Mr. Gouge sites Burge v FIdelity Bond & Mortgage -  The case law to overturn that sale is well established.  Here's a quote from

McNEILL FAMILY TRUST v. CENTURA BANK
60 P.3d 1277 (2003)
Supreme Court of Wyoming.
January 8, 2003.

"Some jurisdictions have adopted arbitrary percentages of fair market value as their benchmark of unconscionability and which could be utilized to support an unjust enrichment claim. For example, New Mexico identifies sale prices of ten percent to forty percent of value as inadequate and sufficient to justify setting aside a sale when combined with other inequitable circumstances. Crown Life Insurance Company v. Candlewood, Ltd., 112 N.M. 633, 818 P.2d 411, 415 n. 2 (1991); Armstrong v. Csurilla,112 N.M. 579, 817 P.2d 1221, 1235 (1991). Delaware uses a fifty percent fair market value test, and it is suggested in the comment to § 8.3 of Restatement (Third) of Property: Mortgages that less than twenty percent of fair market value is widely accepted as "grossly inadequate." Burge v. Fidelity Bond and Mortgage Company,648 A.2d 414, 419 (Del.1994); Restatement (Third) of Property: Mortgages, supra, § 8.3 cmt. b at 584. We will not substitute arbitrary limitations for thorough examination of the facts and equities of each case to determine unconscionability or unjust enrichment."

The fact that Wallace is an insider here is also a BIG problem for him.

Here's a link to the latest filing and all sorts of info on this mess, including emails to Spencer that show what a schizoid Wallace really is.

http://www.geckosystems.com/W_W_W/

You're right, but IMO, in the end Wallace will be "hoist by his own petard".