Lamar ran the business for 36 years until 1996 when he sold it to new ownership in 1996. When many other customers begin requesting these over the top shakes, Lamar and his staff abandoned the original formula for our now over the top Famous Thick Shakes. These over the top shakes were only available at first to the regulars that requested them. But then a group of regular customers asked for thicker shakes that didn’t have as much milk. It received a reputation for having innovative shake flavors that could not be found anywhere else.Īt first, Lamar served “regular” shakes that used a straw. Iceberg was a great success from the beginning and was quickly bringing smiles and memories to children and families. Lamar insisted that Drive Inn be spelled with two “n’s” as he felt it appeared friendlier to invite people to an “inn” rather than simply a “drive in”. Many report that it was the first drive thru in the Salt Lake City area. The building was originally designed to be moved after a few years as he was only renting the land at the time. It was located on the corner of 900 East and 3900 South in Salt Lake City, Utah. He convinced Lamar to open this concept and Iceberg Drive Inn was born. A local ice cream machine salesman named Hap Vitale had the idea for a building with a distinctive roof that served great milkshakes, burgers and fries. Making that change means Founders Capital had a negative net worth of about $4 million instead of the $20.4 million, it said.īut under cross-examination, Wilkinson said that as an investor he would have wanted to know the market value of properties the company held.The first Iceberg Drive Inn was opened by Lamar Sorensen on April 12, 1960. “They are very high interest rates,” Wilkinson said, “much higher than you would see on arms-length transactions.”Īnd he said following generally accepted accounting principles also meant that the company’s valuing of its real estate holdings at a market value of $27.9 million would be reduced to $4.22 million, the amount it actually paid for the properties. Wilkinson said he had questions about the company’s listing of total assets of $124 million because that figure included $72 million in notes payable from related companies that carried interest rates as high as 72 percent. Shelby allowed Walz continue to question Christensen about the transaction.Īlso on Wednesday, certified public accountant Clark Wilkinson finished up testimony about his firm’s compilation of the finances of a Koerber company called Founders Capital. “If that’s isn’t evidence of fraud then nothing is evidence of fraud,” Walz told U.S. Mumford argued that the matter was not part of the January indictment of Koerber on 18 charges and that the transactions occurred outside the time frame of the alleged fraud.īut Walz argued that it was specifically mentioned in the indictment in an allegation that investor money had “ended up in the defendant’s pocket.” Attorney Stewart Walz started to ask Christensen about how Koerber obtained the Bountiful restaurant for use in paying his legal bills. On Wednesday, Kelly Christensen, a former owner of the restaurant, testified about how he went to Koerber to raise capital to keep the Iceberg going and to expand its franchise system.īut Mumford objected when Assistant U.S. Mumford, in a court filing, said the subpoena was “indicative of an effort on the part of the government to harass defendant’s counsel and interrupt the attorney-client relationship.” The day after the talks broke down, prosecutors issued a grand jury subpoena for records of the real estate transaction involving the Iceberg restaurant in Bountiful. In the first case, Mumford had accused the government of trying to retaliate against him after negotiations didn’t end in a plea agreement. The judge dismissed the case, but a new grand jury indictment was issued in January after a ruling by an appeals court. That case ended in 2014 with Judge Clark Waddoups agreeing with Mumford that prosecutors had not followed speedy-trial guidelines and had engaged in misconduct. Mumford has repeatedly clashed with prosecutors over the charges against Koerber that go back to 2009 when an indictment was first handed up. The DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility in Washington declined to comment on the filing. Mumford said he had no other information on the bar complaint, but he believes it was filed to prevent him from effectively defending Koerber at the trial that’s in its third week. Mumford said in court while the jury was out of the room that he had been informed that the DOJ filed the complaint with the Utah State Bar, the self-regulating organization of lawyers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |