from Jorge. The tone in the emails seemed a bit manic to me. I don’t have access to uni-law. Does anyone in here have a subscription and can translate the legal jargon to explain what is REALLY happening now? Thanks.
- Investor · VA · Member since 2015 · 21k+ posts · 19k+ votes1y
Quote from @Carrie Young:
I’m assuming many of you who invested received the recent emails from Jorge. The tone in the emails seemed a bit manic to me. I don’t have access to uni-law. Does anyone in here have a subscription and can translate the legal jargon to explain what is REALLY happening now? Thanks.
I have access to pacer if you want to send me a message and I can provide
7e investments53 Reviews
Small win today. Pasted from Jorge email.
King County, Washington Judge Samuel Chung announced the court's verdict this afternoon: AHP prevailed against Oak Harbor in the trial held in Seattle on September 2nd - 8th! We will share the written ruling when available.
- Investor · VA · Member since 2015 · 21k+ posts · 19k+ votes1y
Quote from @Mark F.:
Small win today. Pasted from Jorge email.
King County, Washington Judge Samuel Chung announced the court's verdict this afternoon: AHP prevailed against Oak Harbor in the trial held in Seattle on September 2nd - 8th! We will share the written ruling when available.
Is this the one referring too?
Corr Cronin Secures Trial Victory for AHP Servicing - Corr Cronin LLP
not sureif AHP recovered any money from this though, appears it just allowed AHP to return the assets to Oak Harbor to satisfy the debt. Were they awarded any monies?7e investments53 Reviews
- Investor · Memphis, TN · Member since 2016 · 279 posts · 257 votes1y
Thanks for sharing. When you have the written ruling please share. I can't seem to get on the email list. Much appreciated.
Finding and conclusion of facts were released the other day. I’ve added a link and a summary by ChatGPT below for those who don't want to read it in its entirety. The other big trial is still scheduled for January 20, 2026 Jorge said which was confirmed last week by the judge and both attorneys.
A separate NJ trial continues to get delayed by Weinstein. Here is a link to a letter to the judge from AHP counsel regarding that case https://ahpservicing.com/Letter_to_Judge.pdf?mc_cid=260bd897...
https://ahpservicing.com/Findings_of_Fact_&_Conclusions_...
Here's a clear and complete summary of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Oak Harbor Capital Special Opportunities Master Fund, LP, et al. v. AHP Servicing, LLC and Jorge Newbery (King County Superior Court, Oct. 28, 2025):
Overview
- Court: King County Superior Court, Judge Samuel Chung
- Trial Dates: September 2–8, 2025
- Plaintiffs: Oak Harbor Capital entities, controlled by William Weinstein
- Defendants: AHP Servicing, LLC and its CEO, Jorge Newbery
- Claims: Breach of contract, conversion, and turnover of assets
- Outcome: Court ruled in favor of Defendants (AHP and Newbery)
Key Facts
- The dispute involved two December 2022 agreements between the parties:
- A Demand Promissory Note
- A State Court Litigation Claims Purchase Agreement (SCLC or Purchase Agreement)
- Weinstein’s firms sold a portfolio of state court litigation claims (SCLCs)—consumer debt judgments enforceable against real property—to AHP for $12.15 million, financed by a $2 million cash contribution and a $10.15 million note.
- The agreements included a “Put Remedy” clause allowing AHP to return any uncollected (“unrealized”) claims to the sellers within 24 months for repayment of their purchase price.
- Weinstein's entities Keydally Capital Ltd. (Ireland) and Pallida LLC (Delaware) were the technical sellers. Both were controlled by Weinstein, though Newbery did not realize they were shell entities.
Disputes and Evidence
- AHP underperformed in collecting on the SCLCs and claimed Oak Harbor failed to transfer or cooperate properly.
- Weinstein accused AHP of misusing recovered funds, but the court found no proof of wrongdoing.
- Weinstein later attempted to take back certain SCLCs unilaterally, which AHP viewed as a breach of trust.
- In December 2023, Oak Harbor sued to enforce payment on the note.
- In December 2024, AHP formally exercised its “Put Remedy” within the allowed 24-month window, returning the uncollected claims.
Court’s Legal Conclusions
- Integrated Contracts: The Promissory Note and Purchase Agreement were one unified deal and must be interpreted together.
- No Breach by AHP:
- The “waterfall” payment structure required that AHP first recover its servicing fees ($100,000 per year) and costs before paying Oak Harbor.
- Oak Harbor had collected about $773,000 independently from the same claims but failed to share those proceeds with AHP as the contract required.
- Because those waterfall priorities were unmet, AHP owed no interest or payments on the note.
- Put Remedy Properly Exercised:
- The court held that “unrealized” meant uncollected—not unenforceable—claims.
- AHP’s December 2024 “put back” was valid and timely.
- $2 Million Cash Term Unresolved:
- Both sides intended to settle this with other debt offsets but never finalized the arrangement; hence, there was no enforceable breach.
- Fraud Defense:
- AHP showed that Weinstein used nominee companies (Keydally/Pallida) and an uninformed Irish signatory (paid €6,000) to disguise ownership, inflating the sale price.
- However, the court found AHP failed to prove reasonable reliance or all elements of fraud because Newbery was also a sophisticated businessman who neglected due diligence.
Final Judgment
The court entered judgment for AHP Servicing, LLC and Jorge Newbery, rejecting all of Oak Harbor's claims for breach of contract, conversion, and turnover of assets. All other defenses and counterclaims were denied.
In short: Oak Harbor lost entirely; AHP’s “put back” was upheld, and no damages or payments were awarded against Newbery or AHP.
- Investor · VA · Member since 2015 · 21k+ posts · 19k+ votes1y
Quote from @Mark F.:
Finding and conclusion of facts were released the other day. I’ve added a link and a summary by ChatGPT below for those who don't want to read it in its entirety. The other big trial is still scheduled for January 20, 2026 Jorge said which was confirmed last week by the judge and both attorneys.
A separate NJ trial continues to get delayed by Weinstein. Here is a link to a letter to the judge from AHP counsel regarding that case https://ahpservicing.com/Letter_to_Judge.pdf?mc_cid=260bd897...
https://ahpservicing.com/Findings_of_Fact_&_Conclusions_...
Here's a clear and complete summary of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Oak Harbor Capital Special Opportunities Master Fund, LP, et al. v. AHP Servicing, LLC and Jorge Newbery (King County Superior Court, Oct. 28, 2025):
Overview
- Court: King County Superior Court, Judge Samuel Chung
- Trial Dates: September 2–8, 2025
- Plaintiffs: Oak Harbor Capital entities, controlled by William Weinstein
- Defendants: AHP Servicing, LLC and its CEO, Jorge Newbery
- Claims: Breach of contract, conversion, and turnover of assets
- Outcome: Court ruled in favor of Defendants (AHP and Newbery)
Key Facts
- The dispute involved two December 2022 agreements between the parties:
- A Demand Promissory Note
- A State Court Litigation Claims Purchase Agreement (SCLC or Purchase Agreement)
- Weinstein’s firms sold a portfolio of state court litigation claims (SCLCs)—consumer debt judgments enforceable against real property—to AHP for $12.15 million, financed by a $2 million cash contribution and a $10.15 million note.
- The agreements included a “Put Remedy” clause allowing AHP to return any uncollected (“unrealized”) claims to the sellers within 24 months for repayment of their purchase price.
- Weinstein's entities Keydally Capital Ltd. (Ireland) and Pallida LLC (Delaware) were the technical sellers. Both were controlled by Weinstein, though Newbery did not realize they were shell entities.
Disputes and Evidence
- AHP underperformed in collecting on the SCLCs and claimed Oak Harbor failed to transfer or cooperate properly.
- Weinstein accused AHP of misusing recovered funds, but the court found no proof of wrongdoing.
- Weinstein later attempted to take back certain SCLCs unilaterally, which AHP viewed as a breach of trust.
- In December 2023, Oak Harbor sued to enforce payment on the note.
- In December 2024, AHP formally exercised its “Put Remedy” within the allowed 24-month window, returning the uncollected claims.
Court’s Legal Conclusions
- Integrated Contracts: The Promissory Note and Purchase Agreement were one unified deal and must be interpreted together.
- No Breach by AHP:
- The “waterfall” payment structure required that AHP first recover its servicing fees ($100,000 per year) and costs before paying Oak Harbor.
- Oak Harbor had collected about $773,000 independently from the same claims but failed to share those proceeds with AHP as the contract required.
- Because those waterfall priorities were unmet, AHP owed no interest or payments on the note.
- Put Remedy Properly Exercised:
- The court held that “unrealized” meant uncollected—not unenforceable—claims.
- AHP’s December 2024 “put back” was valid and timely.
- $2 Million Cash Term Unresolved:
- Both sides intended to settle this with other debt offsets but never finalized the arrangement; hence, there was no enforceable breach.
- Fraud Defense:
- AHP showed that Weinstein used nominee companies (Keydally/Pallida) and an uninformed Irish signatory (paid €6,000) to disguise ownership, inflating the sale price.
- However, the court found AHP failed to prove reasonable reliance or all elements of fraud because Newbery was also a sophisticated businessman who neglected due diligence.
Final Judgment
The court entered judgment for AHP Servicing, LLC and Jorge Newbery, rejecting all of Oak Harbor's claims for breach of contract, conversion, and turnover of assets. All other defenses and counterclaims were denied.
In short: Oak Harbor lost entirely; AHP’s “put back” was upheld, and no damages or payments were awarded against Newbery or AHP.
For those that invested in AHP though, this does not give AHP any monetary judgment - it seems more like here are your loans back and we are even. Am I reading that right?
7e investments53 Reviews Quote from @Chris Seveney:
Quote from @Mark F.:
Finding and conclusion of facts were released the other day. I’ve added a link and a summary by ChatGPT below for those who don't want to read it in its entirety. The other big trial is still scheduled for January 20, 2026 Jorge said which was confirmed last week by the judge and both attorneys.
A separate NJ trial continues to get delayed by Weinstein. Here is a link to a letter to the judge from AHP counsel regarding that case https://ahpservicing.com/Letter_to_Judge.pdf?mc_cid=260bd897...
https://ahpservicing.com/Findings_of_Fact_&_Conclusions_...
Here's a clear and complete summary of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Oak Harbor Capital Special Opportunities Master Fund, LP, et al. v. AHP Servicing, LLC and Jorge Newbery (King County Superior Court, Oct. 28, 2025):
Overview
- Court: King County Superior Court, Judge Samuel Chung
- Trial Dates: September 2–8, 2025
- Plaintiffs: Oak Harbor Capital entities, controlled by William Weinstein
- Defendants: AHP Servicing, LLC and its CEO, Jorge Newbery
- Claims: Breach of contract, conversion, and turnover of assets
- Outcome: Court ruled in favor of Defendants (AHP and Newbery)
Key Facts
- The dispute involved two December 2022 agreements between the parties:
- A Demand Promissory Note
- A State Court Litigation Claims Purchase Agreement (SCLC or Purchase Agreement)
- Weinstein’s firms sold a portfolio of state court litigation claims (SCLCs)—consumer debt judgments enforceable against real property—to AHP for $12.15 million, financed by a $2 million cash contribution and a $10.15 million note.
- The agreements included a “Put Remedy” clause allowing AHP to return any uncollected (“unrealized”) claims to the sellers within 24 months for repayment of their purchase price.
- Weinstein's entities Keydally Capital Ltd. (Ireland) and Pallida LLC (Delaware) were the technical sellers. Both were controlled by Weinstein, though Newbery did not realize they were shell entities.
Disputes and Evidence
- AHP underperformed in collecting on the SCLCs and claimed Oak Harbor failed to transfer or cooperate properly.
- Weinstein accused AHP of misusing recovered funds, but the court found no proof of wrongdoing.
- Weinstein later attempted to take back certain SCLCs unilaterally, which AHP viewed as a breach of trust.
- In December 2023, Oak Harbor sued to enforce payment on the note.
- In December 2024, AHP formally exercised its “Put Remedy” within the allowed 24-month window, returning the uncollected claims.
Court’s Legal Conclusions
- Integrated Contracts: The Promissory Note and Purchase Agreement were one unified deal and must be interpreted together.
- No Breach by AHP:
- The “waterfall” payment structure required that AHP first recover its servicing fees ($100,000 per year) and costs before paying Oak Harbor.
- Oak Harbor had collected about $773,000 independently from the same claims but failed to share those proceeds with AHP as the contract required.
- Because those waterfall priorities were unmet, AHP owed no interest or payments on the note.
- Put Remedy Properly Exercised:
- The court held that “unrealized” meant uncollected—not unenforceable—claims.
- AHP’s December 2024 “put back” was valid and timely.
- $2 Million Cash Term Unresolved:
- Both sides intended to settle this with other debt offsets but never finalized the arrangement; hence, there was no enforceable breach.
- Fraud Defense:
- AHP showed that Weinstein used nominee companies (Keydally/Pallida) and an uninformed Irish signatory (paid €6,000) to disguise ownership, inflating the sale price.
- However, the court found AHP failed to prove reasonable reliance or all elements of fraud because Newbery was also a sophisticated businessman who neglected due diligence.
Final Judgment
The court entered judgment for AHP Servicing, LLC and Jorge Newbery, rejecting all of Oak Harbor's claims for breach of contract, conversion, and turnover of assets. All other defenses and counterclaims were denied.
In short: Oak Harbor lost entirely; AHP’s “put back” was upheld, and no damages or payments were awarded against Newbery or AHP.
For those that invested in AHP though, this does not give AHP any monetary judgment - it seems more like here are your loans back and we are even. Am I reading that right?
Going off memory but I think you're right and they'd have to get a judgement and go after them that way. But another update-
"On Friday, King County Superior Court Judge Samuel Chung ordered Oak Harbor to pay $800,868.18 of AHP Servicing's legal fees. The judgment is against both Oak Harbor Capital, an SEC-registered investment adviser, and one of its master funds, Oak Harbor Capital Special Opportunities Master Fund. In June 2025, Oak Harbor Special Opportunities Master Fund reported a Gross Asset Value of $43,659,949 on its Form ADV filed with the SEC. Once paid, this $800K will pay the majority of the legal fees which AHP currently owes.
Today and Thursday, we will depose Oak Harbor Capital's CEO William Weinstein and, on Wednesday, we will depose CFO Sonal Gupta. This is in preparation for our January 20 - 26 trial in Seattle, Washington. The trial kicks off in just 44 days and will be pivotal in achieving our goal: full recovery of every investor's investment principal and accrued returns."
- Investor · VA · Member since 2015 · 21k+ posts · 19k+ votes10mo
Quote from @Mark F.:
Quote from @Chris Seveney:
Quote from @Mark F.:
Finding and conclusion of facts were released the other day. I’ve added a link and a summary by ChatGPT below for those who don't want to read it in its entirety. The other big trial is still scheduled for January 20, 2026 Jorge said which was confirmed last week by the judge and both attorneys.
A separate NJ trial continues to get delayed by Weinstein. Here is a link to a letter to the judge from AHP counsel regarding that case https://ahpservicing.com/Letter_to_Judge.pdf?mc_cid=260bd897...
https://ahpservicing.com/Findings_of_Fact_&_Conclusions_...
Here's a clear and complete summary of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Oak Harbor Capital Special Opportunities Master Fund, LP, et al. v. AHP Servicing, LLC and Jorge Newbery (King County Superior Court, Oct. 28, 2025):
Overview
- Court: King County Superior Court, Judge Samuel Chung
- Trial Dates: September 2–8, 2025
- Plaintiffs: Oak Harbor Capital entities, controlled by William Weinstein
- Defendants: AHP Servicing, LLC and its CEO, Jorge Newbery
- Claims: Breach of contract, conversion, and turnover of assets
- Outcome: Court ruled in favor of Defendants (AHP and Newbery)
Key Facts
- The dispute involved two December 2022 agreements between the parties:
- A Demand Promissory Note
- A State Court Litigation Claims Purchase Agreement (SCLC or Purchase Agreement)
- Weinstein’s firms sold a portfolio of state court litigation claims (SCLCs)—consumer debt judgments enforceable against real property—to AHP for $12.15 million, financed by a $2 million cash contribution and a $10.15 million note.
- The agreements included a “Put Remedy” clause allowing AHP to return any uncollected (“unrealized”) claims to the sellers within 24 months for repayment of their purchase price.
- Weinstein's entities Keydally Capital Ltd. (Ireland) and Pallida LLC (Delaware) were the technical sellers. Both were controlled by Weinstein, though Newbery did not realize they were shell entities.
Disputes and Evidence
- AHP underperformed in collecting on the SCLCs and claimed Oak Harbor failed to transfer or cooperate properly.
- Weinstein accused AHP of misusing recovered funds, but the court found no proof of wrongdoing.
- Weinstein later attempted to take back certain SCLCs unilaterally, which AHP viewed as a breach of trust.
- In December 2023, Oak Harbor sued to enforce payment on the note.
- In December 2024, AHP formally exercised its “Put Remedy” within the allowed 24-month window, returning the uncollected claims.
Court’s Legal Conclusions
- Integrated Contracts: The Promissory Note and Purchase Agreement were one unified deal and must be interpreted together.
- No Breach by AHP:
- The “waterfall” payment structure required that AHP first recover its servicing fees ($100,000 per year) and costs before paying Oak Harbor.
- Oak Harbor had collected about $773,000 independently from the same claims but failed to share those proceeds with AHP as the contract required.
- Because those waterfall priorities were unmet, AHP owed no interest or payments on the note.
- Put Remedy Properly Exercised:
- The court held that “unrealized” meant uncollected—not unenforceable—claims.
- AHP’s December 2024 “put back” was valid and timely.
- $2 Million Cash Term Unresolved:
- Both sides intended to settle this with other debt offsets but never finalized the arrangement; hence, there was no enforceable breach.
- Fraud Defense:
- AHP showed that Weinstein used nominee companies (Keydally/Pallida) and an uninformed Irish signatory (paid €6,000) to disguise ownership, inflating the sale price.
- However, the court found AHP failed to prove reasonable reliance or all elements of fraud because Newbery was also a sophisticated businessman who neglected due diligence.
Final Judgment
The court entered judgment for AHP Servicing, LLC and Jorge Newbery, rejecting all of Oak Harbor's claims for breach of contract, conversion, and turnover of assets. All other defenses and counterclaims were denied.
In short: Oak Harbor lost entirely; AHP’s “put back” was upheld, and no damages or payments were awarded against Newbery or AHP.
For those that invested in AHP though, this does not give AHP any monetary judgment - it seems more like here are your loans back and we are even. Am I reading that right?
Going off memory but I think you're right and they'd have to get a judgement and go after them that way. But another update-
"On Friday, King County Superior Court Judge Samuel Chung ordered Oak Harbor to pay $800,868.18 of AHP Servicing's legal fees. The judgment is against both Oak Harbor Capital, an SEC-registered investment adviser, and one of its master funds, Oak Harbor Capital Special Opportunities Master Fund. In June 2025, Oak Harbor Special Opportunities Master Fund reported a Gross Asset Value of $43,659,949 on its Form ADV filed with the SEC. Once paid, this $800K will pay the majority of the legal fees which AHP currently owes.
Today and Thursday, we will depose Oak Harbor Capital's CEO William Weinstein and, on Wednesday, we will depose CFO Sonal Gupta. This is in preparation for our January 20 - 26 trial in Seattle, Washington. The trial kicks off in just 44 days and will be pivotal in achieving our goal: full recovery of every investor's investment principal and accrued returns."
Lets hope investors get made whole from this fiasco.
7e investments53 Reviews
There’s been a few email updates but this was a longer one. Seems like a lot of the cases are trending in AHP favor. No recent update on the sale of AHP Title though.
Seattle – Summary Judgment
Both sides have now filed competing replies to the Summary Judgment motions. As stated in AHP’s Reply:
Oral argument in Seattle is currently set for April 23.
New Jersey Trial
On Friday, March 13, the New Jersey trial judge facilitated initial settlement discussions remotely, but no resolution was reached. He asked both parties to appear in person the morning of Monday, March 16, to continue discussions, with trial to begin if settlement was unsuccessful.
On Monday, both sides (through counsel) consented in person to the judge serving as both settlement judge and trial judge. Settlement discussions continued throughout the day and were trending in our favor. The focus shifted away from ownership of the property (which remains with AHP) to the amount of legal fees Magerick would contribute to resolve the matter.
For context, AHP has incurred over $175,000 in legal fees on this matter, in part because trial has been postponed six times—primarily at Magerick’s request. We proposed resolving the matter for a $75,000 contribution from Magerick, along with dismissal of their claims and release of the lis pendens.
Late in the day, Magerick’s counsel advised that William Weinstein, the leader of Magerick, was no longer comfortable with the judge serving in both roles—despite counsel having consented earlier that morning. After consulting with the presiding judge, the assigned judge recused himself, and the trial has now been rescheduled for April 20 before a new judge.
While the delay is not ideal, the case remains well-positioned. The issues are narrow, and the settlement posture was encouraging as we move toward trial.
Little Rock, Arkansas Trial
Trial is scheduled to begin this Thursday in Little Rock. However, last week our counsel advised that Cymbidium intends to non-suit (dismiss) the lawsuit. We responded that any nonsuit should be conditioned on Cymbidium’s payment of AHP’s legal fees incurred in defending the action.
Sanctions Proceedings – Kentucky
AHP has served a subpoena as part of its request for sanctions against the law firm Reisenfeld & Associates arising from litigation conduct in Kentucky. Specifically, we have alleged that Reisenfeld improperly switched sides by transitioning from representing AHP to representing Magerick in the same lawsuit without AHP’s consent.
We expect depositions to be conducted on both sides prior to a hearing in Harlan County, Kentucky on May 14.
Sanctions Proceedings - Ohio
In Trumbull County, AHP is pursuing sanctions based on what we believe were false or misleading representations made to the court concerning the existence of AHP's Trust and ownership of the loan.
In response, Magerick's counsel Clunk Hoose filed a motion seeking additional time so that counsel could withdraw and new counsel could appear, stating that “Plaintiff’s counsel will be filing a motion to withdraw… [and] additional time is being sought to allow new counsel to come into this matter and properly defend the motion.”
AHP has filed its Reply in support of sanctions, noting that:
These issues will be addressed by the court following briefing.
- Real Estate Investor · Dallas, TX · Member since 2016 · 20 posts · 19 votes5mo
So today we got an email explaining that the court case today in Seattle will be available via Zoom. It starts at 11 AM Pacific standard time. The link given for Zoom does not work for me. Was anyone else able to check on it? Even if you enter early it should not give you invalid notification.
- Austin, TX · Member since 2018 · 17 posts · 3 votes5mo
They sent an email (just past the starting time) with a new access number. I listened for a few minutes, but stopped. (Unfortuantley I doubt it was saved (based on the warning saying "don't record")
Hopefully they'll post a summary
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.