Jason L. Nohr, Esq.

Jason L. Nohr (“Jay”) has over 25 years of experience as a trial lawyer successfully litigating complex civil litigation in the state and federal trial and appellate courts of Georgia. In recognition of the high level of respect earned among his fellow attorneys, Martindale-Hubbell awarded Jay with its AV® Preeminent™ rating in 2010, representing the highest peer-review rating available and identifies a lawyer with preeminent legal ability, expertise, experience, integrity and overall professional excellence.

Jay’s practice includes complex business and commercial disputes, including business divorces, arbitration, non-compete agreements, and breach of contract and fiduciary duty claims. Jay has successfully litigated and resolved business litigation claims in federal trial and appellate courts, including enforcing and defending the settlement of a complex and longstanding business dispute against the opposing side’s unsuccessful efforts to renege and avoid it that went all the way to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Jay has extensive experience representing court-appointed receivers in complex federal court litigation and currently serves as a receiver appointed  by the U.S. District Court in a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) action involving a multi-million dollar Ponzi-type fraud scheme (see below for additional details. Relying on his experience as a trial attorney, Jay serves as both Receiver and lead counsel in the Receivership’s litigation activities, including fraudulent conveyance, “claw back” and recovery actions across the country. Through these litigation efforts for Ponzi-scheme victims, Jay has recovered millions of dollars for defrauded investors and attained some of the highest percentage recoveries for investor losses in SEC receivership actions in the Southeast region. Those accomplishments made a real world impact for victims of this fraud, who wrote to express their appreciation: “I want to thank you for your diligence and tenacity … exacting judgment for the ones who have no power to do so themselves.”

Jay is an experienced appellate advocate with successful appeals in the Georgia Supreme Court, Georgia Court of Appeals and Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. He is also a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States. Jay handled the first appellate case in Georgia involving a nursing home’s efforts to enforce an arbitration clause. In a case of first impression, Jay obtained an appellate victory that not only defeated the nursing home’s motion to compel but also a broader ruling clarifying agency law in Georgia that helped preserve the right to jury trial for all Georgians. See Ashburn Health Care Center Inc. v. Poole, 286 Ga. App. 24, 648 S.E.2d 430 (2007).

Jay is a frequent speaker at continuing legal education conferences and serves as President for a 501(c)(3) non-profit group (“CLAWS”), whose purpose is to use the civil justice system to combat human trafficking.  On February 2, 2018, Jay was sworn in as a Special Assistant District Attorney in the Cobb Judicial District to represent the Cobb County District Attorney in nuisance actions against Atlanta area hotels that facilitate trafficking activities. As a Special Assistant District Attorney, Jay devised and led a unique and unprecedented legal strategy that successfully used Georgia nuisance laws against hotels that turned a blind eye towards human trafficking. Jay was also involved in working with the Governor and General Assembly in making changes to Georgia nuisance statutes so this unique litigation strategy could be used more effectively in the future to combat human trafficking.

Education:

• University of Georgia School of Law, J.D. (1995, cum laude)
• Auburn University, B.A. Honors Program (1992, magna cum laude)

Court admissions:

• All Georgia State, Superior, and Magistrate Courts
• Georgia Court of Appeals
• Georgia Supreme Court
• United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia
• United States District Court, Middle District of Georgia
• United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
• United States Supreme Court

Accolades:

• Martindale-Hubbell AV® Preeminent Rating
• Georgia’s Top Rated Lawyers
• 10.0 of 10.0 AVVO rating

More About Receivership Cases: 

Receivership is the situation when an enterprise is held by a receiver, defined as an individual who is given “custodial responsibility” for the property, including tangible and intangible assets. Receiverships are commonly used when an enterprise cannot meet its financial obligations or in bankruptcy cases. A receiver can be appointed privately, by a government body, or by the courts. The terms of the appointment dictate the power of the receiver in the individual case.

Once appointed, a receiver governs all the affairs of the enterprise with an eye toward protecting assets and charting a path for the future, a path that may include liquidation.

RECEIVERSHIP CASES

SEC vs. MSC Holdings USA, LLC, McClintock, Alexander, et al.

SEC vs. MSC Holdings USA, LLC, McClintock, Alexander, et al.

Jason L. Nohr appointed as Receiver by United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, pursuant to recommendation by the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”).

On November 19, 2012, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed an application for a temporary restraining order and other equitable relief, alleging that Defendants Billy Wayne McClintock, and Dianne Alexander a/k/a Linda Dianne Alexander (“Alexander”) were operating a type of Ponzi scheme known as a “prime bank fraud” using entities called MSC Holdings, Inc., MSC GA Holdings, LLC, and MSC Holdings USA. McClintock and Alexander raised over $15 million from over 200 investors in more than 20 states, including Georgia, by telling investors that their money would be placed with a clandestine overseas entity that McClintock and Alexander refer to only as “the Trust.” McClintock and Alexander misrepresented that the Trust would generate a return of at least 38 percent.

Upon recommendation of the SEC, U.S. District Judge Steve Jones appointed Jason Nohr as the Receiver for MSC Holdings and related companies on February 11, 2013.

The Receiver and his team have been working diligently to uncover the money Defendants fraudulently obtained from investors and locate assets purchased with those ill-gotten gains in an effort to ultimately return those funds to the victims of the Defendants’ illicit scheme.

On January 25, 2018, Billy Wayne McClintock was convicted of seven counts of conspiracy and mail fraud arising from his role in operating MSC Holdings as an illicit Ponzi scheme.  The indictment and prosecution was by the Department of Justice and Assistant United States Attorney Doug Gilfillan and the guilty verdicts followed a one week trial before United State District Court Judge Eleanor L. Ross.  Receiver Jason L. Nohr was called to testify as a witness for the prosecution.

• Receiver’s Seventeeth Interim Report

• Receiver’s Sixteenth Interim Report

• Order on Receiver’s Motion to Approve Private Sale

• Motion to Approve Private Sale

• Second Claim Spreadsheet – Exhibit A

• Receiver’s Notice of Second Interim Distribution

• Government’s Response to McClintock’s Motion for Compassionate Release

• Order Granting McClintock’s Motion for Compassionate Release

• Receiver’s Fifteenth Interim Report

• McClintock’s Motion to Reduce Sentence for Compassionate Release

• Order Denying Promise Land Trust’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment

• Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Affirming McClintock’s Conviction and Sentence

• Receiver’s Fourteenth Interim Report

• Judgment and Commitment – Billy Wayne McClintock

• Jury Verdict Against Billy Wayne McClintock

• Criminal Indictment Against McClintock

• Receiver’s Thirteenth Interim Report

• Order Approving Receiver’s Plan of Distribution

• Receiver’s Response in Support of Plan of Distribution and in Opposition to Claimants’ Objections to Plan

• Order Setting Deadline for 30 days from Date of Order

• Amended Motion for Order Establishing Deadline for Filing Objections to Plan of Distribution

• Receiver’s Amended Motion to Approve Plan of Distribution and First Interim Distribution

• Claims Spreadsheet – Exhibit B

• Receiver’s Twelfth Interim Report

• Proposed Order Setting Objection Deadline for Receiver’s Plan of Distribution

• Motion for Order Establishing Deadline for Filing Objections to Receiver’s Plan of Distribution

• Claims Spreadsheet – Exhibit A

• Receiver’s Motion to Approve Plan of Distribution and First Interim Distribution and Brief in Support

• Receiver’s Eleventh Interim Report

• Final Judgment

• Order for Civil Penalties

• Amended Final Judgment

• Default Judgment

• Order Granting Motion for Default

• Proof of Claim Form

• Expert Report Prepared by Forensic Solutions

• Order on MSJ

• Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Jang

• Order Denying Norma Days Motion to Dismiss

• Order Denying Marshall Defendants Motion to Dismiss

• Order Denying MTD filed by Vogel, Carr, Mullins, Schneller

• Order Denying Rohms, Starchers and Sheffields Motion to Dismiss

• Receiver’s Tenth Interim Report

• Receiver’s Ninth Interim Report

• Receiver’s Eighth Interim Report

• Receiver’s Seventh Interim Report

• Plaintiff SEC Motion for Summary Judgment

• Complaint and Exhibit

• Receiver’s Sixth Interim Report

• Receiver’s Fifth Interim Report

• Receiver’s Fourth Interim Report

• Receiver’s Third Interim Report

• Order Approving Receiver’s Motion to Pursue Third Party Claims

• Receiver’s Second Interim Report with Exhibit

• Receiver’s Motion for Order Permitting the Receiver to Pursue Third Party Claims

• Receiver’s Report and Recommendation to Pursue Third Party Claims

• Receiver’s First Interim Report

• Order Appointing Receiver

• Complaint for Injunctive Relief