Here’s Why Apartment Case Was Settled

Re “All Is Settled in the Apartment Case, Except What Happened,” Oct. 7:

Dana Parsons expresses frustration at the decision of the California attorney general to settle the Arnel Management Co. consumer fraud case instead of litigating it to conclusion so that we would know whether or not George Argyros presided over an apartment management company “that for years systematically defrauded its tenants.” Parsons goes so far as to say that the settlement “stinks.”

Why would the attorney general settle this case for a measly $1 million when, according to the investigator for the Orange County district attorney, “restitution could have gone into the millions of dollars”? Why would the attorney general not name Argyros as a co-defendant in accordance with the recommendation of this investigator who, Parsons tells us, said that, “Argyros knew a lot”? Knowing that the U.S. Senate would not act upon Argyros’ nomination as ambassador to Spain until this case was concluded, why would the attorney general settle this case? Could it be because the attorney general’s office feared that it could not prove the allegations? The office refused to release its files on the case because its spokesman said they would tell only one side of the story, and “you can’t have a one-sided debate.” Parsons, however, does not appear to share this sense of fair play.

To the contrary, the settlement speaks volumes. It says loudly and clearly that there was not enough evidence implicating Argyros personally to even allow him to be named a co-defendant, and that the state was not sure it could prove the truth of its allegations against Amel Management Co.

Paul Frederic Marx

Costa Mesa