Attached files
Exhibit 99.1
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,
-1-
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
-2-
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.
-3-
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
-4-
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.
-5-
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
-6-
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
-7-
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.
-8-
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.
-9-
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
-10-
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
-11-
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
-12-
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.
-13-
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
-14-
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.
-15-
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.
-16-
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
********************************************************************************
-17-
