​​​Retirement Value LLC, Receivership

                                                                   Schedule of Claims

On August 2, 2012, the Receiver filed with the Court a schedule of claims identifying all of the known claims against the estate, including claims by Retirement Value and HCF investors. The Schedule states whether the claim is disputed and the priority in which it will be paid.   A Proof of Claim process followed and all disputes pertaining to Investor’s Claims have been resolved.  There are $80,361,992.34 in approved investor claims against the combined Retirement Value & Hill Country Funding Estate.  To date, the estate has distributed approximately $8.5 million to the investors, leaving an outstanding claims balance of $71,876,201.42.   There are approximately $270,000 in approved non-investor claims against the estate.  There are also $500,000 in unapproved non-investor claims.  Because the non-investor claims are unlikely to be paid, the Receiver has not yet undertaken to resolve the disputed non-investor claims. 


02/16/2016      Sixth Amended and Restated Schedule of Claims

05/31/2014      Fifth Amended and Restated Schedule of Claims

12/09/2013      Fourth Amended Schedule of Claims

07/25/2013      Third Amended Schedule of Claims (with notice of filing)

09/07/2012      Second Amended and Restated Schedule of Claims

08/02/2012      Proof of Claim form & instructions – Retirement Value

08/02/2012      Proof of Claim form & instructions – Hill Country Funding

                                                                   Tracy Moss Lawsuit

The employment discrimination lawsuit by Tracy Moss against Retirement Value has been resolved.  In order to avoid further litigation costs, the Receiver agreed to a judgment in favor of Moss in the amount of $150,000.  Under the Plan of Distribution, this judgment is treated as a Class III (non-investor) claim and will not be payable until the investors are paid in full.  However, Moss’s counsel has indicated that she may seek a modification of the Plan so that her claim is treated at least as well as the investors’ claims.  To date, Moss has not sought to modify the Plan.  The Receiver will oppose any such attempt if and when it materializes.