OffshoreAlert
Daily news, documents and intelligence about Offshore Financial Centers and those who conduct business in them that you will not find anywhere else.
RSS Feed Print
Roland Bleyer's got a problem in Illinois
Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011 12:43 AM

Posted: 5/5/2011 7:54:34 PM

By: David Marchant

I just came across yet another legal action against Bleyer, this one resulting in a judgment against him in the amount of AUS$33,500 at New South Wales District Court, in Australia, on May 11, 2009.

Click on this link to view details:

http://www.ipc.nsw.gov.au/dcjudgments/2009nswdc.nsf/2009nswdc.nsf/WebView2/B1215B6BB044EF92CA2575B6000AF3EB?OpenDocument

Patricularly amusing is the judge's descripion of Bleyer as a witness: "The defendant is a company director who sought to give the Court the impression that he had been involved in the raising of substantial amounts of finance and was also involved in investment activities. The defendant was a most unsatisfactory witness. He was evasive in the witness box. He sought to argue with the cross-examiner. He did not answer questions directly and proceeded to make speeches. He paused for considerable periods of time before answering questions with a view, in my assessment, to giving whatever answer he could think of which would best assist him to win the case. Therefore, my approach to the defendant’s evidence on matters in dispute has been not to accept it, unless such evidence is corroborated by way of documentation or oral evidence of other witnesses."

The judge was also scathing of Bleyer's business partner, Mervat Zailaa, whom the judge determined "was prepared to say anything in the witness box to assist [Bleyer's] case".

Given the above, I can't wait to depose him in his libel action against me and my company, if it ever comes to that.


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011 12:43 AM

Posted: 5/5/2011 7:31:10 PM

By: David Marchant

Will you email me a copy of the complaint to editor@offshorealert.com?

I can offer you documents in return, if you wish. I have copies of civil and criminal complaints and/or docket sheets in various actions that have been brought against Bleyer/Husner and/or related companies, including criminal actions at state court in California and US federal court. I have details of multiple arrest warrants that have been issued against him over the years.

I also have details of an unsuccessful libel action that he brought many years ago against an Australian broadcaster who described Bleyer as a "bullshit artist". The trial was considered to be one of the most farcical due to bizarre evidence introduced on Beleyer's behalf, including a person who had formed a sham country and given himself a long list of titles and honors. It was revealed at the trial that Bleyer described himself as "Sir Roland Bleyer" on a business card and that his attorney tried to conceal the business card from the court.


Internal Administrator
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011 12:43 AM
Joined: 10/12/2010
Posts: 5783


Posted: 5/5/2011 7:49:19 AM

By: Lardie

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, )
ESP, INC )
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX )
)
PLAINTIFFS, )
)
V. ) NO.: ______________
)
ROLAND HUSNER, )
ROLAND FRANK BLEYER, ) CALENDAR:______________
ANDREW BACIK, )
CHRISTOPHER M. DIETERICH, )
ROBERT MASUD, MASUD & CO., )
)
AND )
)
HAYMAN PRIVATE EQUITY, LLC, )
URBAN HAYMAN HOLDINGS, LLC, )
URBAN HAYMAN JV, LLC. )
)
DEFENDANTS. )
)
AND )
)
ROSS GLICKMAN, JAMES NAPOLI AND )
KENNETH BARRY, )
)
RESPONDENTS-IN-DISCOVERY )


COMPLAINT IN CHANCERY FOR EQUITY
AND AT LAW FOR MONEY DAMAGES
--------------------------------

NOW COME Plaintiffs, XXXXXXXXXXXX, ESP, INC., XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, by

Grasso Bass, PC and for Plaintiffs' complaint against Defendants ROLAND HUSNER a/k/a ROLAND FRANK BLEYER, ANDREW BACIK, CHRISTOPHER M. DIETERICH, ROBERT MASUD,


MASUD & COMPANY, P.C., and HAYMAN PRIVATE EQUITY, LLC, URBAN HAYMAN HOLDINGS, LLC., URBAN HAYMAN JV, LLC., and state:

PARTIES
-------

1. Plaintiff XXXXXXXXXXX ("XXXX") is located in XXXXXXXX, XXXX and is a XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.


2. Plaintiff ESP, Inc. ("ESP") is located in Palm Springs, California and its principle business is hiring US military veterans to conduct environmental inspections of residential and commercial properties.

3. Plaintiff XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ("XXX") is located in XXXXXX, XXXXX and XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

4. Defendant Roland Husner a/k/a Roland Frank Bleyer ("Husner") resides in Australia and is the chairman of the finance committee and the controlling principal of Hayman Private Equities, LLC and its affiliates ("Hayman"). Husner transacts business in Cook County, Illinois through Hayman, and upon information and belief, the Urban Hayman defendants.

5. Defendant Andrew Bacik ("Bacik") resides in Ohio and is the President of Hayman and an owner of the company. Bacik transacts business in Cook County, Illinois through Hayman, and upon information and belief, the Urban Hayman defendants.

6. Defendant Christopher M. Dieterich ("Dieterich") resides in California and is the Secretary/Treasurer of Hayman and an owner of the Hayman. Dieterich transacts business in Cook County, Illinois through Hayman, and upon information and belief, the Urban Hayman defendants.

7. Defendants Robert Masud and Masud & Company, PC (collectively "Masud") reside in and operate their law practice and financial businesses in Boston, Massachusetts and out of that office also serve as the principal, captive attorneys, agents and representatives for Hayman and Roland Husner in the United States in collaboration with Dieterich. Masud transacts business in Cook County, Illinois through or on behalf of Hayman, and upon information and belief, the Urban Hayman defendants. Upon information and belief, Masud was fully familiar with and facilitated Hayman's acts and omissions herein.

8. Defendant Hayman Private Equity, LLC ("Hayman") is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business at 225 Franklin Street, 26th Floor, Boston, MA 02110 (with Masud) and represented itself to the public and plaintiffs as an international financial lending company. Hayman transacts business in Cook County, Illinois through, INTER ALIA, Hayman now and throughout the pertinent times herein through extensive and continuing actions described herein by Husner, Masud, Bacik and Dieterich.

9. Defendant Urban Hayman Holdings, LLC, ("UHH") upon information and belief, is a limited liability company formed, INTER ALIA, to assume Hayman's business dealings with Plaintiffs and others similarly situated. UHH purports to be a company that combines a substantial source of private funds and real estate specialists with a proven track record that is looking for suitable projects and active development partners. As in the case of Hayman's solicitation of each of the Plaintiffs, UHH claims on its web-site1 to be a "... force in real estate, created to help projects proceed in a world where traditional sources of bank financing are restricted." UHH is based in and operates from Chicago, Illinois.

10. Defendant Urban Hayman, JV, LLC ("UHJV") upon information and belief, is a limited liability company with intertwined ownership and management shared with UHH. UHJV too is based in and operates from Chicago, Illinois.

RESPONDENTS-IN-DISCOVERY
------------------------------

11. Ross Glickman is a principal of UHH and UHJV, and upon information and belief has personal knowledge during all pertinent times of Hayman, its principals, its funding sources and operations, and its use of SBLCs as forth herein.

12. Kenneth Barry ("Barry") resides in Texas and, upon information and belief, is an owner and principal of Hayman. Barry transacts business in Cook County, Illinois through, INTER ALIA, Hayman, and upon information and belief, the Urban Hayman defendants.

13. James Napoli ("Napoli") resides in Arizona and, upon information and belief, is an owner and principal of Hayman. Napoli transacts business in Cook County, Illinois through, INTER ALIA, Hayman, and upon information and belief, the Urban Hayman defendants where he is also a named principal.

14. Estrategia Investimentos ("Estrategia") is a Rio de Janiero, Brazil based bank and financial institution with offices in Miami, Florida that INTER ALIA, provides financial instruments known as Stand-By Letters of Credit ("SBLCs") for monetization at a loan to value less than their face amount to fund businesses such as Plaintiffs. At all material times, Dr. Sindhu Ratna K Baskar ("Dr. Ratna") was the Director of Operations and Compliance for Estrategia. Dr. Ratna provided the SBLCs at issue herein for Estrategia upon the approval of Hayman, Husner and Bacik.

15. Metropolitan Financial Corporation ("Metropolitan") is based in Lawton, Oklahoma and is a financial broker of SBLCs with relationships at all pertinent times with Hayman and its principals, and Estrategia and Dr. Ratna. Metropolitan's principals at all pertinent times were Allen and Goldie Dickie.

16. Richard Weisman at all pertinent times resides and conducts business as a broker or agent of Hayman from Las Vegas, Nevada and throughout the events described herein called, contacted and emailed the principals of Riverside in Cook County, Illinois for the benefit and business of Hayman, Husner, Bacik, Dietrich and Masud.

1 www.urbanhayman.com


PERTINENT FACTS
---------------
17. In and about July 28 and 29, 2010, Hayman, Husner and Bacik solicited each of the Plaintiffs through various promotional representations of Hayman's international ability to monetize collateral backed SBLCs. Hayman, Husner and Bacik also informed plaintiffs that they had relations with various banks and brokers that could provide SBLCs for a fee to Plaintiff which Hayman would then quickly monetize for a substantial monetization and related trading fees that would be paid to Hayman.

18. Within days thereafter, through relationships with Metropolitan and Estrategia, Plaintiffs and Hayman, together and collectively, made arrangements through Metropolitan and Estrategia to provide Hayman with four (4) SBLCs totaling $1.5 billion. Metropolitan brokered the transaction and Estrategia provided the customary collateral totaling $1.5 billion for the SBLCs.

19. Material to the transaction, Hayman knew and insisted that the Plaintiffs would each have to pay advanced fees totaling $1.35 million for these 4 SBLCs based upon Hayman's prior approval and execution of a collateral agreement between Hayman, Metropolitan and Estrategia.

20. Throughout their dealings, Hayman told Plaintiffs that Hayman had extensive actual experience in monetizing SBLCs. Hayman insisted Plaintiffs pay all these fees as a pre-condition to Hayman agreeing to monetize the SBLCs and provide funding to each of the Plaintiffs.

21. If Plaintiffs paid the fees, and provided the collateral backed SBLCs, Hayman agreed and promised to each of the Plaintiffs that Hayman would promptly monetize each of these SBLCs and provide funding to XXXX, ESP and XXXXX for each of their respective business operations in the following amounts:

XXXX: $900 million
XXXX: $200 million
ESP: $200 million
XXXX: $200 million
--------------
TOTAL: $1,500 BILLION

22. Hayman was well aware that time was of the essence for funding of XXXX, ESP and XXXXXX and, in fact, used the timing pressure to urge Plaintiffs to pay the fees and cause Estrategia to issue the SBLCs to Hayman. Hayman further assured Plaintiffs that Hayman's international banking relations and ease in monetizing such instruments was a primary reason for Plaintiffs to do business with Hayman and provide Hayman with these SBLCs.

23. Plaintiffs paid the following fees to cause these SBLCs to be issued to Hayman:

XXXX: $850,000
ESP: $250,000
XXXX: $250,000
----------
TOTAL FEES: $1,350,000

24. Plaintiffs caused each of these SBLCs to be issued to Hayman through what is known as MT 760 bank-to-bank SWIFTs totaling $1.5 billion in collateral from Estrategia. Three of the SBLCs were each in the face amount of $200 million (totaling $600 million), and the fourth SBLC was in the face amount of $900 million. Each SBLC listed XXXX, ESP, and XXXXX as the applicants and Hayman as the beneficiary. Copies of these four SBLCs are attached as EXHIBITS A1-A4.

25. Hayman negotiated and executed LOAN AGREEMENTS for these four SBLCs with XXXX, ESP and XXX respectively prior to the SBLCs being sent by SWIFT to Hayman. Copies of those respective loan agreements are attached as EXHIBITS B1-B3. The loan agreements each provide that Hayman will be prepared to start funding Plaintiffs within five (5) to fourteen (14) banking days of delivery and acceptance of the SBLC's. Funding would occur upon draw down requests from each of the Plaintiffs.

26. These loan agreements, INTER ALIA,

a. contain a SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE CLAUSE in favor of Plaintiffs that was material to the negotiations and execution of the loan agreements between the Plaintiffs and Hayman;

b. contain Hayman's GUARANTY to monetize the SBLCs at 100% of value;

c. require Hayman to PERFORM ALL ITS OBLIGATIONS TO PLAINTIFFS WITHIN NINETY (90) DAYS from execution date of the loan agreements;

d. require Hayman to RETURN THE SBLCS TO PLAINTIFFS if Hayman failed to monetize the SBLCs and fund Plaintiffs within 90 days.

27. On August 2, 2010, Hayman approved, verified, and accepted the SBLCs prior to them being sent. Upon information and belief, Hayman used one of more of the SBLCs for Hayman's benefit and not for the benefit of any of the Plaintiffs. Yet, Hayman has not funded XXXX, ESP or XXXXX any amount as promised and provided in the loan agreement and consistent with the collateral agreements.

28. As part of Hayman's plan and scheme, it negotiated and executed a collateral agreement with Metropolitan for these SBLCs based upon Plaintiff's promise to pay the fees for the SBLCs. A copy of that collateral agreement is attached as EXHIBIT C.

29. At all pertinent times, Hayman and its principals (Husner, Bacik, Dieterich, Masud) never possessed the financial ability, wherewithal, banking relationships, experience or knowledge to monetize these SBLCs.

30. Rather, upon information and belief, it was always the intention of Husner and his fellow defendant principals and agent representatives named herein to improperly use these SBLCs to falsely bolster the balance sheet of the Royal Bank of Baku, Baku, Azerbaijan where Husner was or was trying to become a shareholder and officer of the Bank for other business dealings through Hayman.

31. Whenever Plaintiffs questioned Hayman's principals about delay and performance, Hayman reiterated through Husner, Bacik, Masud, and Dieterich, Hayman's ability to monetize the SBLC's within the contracted time periods.

32. As of November 1, 2010, Hayman has possessed each of these SBLC's for over 90 consecutive business days. Over that time period, Hayman has evaded, stalled and given XXXX, ESP, and RPD numerous unsubstantiated, irrelevant and ultimately false explanations for not funding Plaintiffs under the executed loan agreements.

33. To date Hayman has not met any of its obligations in the loan agreement or kept any of its promises. Thus, Hayman is in breach of its contracts with XXXX, ESP and XXXXXXX.

34. Throughout the non-performance period after receiving the SBLCs, Hayman on several occasions promised to provide third-party documentation and third-party references about Hayman's ability to fund and pay fees and performance of actual deals. Hayman never provided any proof of Hayman's ability to perform.

35. Upon information and belief, Hayman instead forwarded these SBLCs to the Royal Bank of Baku with Hayman falsely listed as the beneficiary.

36. Upon information and belief, Hayman provided all the instructions, SWIFTs, Account Numbers and detailed MT760 language for the issuance and delivery of the SBLC's to be sent to the Royal Bank of Baku as directed by Hayman.

37. Prior to release and delivery of the SBLCs, Hayman provided written approval of the collateral provider as an inducement to have the SBLCs delivered to Hayman.

38. Within the first week of the funding timeline Hayman informed the Plaintiffs that due to European summer vacations the process was delayed; this statement was not true, Hayman and each of the defendants knew it was not true at the time, and it was made to Plaintiffs for them to rely upon as an excuse for Hayman's failure to perform.

39. The following week, Hayman told the Plaintiffs that funding was going through the United States Federal Reserve and therefore Hayman would have to complete clearance that would further delay the funding; this statement was not true, Hayman and each of the defendants knew it was not true at the time, and it was made to Plaintiffs for them to rely upon as an excuse for Hayman's failure to perform. Neither evidence nor documentation has been provided that this funding source was available.

40. Plaintiffs have met all their obligations. The Plaintiffs have never materially impeded Hayman from meeting its obligations.

41. Plaintiffs made all required written draw-down requests and submitted them to Hayman to facilitate funding on August 20, 2010, the target funding date. Hayman accepted these draw requests without comment. Copies of the draw requests from XXXX, ESP and XXXXX are respectively attached at EXHIBITS D1, D2, AND D3.

42. In an e-mail dated August 20, 2010, Roland Husner on behalf of Hayman again confirmed that the SBLC's and the collateral were sufficient to complete the transaction. EXHIBIT E. That e-mail also stated that a confirmation SWIFT was required and upon receipt funding would occur within the five (5) to seven (7) seven banking days; this statement was not true, Hayman and each of the defendants knew it was not true at the time, and it was made to Plaintiffs for them to rely upon as an excuse for Hayman's failure to perform. This funding never occurred.

43. On August 25, 2010, the Plaintiffs received an e-mail from Roland Husner stating that Hayman was now funding from a Middle Eastern bank. EXHIBIT F. Mr. Husner was now purportedly traveling there to complete the transaction and Robert Masud had successfully completed the negotiations. These statements were not true, Hayman and each of the defendants knew they were not true at the time, and they were made to Plaintiffs for them to rely upon as an excuse for Hayman's failure to perform. Again, funding was never forthcoming.

44. On September 7, 2010, the Plaintiffs received an e-mail from Roland Husner stating that Hayman would now fund through both a USA bank and a top five world bank. EXHIBIT G. It further stated Royal Bank of Baku would pay all required fee's to set-up a new corresponding bank relationship and SWIFT fee's to transfer the SBLC's as required. Deal completion was promised within two weeks. Again, these statements were not true, Hayman and each of the defendants knew they were not true at the time, and they were made to Plaintiffs for them to rely upon as an excuse for Hayman's failure to perform. Again, Hayman failed to provide any confirmation of its representations to the Plaintiffs, and did not fund the transactions.

45. On September 18, 2010, the Plaintiffs received an e-mail from Roland Husner stating that Hayman had completed a separate $100 million transaction and was going to monetize the Instruments and fund the Plaintiffs as promised utilizing the same banks and SWIFT procedures. EXHIBIT H. In this same e-mail, Husner stated that there would be little or no due diligence period by the funding bank and that the process was only a formality because the SBLCs and the collateral were sufficient. These statements were not true, Hayman and each of the defendants knew they were not true at the time, and they were made to Plaintiffs for them to rely upon as an excuse for Hayman's failure to perform.

46. On September 22, 2010, the Plaintiffs had a conference call with Roland Husner and were informed that Hayman was in possession of executed bank loan documents to fund the Plaintiffs and that funding would occur within the next two banking weeks. Hayman provided no back-up or documentation to verify these new assertions. This statement was not true, Hayman and each of the defendants knew it was not true at the time, and it was made to Plaintiffs for them to rely upon as an excuse for Hayman's failure to perform.

47. On September 23, 2010, Husner sent the Plaintiffs an e-mail quoting the proposed lender in which Hayman allegedly had contracts and advising us that the lender had several remaining questions. EXHIBIT I. This email statement was not true, Hayman and each of the defendants knew it was not true at the time, and it was made to Plaintiffs for them to rely upon as an excuse for Hayman's failure to perform.

48. On September 24, 2010, Husner sent the Plaintiffs an e-mail stating he had just received the executed bank documents and all that was needed was Hayman's review and signature. Hayman indicated he was traveling to see the bank the following week to complete the transaction. EXHIBIT J. In this e-mail, Husner wrote and stated:

"There have been verbal and other suggestions made and hence, we are
also going to request confirmation by Masud & Company on the law firm's
letterhead to be sent to you/your firm by the end of business Friday
PST September 24th, 2010 and copy all involved in these pending
transactions of Masud & Company our law firm also having received the
signed contract now only requiring our law firms and our review,
correction or clarification, if any and our counter signature for and
on behalf of Hayman Private Equity LLC."

49. The Plaintiffs to date have never received any documents from Robert Masud as promised in the e-mail and the funding has not occurred. These statements were not true, Hayman and each of the defendants knew they were not true at the time, and they were made to Plaintiffs for them to rely upon as an excuse for Hayman's failure to perform.

50. On October 3, 2010 the defendants Roland Husner and Robert Masud met with a representative of the Plaintiffs in Zurich, Switzerland and stated that if they could not produce written third party verification that Hayman could monetize the SBLC's and fulfill the conditions of the loan agreements and the collateral agreement with the Plaintiffs by October 8, 2010, Hayman would quote "walk away from the deal" and return the Instruments to Metropolitan and Estrategia. Again, Hayman and the defendants have not met their promises.

51. On October 9, 2010 the defendants Roland Husner and Robert Masud met again with a representative of the Plaintiffs in Zurich, Switzerland and stated that if they could not produce written third party verification that Hayman could monetize the SBLC's and fulfill the conditions of the loan agreements and the collateral agreement with the Plaintiffs by October 18, 2010, Hayman would return the SBLC Instruments to Metropolitan and Estrategia. Hayman has not provided any information to the Plaintiffs as of October 29, 2010. To date Hayman has not returned the SBLC Instruments to the issuer as promised on October 9, 2010.

52. On October 21, 2010, Andrew Bacik, President of Hayman, sent an e-mail to the Plaintiffs that Hayman would provide an update from Roland Husner by October 24, 2010. EXHIBIT K. No such update was received from Hayman.

53. The Plaintiffs' have reasonably relied on Hayman's funding commitments and representations. The ongoing delays have caused severe consequential damage to each of the Plaintiffs and have put their business in jeopardy.

54. In addition to $1.35 million in fees paid to issue the SBLC's to Hayman, the Plaintiffs have also continued to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars to maintain their companies and hold business transactions in place. The Plaintiffs reliance on the Hayman contract and the Hayman failure to fund has placed the Plaintiffs at significant risk and potential loss of hundreds of millions of dollars.

55. On October 25, 2010 XXXX, ESP and XXXXXX, through counsel, sent written demand to Hayman, Husner, Bacik and Dieterich setting forth all these breaches and misrepresentations and demanding the immediate return of the instruments. Defendants have not complied with this demand. A copy of that demand letter is attached as EXHIBIT L.

56. Despite repeated requests from the Plaintiffs, Hayman has not provided customary and verifiable documentation as to Hayman's ability to monetize the SBLCs and fund the Plaintiffs.

57. For all the reasons stated herein and more, the Plaintiffs demand the return of the $1.5 billion in SBLC Instruments to Metropolitan and Estrategia immediately.

58. In November 2010 Hayman was contacted by the Defendants requesting the funding be completed per the agreements and that the SBLC be returned. Husner, Bleyer and Bacik each stated that they will not return any SBLC without a payment of at least $500,000 from the Defendants.

59. From May 2010 to November 2010 Hayman and its principals promoted their capability to fund by referencing Urban through conversations and E Mails with the Defendants. Defendants' representatives met with representatives of the Urban in August 2010 and Urban confirmed and promoted that Hayman was a viable lender and Urban had personally witnessed Proof of Funding related to Hayman lending capabilities.

COUNT I
BREACH OF CONTRACT
----------------------------------
(Hayman, Husner, Bacik, Dieterich)

60. Plaintiffs have met all their obligations under the loan agreements and collateral agreements and oral promises of Hayman.

61. Defendants Hayman, Husner, Bacik, Dieterich have not met any of their material obligations under their oral promises, loan agreements or the collateral agreements.

62. Defendants Hayman, Husner, Bacik, and Dieterich are in breach of these contracts, all and each.

63. As a consequence of these breaches, Plaintiffs XXXX, ESP and XXXX have lost in excess of $100 million in business opportunities and contracts, plus fees paid to Defendants in excess of $1 million, plus attorneys' fees and costs.

64. Plaintiffs have lost in excess of $1.35 million in costs, fees and expenses related to the issuance of the SBLCs, their unauthorized use by defendants, and defendants' failure to return them.

65. Plaintiffs demand specific performance per the contracts and agreements.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs ask the court to order SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE in favor of each Plaintiff and against each of the Defendants in the following amounts: XXXX: $1,100 Billion, ESP: $200 million and XXXXXX: $200 million, or in the alternative only if Hayman admits or is found that it cannot perform such financing deals, (a) injunction against Hayman, its principals and venturers from engaging in any financing deals or transactions and referral of these matters to the Illinois and Massachusetts Attorney Generals, (b) immediate return of the SBLCs; (c) $1.35 million in lost fees, (d) the expenses and costs each plaintiffs proves that have been incurred since Hayman breached these contracts and agreements, (e) lost profits as to each plaintiff as demonstrated by the evidence, and (f) any further and additional order and awards as the court deems just under the circumstances.

COUNT II
COMMON LAW FRAUD
-----------------------------------------
(Hayman, Husner, Masud, Bacik, Dieterich)

1-59. Plaintiffs restate and re-allege paragraphs 1-59 as paragraphs 1-59 of this Count II.

60. At all times material to this Count, Hayman, Husner, Masud, Bacik, Dieterich and Weisman, jointly and severally, made the aforementioned statements and/or remained silent when they each new these statements to be false.

61. Defendants made these statements and/or remained silent for the express purpose of gaining Plaintiffs money, confidence and reliance to send them fees and Instruments when they all knew that Hayman, Husner, Bacik and Dieterich, and their principals, attorneys, agents and representatives, all Defendants herein, never possessed the financial ability, wherewithal, banking relationships, experience or knowledge to monetize these Instruments for Plaintiffs Metropolitan and Estrategia nor fund Plaintiffs XXXX, ESP and XXXXX.

62. Plaintiffs reasonably relied upon Defendants and their representatives and statements, and thereafter took action to demand return of the Instruments

63. As a consequence of these frauds upon Plaintiffs by Defendants Hayman, Husner, Bacik, Dieterich, and Masud, jointly and severally, Plaintiffs XXXX, ESP and XXXXXXX have lost in excess of $100 million in business opportunities and contracts, plus fees paid of $1.35 million, plus attorneys' fees and costs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs ask the court to order SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE in

favor of each Plaintiff in the following amounts: XXXX: $1,100 Billion, ESP: $200 million and XXXXX: $200 million, or in the alternative only if Hayman admits or is found that it cannot perform such financing deals, (a) injunction against Hayman, its principals and venturers from engaging in any financing deals or transactions and referral of these matters to the Illinois and Massachusetts Attorney Generals, (b) immediate return of the SBLCs; (c) $1.35 million in lost fees, (d) the expenses and costs each plaintiffs proves that have been incurred since Hayman breached these contracts and agreements, (e) lost profits as to each plaintiff as demonstrated by the evidence, and (f) any further and additional order and awards as the court deems just under the circumstances.

In addition, Plaintiffs ask the court to award them PUNITIVE DAMAGES in the total amount of $10 million.

COUNT III
STATUTORY CONSUMER FRAUD
-----------------------------------------
(Hayman, Husner, Masud, Bacik, Dieterich)

1-59. Plaintiffs restate and re-allege paragraphs 1-59 as paragraphs

1-59 of this Count III.

60. At all material times to this Complaint, there existed as the law of Illinois a consumer fraud act commonly known as the CONSUMER FRAUD & DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICE ACT, 815 ILCS 505, ET. SEQ. as a set of regulations of business practices for consumer protection ("Illinois Act").

61. At all material times to this Complaint, and in the alternative, there existed as the law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts a consumer fraud act commonly known as the MASSACHUSETTS CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, Title XV, Chapter 93A as a set of regulations of business practices for consumer protection ("Massachusetts Act").

62. These statutory Acts pertained in all their respective provisions and amendments to the deceptive acts and omissions of Defendants, jointly and severally, stated and set forth in this Complaint.

63. All the Defendants, jointly and severally, violated the provisions of the Illinois Act and the Massachusetts Act by engaging repeatedly and knowingly, and in concert, in a pattern of conduct to deceive Plaintiffs for the unlawful monetary gain of Defendants.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs each ask for damages against Hayman, Husner, Bacik, Dieterich, and Masud, jointly and severally, in excess of $100 million as proven by the evidences, PLUS PUNITIVE DAMAGES in excess of an equal amount ($100 million), plus costs and fees and for an order from this court ordering each of the Defendants to return or cause the return of the four SBLCs, and for any additional relief and damages the court deems just under the circumstances.

RESPONDENTS-IN-DISCOVERY

ROSS GLICKMAN, JAMES NAPOLI AND KENNETH BARRY
------------------------------------------------------

64. As set forth in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13, Ross Glickman, James Napoli and Kenneth Barry are each jointly and severally principals in UHH and UHJV who likely possess personal knowledge at all pertinent times herein of Hayman, its principals, Hayman's sources of funding and operations, Hayman's use and experience with SBLCs, and potentially Hayman's dealings with one or more of the Plaintiffs.

65. Messrs. Glickman, Napoli and Barry, jointly or severally, also may be vicariously responsible to one or more of the plaintiffs based upon their roles, management or membership directly or indirectly with Hayman in UHH and/or UHJV.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs designate Ross Glickman, James Napoli and Kenneth Barry each as a Respondent-in-Discovery in this action pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-402.

Respectfully Submitted,

------------------------------------
Gary A. Grasso, attorney for Plaintiffs

Gary A. Grasso, Esq.
GRASSO BASS, P.C.
Willis Tower
233 South Wacker Drive
Suite 2101
Chicago, Illinois 60606
312.234.9100
********
760 Village Center Drive
Suite 200
Burr Ridge, Illinois 60527
630.654.4500
Cook County #: 38825


 

Jump to different Forum... 
Miami 2014 Presale

OffshoreConnect Free Sign Up

Stay informed & connected

  • Free Email Alerts on Breaking News
  • Free Access to Blogs by Industry Leaders
  • Free Contribute to Due Diligence Forums
Buttonwood Fraud Victims: Time to Kick Out The Clowns
David Marchant
Investors in the litigation funding criminal enterprise known as Buttonwood Legal Capital, Centaur Litigation and Argentum need to kick out the clowns who are managing the different facets of this hopelessly insolvent group and take control of the situation before