Federal prosecutors are not offering a plea deal to Ferrum Capital co-founders Joshua Allen and Michael Cox – both of Lubbock. And they’re not asking for one either.
Allen has also requested to move the trial to a later date, which prosecutors oppose. A judge has not ruled yet, and we’ll come back to that in a bit.
The two are under indictment for securities fraud and other charges – accused of using Ferrum to run a Ponzi scheme and take millions of dollars from hundreds of people.
Related story: Ferrum Capital investors have until September 3 to file a claim — here’s how
“There are no plea negotiations between the United States and … Allen or … Cox. Defendants Cox and Allen, through their counsel, have expressed their desires to exercise their right to trial in this matter,” said Joseph Blackwell, assistant U.S. attorney, in a Wednesday legal filing in court.
Allen and Cox’s San Antonio business affiliate Brooklynn Chandler Willy pleaded guilty this year and will be sentenced after the two Lubbock businessmen go to trial.
U.S. District Court Judge Fred Biery compared the upcoming trial to Texas’ war for independence against Mexico in 1835-1836.
“… This matter will be tried about two blocks from where General Santa Anna oversaw his troops from the bell tower of the San Fernando Cathedral and perhaps viewed General Travis drawing the legendary line-in-the-sand,” Biery wrote on June 5.
It was part of a request for attorneys to give him an update on how things are going before the trial.
In that request, Biery asked, “… Has the line-in-the-sand for either or both defendants been drawn?”
Biery also described a letter he might send to the August jury panel in San Antonio.
“… The court’s practice for a lengthy trial such as this will be to prequalify the jury panel for those who are unavailable to serve for up to three weeks. This is done by a letter …” Biery wrote.
Click to see the text of Biery’s draft letter
Date: June 5th, 2026
To: Federal Court Jury Panel Members for August 2026
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Our Constitution begins with the words “We the people…” Those are mere words on parchment unless we the people actually participate in the process of governing ourselves. Very few of us will serve in elective office, but when called upon we can serve in the judicial branch as judges of the facts in very important cases. It has been my honor to be called and to attend three times for service in state court.
We ask our military to serve multiple deployments for many months at a time in remote outposts away from their spouses and children. They do that because they have taken an oath to the Constitution to preserve and protect it and, by implication, to preserve the rule of law and our self-governance.
The Court is asking fourteen of you to serve as judges in a significant case for up to three weeks, though cases sometimes do not take as long as first anticipated. You will be serving in air-conditioned comfort, will not be required to stay overnight and will be on the road back to your families no later than 3:30 each afternoon. I assure you that those of you who are selected a) will never forget the experience and b) will learn that real cases presented by these excellent lawyers are far more interesting than the television versions.
I know there are some of you who would be willing and able to serve for the usual three or four day case but cannot accept the invitation for this case. If you are unable to serve for this length of time, please respond accordingly in the enclosed envelope. If you are able to serve, I look forward to seeing you in court on August 10, 2026, through approximately August 28.
Kind regards,
Fred Biery
United States Judge
The draft of Biery’s letter said in part, “The court is asking fourteen of you to serve as judges in a significant case for up to three weeks, though cases sometimes do not take as long as first anticipated.”
The trial would start August 10 and end “approximately” on the 28th, according to the judge.
Allen and prosecutors clash over trial date
Allen’s attorney, Anthony Box of Dallas, requested a delay – and that led to something of a dust up in court records.
Box claimed recent restrictions on Allen’s business interests are “rendering him presently unable to compensate defense counsel.”
Here’s how that happened.
Allen has been sued many times over the estimated $67 million victims lost in Ferrum. In one such lawsuit – also based in San Antonio – a judge took control of Ferrum away from Allen and Cox. It’s now in the hands of a court-appointed receiver.
The receiver secured an injunction recently against Allen to stop the sale or transfer of his business interests, which we covered here.
Prosecutors were not impressed with Allen’s request for a 60-90 day delay.
Writing for the office of U.S. Attorney, Blackwell responded, “The Government has issued trial subpoenas to more than seventy witnesses. … Travel arrangements and witness coordination have already occurred …”
Blackwell pointed out Allen had a chance recently to request an exception for attorney fees but did not show up in court – either in person or via video.
“Fortunately, there is a solution,” Blackwell wrote, adding he made arrangements with the court-appointed receiver in the lawsuit.
“… The receiver will agree to a modification of the restraining order to allow for those funds to be used for valid legal fees – problem solved,” Blackwell wrote.
The receiver’s attorney, Royal Lea, wrote Blackwell an email, agreeing the business interests could be used to pay Allen’s defense attorney.
Lea wrote in his email, “The receiver represents the creditors of Ferrum Capital and Ferrum IV, many of whom are the defrauded investors. For many of them, they lost their retirement savings. From the receiver’s perspective, it’s important that the trial in the criminal case should proceed as scheduled.”
Blackwell’s filing further said, “The receiver has agreed to release funds to the defendant for his defense and there was no other basis cited for a continuance.”
Blackwell and Box also sparred over Allen’s house in Lubbock, which is worth $1.3 million on the local tax roll. The house is exempt from seizure in the San Antonio lawsuit according to state law.
Box pointed out Allen would have a hard time taking out a home loan or even selling the house between now and August 10. And it takes time to modify an injunction, he said.
Box claimed in his most recent filing, “Regardless of which path is pursued, [Allen] cannot pay his legal fees today. The Government does not contend otherwise.”
The judge has not ruled on Allen’s request for a later trial date.
