Attorneys Allege Former MU Coach Jim Donnan Ran Ponzi Scheme for GLC Investments

Edited by Tony Rutherford from Multiple Reports
Jim Donnan (Facebook photo)
Jim Donnan (Facebook photo)

HUNTINGTON, WV (HNN) - Former Marshall Coach Jim Donnan has denied that he acted as an officer in the ill fated GLC Venture. However, Donnan and members of his family filed bankruptcy in Georgia last week. Now, an attorney for creditors has asked than Donnan's bankruptcy discharge be revoked.

An Adversary case has been filed, which is a disputed matter that has both plaintiff and defendant. Due to the nature of the case, attorneys have asked for an expedited hearing.

This proceeding alleges the following fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny)) and willful and malicious injury.

The AP complaint begins: Defendant James Donnan represented to third-parties that he was an officer of GLC, or otherwise controlled the assets or operations of GLC. Defendant James Donnan is substantially, if not principally, responsible for the initiation and operation of a far-reaching ponzi scheme that defrauded GLC and its investors of approximately $27,752,159.00. Yet, while the ponzi scheme doomed GLC and its investors to severe financial losses and, in GLC’s case, bankruptcy, Defendants reaped millions of dollars in profits. In total, Defendants’ received approximately $14,557,228.50 from GLC – a profit of nearly $10,000,000.00. Defendants’ investment scheme relied upon the continuous influx of additional investors prepared to offer increasing investments. When Defendants failed to secure the volume of new investments necessary to maintain their investment scheme, GLC defaulted on its financial obligations, including outstanding notes to investors solicited by Defendants.


Download the full AP Complaint from U.S. Bankruptcy Court by clicking the blue link below.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Court documents are part of the litigation process. The complaint provided comes from an attorney alleging conduct by the named party. A court filing is neither proof of the alleged conduct or an implication of guilt. In this case, the attorney for the former coach has NOT filed an ANSWER. In the ANSWER, the attorney will tell the court reasons why the allegations against his client are allegedly untrue.  Unless sealed by a court, the court filings are public information.

Comments powered by Disqus