Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?


State May Come After Hubbard’s Assets

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

MONTGOMERY—Under the 2014 Forfeiture Act, the State can seize Mike Hubbard’s assets, because they were used in the commission of a crime. Hubbard, on June 10, was found guilty of twelve felony counts of public corruption for which he faces up to twenty years in State prison, and $30,000 in fines for each count.

The Criminal Proceeds Forfeiture Act provides that “any property, proceeds, or instrumentality of every kind, used or intended for use in the course of, derived from, or realized through the commission of a felony offense, as defined in this act, or as inducement or attempt or conspiracy to commit such offenses, is subject to civil forfeiture.”

Under this statute, Hubbard’s business interest Auburn Network its broadcast license, building and other asset can be confiscated by the State, because the contracts between CV Holdings DBA Capitol Cups, American Pharmacy Cooperative Inc., (APCI) and Edgenuity were funneled through the company. The same is true for Craftmaster Printers Inc., which received investments at Hubbard’s request from Will Brooke, Jimmy Rane, Rob Burton and Sternes Agee.

For over a year, Hubbard has been trying to sell Auburn Network for $1.6 million; the building that houses the radio and consulting business were also for sale for another million or so.

But the problem now, is the State will most likely come after those assets, and they come before all Hubbard’s creditors.

Bill Britt is editor-in-chief at the Alabama Political Reporter and host of The Voice of Alabama Politics. You can email him at [email protected] or follow him on Twitter.

More from APR


For employers, pharmacy benefit companies provide much-needed flexibility that makes it easier to offer coverage to their employees.


Experts pointed to APR's reporting as evidence of the eroding accountability of the court.


Here's what it covers and what it doesn’t.

Featured Opinion

The state's defense of its voting maps was weak and ineffective at the District Court level. But that wasn't the target audience.