JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
Plaintiff SureFunding, LLC (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Goodwin Procter LLP (“Defendant”) move pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) to extend the deadline for Defendant to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint. In support of this Motion, the parties state as follows:
1. The Complaint was filed on March 30, 2022. On April 27, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel, Ilyas J. Rona of Milligan Rona Duran & King LLC, served Defendant’s counsel, Richard M. Zielinski of Goulston & Storrs PC, with the Complaint by e-mail. In his e-mail, Mr. Rona included a Waiver of Service form, which Mr. Zielinski signed and return the same day.
2. Pursuant to Defendant’s waiver of service, Goodwin must answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint by June 27, 2022.
3. The parties are currently engaged in discussions that may make it unnecessary for Defendant to respond substantively to the Complaint. Two additional weeks should give the parties an opportunity to consummate those discussions.
4. On June 27, 2022, counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant met and conferred as to this Motion. The parties agreed to jointly file this Motion.
For the above-stated reasons, the parties respectfully request that the Court grant this Joint Motion to Extend the Deadline for Defendant to Answer or Otherwise Respond to the Complaint by two weeks (until July 11, 2022).
/s/ Richard Zielinski
Richard Zielinski (Bar No. 540060)
Joel E. Antwi (Bar No. 699562)
Abigail E. Fletes (Bar No. 707177)
GOULSTON & STORRS PC
400 Atlantic Avenue
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
(617) 482-1776
rzielinski@goulstonstorrs.com
jantwi@goulstonstorrs.com
afletes@goulstonstorrs.com
Counsel for Goodwin Procter LLP
/s/ Michael J. Duran
Michael J. Duran (BBO# 569234)
Ilyas J. Rona, Esq. (BBO# 642964)
MILLIGAN RONA DURAN & KING LLC
50 Congress Street, Suite 600
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
(617) 395-9570
ijr@mrdklaw.com
mjd@mrdklaw.com
Counsel for SureFunding, LLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on the 27th of June 2022 I caused a copy of the foregoing Joint Motion to be served via the court’s electronic filing system to the following counsel of record:
Michael J. Duran, Esq.
Ilyas J. Rona, Esq.
MILLIGAN RONA DURAN & KING LLC
50 Congress Street, Suite 600
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
(617) 395-9570
ijr@mrdklaw.com
mjd@mrdklaw.com
Counsel for SureFunding, LLC
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
s/ Abigail E. Fletes
Abigail E. Fletes
Executed on June 27, 2022
LIT COMMENTARY (JUNE 7, AND SAME AS AT JUNE 26, 2022)
This case has frozen after appearance of counsel, Michael J. Duran for Surefunding LLC in April 2022.
Has there been aidin’ and abettin’ for a quiet settlement by Duran, et al?
The judge should be askin’ to show cause, but we’re in Goodwin’s back yard…we’ll see if that pans out.
United States District Court
District of Massachusetts (Boston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:22-cv-10478-AK
Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP
| SureFunding, LLC v. Goodwin Procter LLP Assigned to: District Judge Angel Kelley Cause: 28:1332 Diversity – Legal Malpractice |
Date Filed: 03/30/2022 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 380 Personal Property: Other Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 04/27/2022 | 5 |
NOTICE of Appearance by Michael J. Duran on behalf of SureFunding, LLC (Duran, Michael) (Entered: 04/27/2022) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 06/26/2022 15:04:06 |
LIT COMMENTARY
This is purely an agreement between lawyers to delay as LIT shines the light on corruption by BigLaw, et al, it ain’t settled for any monetary consideration, that’s for Sure.
+++++
This stipulation is entered into by and between Plaintiff SureFunding, LLC (“SureFunding”) and Defendant Goodwin Procter LLP (“Goodwin”), by and through their respective attorneys of record, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (a)(1)(A)(ii).
The Parties stipulate to dismiss this action for a matter of form, which does not affect the merits of SureFunding‘s claims brought herein, without prejudice and without costs to either party.
Now ain’t this somethin’
The parties are currently engaged in discussions that may make it unnecessary for Defendant to respond substantively to the Complaint. Two additional weeks should give the parties an opportunity to consummate those discussions.https://t.co/OKYz6mvvkM
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) June 27, 2022
SureFunding, LLC v. Goodwin Procter LLP
(1:22-cv-10478)
District Court, D. Massachusetts
MAR 30, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: APR 1, 2022
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff SureFunding, LLC (“SureFunding”), by and through Michael F. Flanagan, in his capacity as the court-appointed Receiver for SureFunding, hereby states and alleges the following claims for legal malpractice against Defendant Goodwin Procter LLP (“Goodwin”):
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. Goodwin provided legal advice to SureFunding on its attempts to invest in short-term receivable financing for exports from India to Singapore, Hong Kong, and Dubai. Goodwin also drafted a master participation agreement to facilitate this through various intermediaries.
Yet Goodwin twice failed to make SureFunding a signatory to the master participation agreement and twice arranged for SureFunding to provide millions of dollars to an intermediary without any written contract for how the money would be spent.
Goodwin also failed to conduct adequate due diligence on a key intermediary (Tradepay) or its principals, who was offering this investment that was riddled with red flags.
SureFunding lost roughly $43.6 million.
2. Goodwin owed a duty to SureFunding to use the skill, prudence, and diligence as lawyers of ordinary skill and capacity possess in exercising and performing work for SureFunding.
As set forth more fully below, Goodwin’s advice and legal services fell below the standard of care, causing SureFunding to transfer millions of dollars to a third-party without any written contracts dictating how the money would be spent and whether it would ever be repaid.
THE PARTIES
3. Plaintiff SureFunding is a Delaware limited liability company, registered to do business in Nevada, with its principal place of business at 6671 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Suite 210, Las Vegas, Nevada 89119.
4. Defendant Goodwin is a Massachusetts limited liability partnership with its principal place of business at 100 Northern Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02110.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) because there is diversity of citizenship between the parties and because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
6. The District of Massachusetts is an appropriate venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1391, as the Defendant in this action maintains its principal place of business in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and thus resides within this District.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
SureFunding History
7. With the advice, counsel, and assistance of Goodwin, Justin Abernathy, and Jason Abernathy (together, the “Abernathys”) caused SureFunding to be formed on or about March 13, 2014 for the purpose of investing their profits from other businesses.
8. At all times relevant, Justin Abernathy, Jason Abernathy, or both of them directly or indirectly controlled SureFunding and/or were the Managers of SureFunding.
9. At all times relevant, Goodwin had an attorney-client relationship with SureFunding, provided legal advice to SureFunding, billed SureFunding for the services it provided, and was paid by SureFunding for the services.
10. SureFunding opened to outside investment in 2015 through the issuance of promissory notes, again with the advice, counsel, and assistance of Goodwin.
11. Receivables factoring is a form of financing in which the financier purchases the accounts receivable of a business at a discount with the expectation of being repaid the advanced funds, plus a premium, directly from customers of the business.
12. SureFunding was marketed to investors as a “private debt strategy” to “achieve fixed income-like returns while generating current yield.”
13. By way of an agreement prepared by Goodwin and dated January 1, 2016, SureFunding entered into an Agent Fee and Contingent Management Fee Agreement (the “Agreement”) with Marketplace Capital Strategies, LLC (“MCS”), MCS US, LLC (“MCS US”), Marketplace Advisors, LLC (“MPA”), and MPA US, LLC (“MPA US”).
14. Goodwin was legal counsel to SureFunding in all aspects of the Agreement.
15. At all times relevant hereto, Justin Abernathy, Jason Abernathy, or both of them directly or indirectly controlled MCS, MCS US, MPA and MPA US.
16. On or about August 9, 2017, Goodwin formed ECP Holdings III (“ECP III”) as an additional investment vehicle for SureFunding.
The Tradepay Relationship
17. One or more representatives of Tradepay Capital, LLC (“Tradepay”) approached the Abernathys in or around October 2017, allegedly seeking capital for financing products that Tradepay offered to manufacturing companies in India.
18. Goodwin, which promotes an “India practice” with vast expertise in private equity and capital markets, was legal counsel to SureFunding in all aspects of the Tradepay relationship.
19. Tradepay purported to provide short-term financing for exports to Singapore, Hong Kong and Dubai based on the invoices of products already accepted by importers (the “Tradepay Receivables”).
20. On or about February 2, 2018, Tradepay entered into a master participation agreement with ECP III and MCS, drafted by Goodwin on behalf of SureFunding, by which ECP III would provide money to Tradepay for alleged investment in Tradepay Receivables. In this work, Goodwin failed to take into account that EPC III received this money from SureFunding.
Goodwin failed to make SureFunding a party to the master participation agreement and there was no reference to SureFunding in the master participation agreement.
Goodwin's Hall of Shame
21. Goodwin failed to advise that there needed to be a contract between SureFunding and ECP III that dictated how SureFunding’s money would be spent and whether it would ever be repaid.
22. Goodwin was legal counsel to SureFunding in all aspects of the master participation agreement, including negotiation and drafting, but Goodwin did not provide for SureFunding to be a signatory to the master participation agreement.
23. The Abernathys and Goodwin did not make SureFunding a signatory to the master participation agreement, despite the fact that the real source of the funds was SureFunding.
24. Justin Abernathy, Jason Abernathy, MCS, MCS US, MPA, MPA US, Goodwin and each of them arranged for SureFunding to provide millions of dollars to ECP III without any written contract between SureFunding and ECP III to govern the rights, obligations, and relationship between them.
25. Goodwin should have but failed to ensure that SureFunding had the right to audit Tradepay or any other intermediary on short notice.
26. Goodwin should have but failed to ensure that SureFunding had a security interest and the right to file financing statements on Tradepay or any other intermediary.
27. On information and belief, Goodwin did not investigate whether Tradepay had other creditors, the identity of Tradepay’s other creditors, and the amount of money Tradepay owed to the creditors.
28. Goodwin should have but failed to conduct adequate or even any due diligence on Tradepay or its principals before SureFunding agreed to transfer funds to third-parties.
29. The Tradepay relationship was too good to be true.
Despite investing in high-yield debt, ECP III experienced zero defaults from Tradepay Receivables for more than a year, which should have been a warning sign compelling due diligence into Tradepay and its principals.
The Invoice Swap
30. On or about April 23, 2019, Tradepay advised ECP III that twenty-nine (29) payments on invoices of more than $1.8 million were returned due to “processing issues” and would not be paid on a timely basis.
31. Tradepay then proposed, and ECP III agreed, to “swap” the invoices with “processing issues” for other Tradepay Receivables with later maturity dates.
32. Justin Abernathy, Jason Abernathy, or both of them made the decision to swap invoices without first obtaining the consent of the noteholders in the Receivership Action, or even giving them notice.
33. The circumstances surrounding the invoice swap should have been a warning sign compelling Goodwin to perform due diligence into Tradepay and its principals.
Expansion of the Tradepay Relationship
34. Instead of reducing investment in the Tradepay Receivables, or waiting to see if the swapped invoices paid or experienced “processing issues,” Justin Abernathy,
Jason Abernathy, or both of them chose to expand the Tradepay relationship with an amended master participation agreement dated May 2, 2019.
35. The amended master participation agreement included more entities owned or controlled by the Abernathys, but again failed to include SureFunding as a signatory or reduce the relationship between SureFunding and ECP III to a written contract.
36. The Goodwin attorney who negotiated and drafted the original master participation agreement passed the SureFunding file to a different Goodwin attorney to negotiate and draft an amended master participation agreement, but like his predecessor, the second Goodwin attorney also neglected to make SureFunding a signatory to the amended master participation agreement.
37. This amended master participation agreement was drafted by Goodwin on behalf of SureFunding, by which ECP III would provide money to Tradepay for alleged investment in Tradepay Receivables.
In this work, Goodwin failed to take into account that EPC III received its money from SureFunding.
Goodwin failed to make SureFunding a party to the amended master participation agreement.
38. Goodwin once again failed to advise that there needed to be a contract between SureFunding and ECP III that dictated how SureFunding’s money would be spent and whether it would ever be repaid.
39. Justin Abernathy, Jason Abernathy, MCS, MCS US, MPA, MPA US, Goodwin and each of them twice arranged for SureFunding to provide millions of dollars to ECP III without any written contract between SureFunding and ECP III to govern the rights, obligations, and relationship between the entities.
40. Once again, Goodwin failed to conduct any due diligence on Tradepay or its principals before executing an amended master participation agreement with Tradepay, or in the alternative, they conducted inadequate due diligence.
41. As part of the amended master participation agreement, Justin Abernathy, Jason Abernathy, both of them, and/or entities under their ownership or control obtained a loan from Congressional Bank to fund more business with Tradepay (the “Congressional Loan”), and the Abernathys gave Congressional Bank personal guaranties on the loan (the “Congressional Guaranties”).
Tradepay Defaults
42. The Tradepay Receivables began to default in July 2019 and continued to default in August 2019.
43. Thereafter, EPC III engaged in progressively larger “swaps” of Tradepay Receivables and invested in new Tradepay Receivables.
44. On August 23, 2019, ECP III received the last payment on a Tradepay Receivable.
45. The Abernathys engaged a small law firm in Arkansas for assistance, which quickly discovered facts about Tradepay and its principals that would have caused any reasonable attorney to caution its client against any business with Tradepay.
46. For example, the law firm in Arkansas discovered known criminals such as Puspesh Kumar Baid (“PK Jain“) were operating Tradepay while wanted by the judicial authorities of India for financial crimes.
47. On information and belief, the Abernathys reached the conclusion by September 2019 that Tradepay was operating a Ponzi scheme, and they were the victims of fraud.
See; United States v. Baid (1:21-mj-00110), District Court, E.D. New York
48. On information and belief, Goodwin realized by September 2019 the significance of the absence of a written agreement between SureFunding and ECP III, discussed with the Abernathys the possibility of writing such an agreement after the fact, and decided not to do so.
49. As of September 2019, ECP III had completed 1,203 participations through Tradepay at an aggregate factored value of $95.4 million.
50. On information and belief, ECP III purchased all the failed invoices after the April 2019 invoice swap.
51. SureFunding has incurred damages in excess of $43.6 million for money provided to ECP III.
52. On information and belief, ECP III invested more than eighty percent (80%) of the money that it received from SureFunding in Tradepay Receivables.
53. In a frantic attempt to recoup losses, Justin Abernathy, Jason Abernathy, or both of them caused SureFunding to loan $2 million to a company called NCM Wireless on or about September 5, 2019 (the “NCM Loan”), without even verifying the legal name of the debtor.
54. The NCM Loan also fell into default and has a current balance due in excess of $2 million.
Appointment of a Receiver for SureFunding
55. SureFunding’s noteholders have filed a breach of contract action against SureFunding alleging the failure to repay more than $23 million in promissory notes.
See Brett Hatton, et al. v. SureFunding, LLC, Case No. A-20-812651-B, Dept. 13, Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada (the “Receivership Action”).
In the Receivership Action, the Honorable Mark R. Denton, District Court Judge (“this Court”) entered an “Order Clarifying Governance of the Receivership of SureFunding, LLC” on August 6, 2020 (the “Receivership Order”), which appointed the Receiver and set forth various powers of the Receiver, including, but not limited to, asserting claims for relief in SureFunding’s name.
In this regard, SureFunding now asserts claims for legal malpractice against Goodwin.
56. On or about December 4, 2020, SureFunding, through its court-appointed receiver, initiated an action in the District Court for Clark County, Nevada asserting claims against
ECP Holdings III, LLC;
Justin Ray Abernathy;
Jason Harris Abernathy;
Marketplace Capital Strategies, LLC;
MCS US, LLC;
Marketplace Advisors, LLC;
and MPA US, LLC.
See SureFunding, LLC v. ECP Holdings III, LLC, Case No. A-20-825862-B, Dept. 12, Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada.
57. On or about January 15, 2021, SureFunding filed a First Amended Complaint adding Goodwin as a party and bringing claims against Goodwin for legal malpractice.
58. On March 1, 2022, the claims against Goodwin were dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Justin Abernathy v. Expansion Capital Group, LLC, No. 1:2019mc00214 – Document 8 (D. Del. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 1/3/2020. (dlw)
COUNT ONE
(Legal Malpractice Against Goodwin Procter LLP)
59. SureFunding repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1- 58 above, as though fully set forth herein.
60. At all times relevant, Goodwin and SureFunding had an attorney-client relationship.
61. Pursuant to the attorney-client relationship, Goodwin owed a duty to SureFunding to use the skill, prudence, and diligence as lawyers of ordinary skill and capacity possess in exercising and performing tasks which they undertake.
62. Goodwin failed to perform and breached that duty by, among other things, twice failing to make SureFunding a signatory to the master participation agreement, twice arranging for SureFunding to provide millions of dollars to ECP III without any written contract, and failing to conduct any due diligence on Tradepay or its principals, or in the alternative, conducting inadequate due diligence.
63. As a direct and proximate result of Goodwin’s acts and omissions, SureFunding has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but in any event, well in excess of $75,000, plus prejudgment interest. All such damages were reasonably foreseeable.
64. As a result of Goodwin’s acts and omissions, SureFunding has incurred attorneys’ fees and costs for the protection of its interests.
WHEREFORE, SureFunding prays for Judgment as follows:
1. On Count One, for compensatory damages against Goodwin in an amount in an amount to be determined at trial;
2. For an award of pre- and post-judgment interest;
3. For an award of reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees; and
4. Any additional relief this Court deems just and proper on the evidence presented at trial.
PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL ON ALL ISSUES
Respectfully submitted,
SUREFUNDING, LLC, BY AND THROUGH MICHAEL F. FLANAGAN IN HIS CAPACITY AS COURT- APPOINTED RECEIVER FOR SUREFUNDING, LLC,
By its attorneys,
Dated: March 30, 2022
/s/ Ilyas J. Rona
Ilyas J. Rona, Esq. (BBO# 642964
Michael J. Duran, Esq. (BBO# 569234)
MILLIGAN RONA DURAN & KING LLC
50 Congress Street, Suite 600
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
Tel: (617) 395-9570
Fax: (855) 395-5525
ijr@mrdklaw.com mjd@mrdklaw.com
PHH Mortgage Corporation and the Anti-Consumer Agency CFPB’s Relationship is Undoubtedly Incestuous
Here’s proof that Wall Street has controlled and conspired with the US Govt in the Greatest Theft of Citizens Homes in American History.
Endorsing Bank Mortgage Fraud and Theft by Foreclosure in Massachusetts is the Legacy of Governor Charlie Baker
State law that reduces the time to sue for breach of a contract, incl. a mortgage contract, violates the U.S. Constitution’s Contracts Clause.
This is no longer 1788. This is a new world and a new America.
The Burkes fight for democracy and honest judges is not insular, and like the current Ukraine-Russian war, it affects millions of citizens.
Jason Abernathy
Testimonial: James Burgin
“Jason and his team at SureClick are super smart in all aspects of Internet Marketing. Jason was instrumental in the dramatic expansion of AOL memberships using many innovative online and offline methods. More recently Brandwithin worked with Jason and his team to expand Trump University’s network and sales. these guys are the real deal — very creative and results oriented — and a pleasure to work with.”
About Justin Abernathy
Marketplace Capital Strategies, LLC (MCS), founded in 2014, is an asset manager with a focus on financing non-bank lenders. MCS operates SureFunding, a private credit strategy focused on buying loans, participating in loans, and owning credit facilities and other structures where loans and other assets serve as collateral. The portfolio is diversified across small business loans, business receivables, and other cash flow based assets.
ILYAS J. RONA
Ilyas J. Rona is a founding partner of the firm. For well over a decade, Mr. Rona has successfully represented plaintiffs in various types of complex civil litigation. Mr. Rona has helped his clients obtain hundreds of millions of dollars in favorable recoveries.
Mr. Rona’s experience is diverse. He has successfully litigated large commercial cases, such as fraud claims, consumer protection actions, attorney and accountant malpractice, insurance disputes, and bankruptcy litigation. Mr. Rona has also successfully litigated qui tam actions under the false claims act. He has helped his clients and their families achieve significant compensation in cases for wrongful death or personal injury, including industrial/construction accidents, medical malpractice, and negligence cases. And he has helped his clients achieve fair compensation in employment cases involving wrongful termination and retaliation.
Mr. Rona focuses his practice on tough cases where complexity is the defining element. This includes fraud cases where the scope of conduct is massive or where vital proof is scattered across millions of pages of documents. And it also includes cases where plaintiffs must navigate complicated scientific, medical, technical, or financial issues in order to succeed. Despite such challenges, Mr. Rona has assisted clients in making sizeable recoveries.
Successful representations include the following matters:
• Mr. Rona was a member of the trial team that obtained a $142 million verdict against Pfizer for fraudulent marketing of the drug Neurontin for various off-label uses. This verdict was made possible because of a painstaking process to review more than 4 million pages of documents, which Mr. Rona oversaw. His familiarity with the documents and ability to locate key pieces of evidence was crucial to having the jury verdict of $47.4 million tripled under RICO.
• Mr. Rona assisted a construction worker in recovering $1.6 from the owner of a backhoe who negligently failed to ensure a safe work area, which caused the backhoe to strike the worker in back. The impact caused significant damage to his lower back, including a bulging disc, significant back and leg pain, and multiple surgical procedures.
• Mr. Rona conducted the discovery in a non-intervened qui tam case against Pfizer relating to the off-label marketing of the drug Detrol. Mr. Rona took the depositions of current and former employees of Pfizer and was primarily responsible for finding the key documents within a database of 1 million pages. His depositions and these key documents substantiated the relators’ claims of off-label marketing. As a result, Pfizer agreed to a $25 million settlement to settle the allegations of false claims.
• Mr. Rona assisted the family of an electrical sign installer in recovering $2.4 million in compensation from the Holyoke Mall’s owner after the sign installer was electrocuted while replacing interior neon lighting at the mall that was susceptible to becoming energized.
• Mr. Rona assisted a whistleblower in litigating a non-intervened qui tam case against Pfizer for its off-label marketing of the drug Neurontin. The qui tam action resulted a $430 million settlement with Pfizer and one of the largest recoveries by a relator in a non-intervened case.
• Mr. Rona assisted a bankruptcy trustee in recovering $7.4 million from insurance companies that provided insurance to Molten Metal Technology’s officers and directors. Mr. Rona managed the system to collect and review more than 600,000 pages of documents that were located in various states. This review helped demonstrate that the officers and directors inflated the value of company assets, issued incorrect financial statements, and concealed unresolvable technological, financial, and environmental problems. The trustee claimed that the officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties of due care, loyalty, and good faith to the company and creditors.
• Mr. Rona also assisted Molten Metal Technology’s bankruptcy trustee in recovering $9.6 million in settlement of claims that Lockheed Martin Corp. received an avoidable preference through a restructuring of its joint venture with MMT that was designed to avoid tax liability and remove the lone valuable asset before it entered receivership.
• Mr. Rona also assisted the bankruptcy trustee in recovering $3.5 million recovered to settle of claims that Molten Metal Technology’s other corporate partner, CBS/Westinghouse, received a fraudulent transfer by coercively divesting its half interest in a nuclear waste treatment plant be selling it a grossly inflated price.
Areas of Practice
-
Civil Litigation
-
Complex Litigation
-
Fraud Litigation
-
Consumer Protection
-
Bankruptcy Litigation
-
Wrongful Death
-
Medical Malpractice
-
Pharmaceutical Litigation
-
False Claims Act Litigation
-
Civil Rights
-
Appeals
Litigation Percentage
-
100% of Practice Devoted to Litigation
Bar Admissions
-
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, 2022
-
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 2005
-
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 2001
-
Massachusetts, 1999
Education
-
Northwestern University School of Law, Chicago, Illinois
-
J.D. – 1998
-
-
Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
-
A.B. (Magna Cum Laude) – 1995
-
Major: Political Science
-
Past Employment Positions
-
Milligan Coughlin LLC, Senior Counsel, 2012 – 2014
-
Greene LLP, Partner, 2009 – 2012
-
Greene & Hoffman, PC, Associate, 1999 – 2009
Pro Bono Activities
-
Health Care Access
-
Scientific/research misconduct
-
Authorship disputes
MICHAEL J. DURAN
Mike Duran is a partner at Milligan Rona Duran & King LLC. His practice includes many types of complex litigation, including business/fiduciary duty litigation, real estate litigation, civil rights, attorney ethics, class actions, pharmaceutical litigation, consumer protection, and bankruptcy litigation. Mike zealously protects his client’s rights and works tirelessly to achieve the best possible outcome for them in the most ethical and economical way.
Mike also has significant experience pursuing UFTA claw-back claims in state courts, federal district courts, and bankruptcy courts. A large part of his practice includes representing bankruptcy trustees in adversary proceedings against directors, officers, and other fiduciaries of bankrupt debtors.
Here are some of the cases Mike has worked on:
-
Cruickshank v. Dixon (In re Blast Fitness Group, LLC), Adversary Proceeding No. 18-01011
-
Darr v. Argueta (In re TelexFree, LLC), Adversary Proceeding No. 16-04006-MSH
-
Darr v. Alecci (In re TelexFree, LLC), Adversary Proceeding No. 16-04007-MSH
-
Cruickshank v. Benjamin (In re Galenea Corp.) Adversary Proceeding No. No. 18–01184
Prior to joining Milligan Rona, Mike worked for Rider & Quesenberry, LLP, a law firm that served as the court appointed Receiver for Valley Mortgage, Inc. (In Re: Valley Mortgage, Inc., No. 10-19101-SBB), a multi-million dollar real estate based Ponzi scheme.
During his undergraduate years, Mike ski raced for Boston College, where he earned USCSA Academic All American status, and served as a Team Co-captain in his senior year. He then attended the University of Minnesota Law School. Mike spent his final semester attending CU Boulder as a visiting law student. While there, Mike served as an assistant coach of the CU Varsity Ski Team.
Bar Admissions
-
Colorado
-
Massachusetts
-
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
-
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Education
-
University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, Minnesota
-
J.D.
-
-
Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
-
B.A.
-
Major: English / Philosophy
-
Professional Associations and Memberships
-
Boston Bar Association
Past Employment Positions
-
Stevens Littman Biddison Tharp & Weinberg, LLC, Associate
-
Rider & Quesenberry, LLP, Associate
-
Kaplan Strangis and Kaplan P.A., Law Clerk
Executive of International Factoring Company Indicted for $30 Million Fraud
An indictment was returned in federal court in Brooklyn yesterday charging Pushpesh Kumar Baid, also known as “PK Jain,” with wire fraud conspiracy and aggravated identity theft relating to a scheme to defraud investors in an international factoring company (the “Company”) of more than $30 million. Baid, the former Business Head of the Company, was previously arrested in January 2021 on a criminal complaint and will be arraigned on the indictment at a later date.
Jacquelyn M. Kasulis, Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, William F. Sweeney, Jr., Assistant Director-in-Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Field Office (FBI), and Thomas Fattorusso, Acting Special Agent-in-Charge, Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI), announced the indictment.
“As alleged, Baid and his co-conspirators actively misled investors about the nature, operation and investment strategy of an international factoring company, which caused more than $30 million in losses,” stated Acting United States Attorney Kasulis. “This Office will vigorously prosecute defendants like Baid who commit fraud as part of a scheme to enrich themselves at their investors’ expense.”
“As alleged, Baid and his co-conspirators used lies and material misrepresentations to defraud an investment firm responsible for managing funds on behalf of dozens of investors. When the scheme ultimately failed, the investment firm faced losses in excess of $30 million. As today’s action should demonstrate, we are committed to bringing to justice those whose greed leads them to commit criminal financial fraud,” stated FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge Sweeney.
“Regardless of how sophisticated the scheme or what it is called, simply put, Baid stole millions of dollars from his clients who put their trust in him,” stated IRS-CI Special Agent-in-Charge Fattorusso. “Criminal investigators of the IRS operate worldwide specializing in tracing the money to uncover elaborate criminal enterprises.”
Factoring involves the sale of an invoice to a third-party for a discount. In a factoring transaction, the seller of an invoice obtains immediate funding from a buyer, and the buyer of an invoice makes a profit when the invoice is paid in full. The Company purported to be in the business of buying invoices.
As set forth in court filings, Baid was the Business Head of the Company, which purported to be involved in factoring. The Company represented itself as an international factoring business run by an executive team experienced in factoring invoices in particular industries and geographic regions. Between approximately April 2017 and October 2019, Baid and others at the Company conspired to defraud an investment firm (the “Investment Firm”), which made investments on behalf of approximately 50 investors. Specifically, Baid and his co-conspirators induced the Investment Firm to invest millions of dollars in the Company through a series of material misrepresentations about the individuals who purportedly operated the Company; the nature of the Company’s business; the relationship between the Company and the entities with which it was purportedly factoring invoices; and the ways in which investor funds would be used. In July 2019, the Investment Firm stopped receiving payments on invoices that it had factored through the Company, and ultimately suffered more than $30 million in losses related to those invoices. In April 2020, the Investment Firm filed for bankruptcy.
The charges in the indictment are allegations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
The government’s case is being handled by the Office’s Business and Securities Fraud Section. Assistant United States Attorneys David Gopstein and Alixandra Smith are in charge of the prosecution.
The Defendant:
PUSHPESH KUMAR BAID (also known as “PK Jain”)
Age: 40
Miami, Florida
E.D.N.Y. Docket No. 21-CR-367 (MKB)
U.S. District Court
Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn)
CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:21-mj-00110-CLP-1
| Case title: USA v. Baid | Date Filed: 01/27/2021Date Terminated: 07/17/2021 |
| Assigned to: Chief Magistrate Cheryl L. Pollak | ||
| Defendant (1) | ||
| Pushpesh Kumar Baid TERMINATED: 07/17/2021 also known as PK Jain TERMINATED: 07/17/2021 |
represented by | Elizabeth E Macedonio Elizabeth E. Macedonio, P.C. 52 Duane Street 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 917-533-5965 Email: emacedonio@yahoo.com LEAD ATTORNEYFernando Latour Tamayo Coffey Burlington, P.L. 2601 S. Bayshore Drive Ste Penthouse Miami, FL 33133 305-858-2900 Fax: 305-858-5261 Email: ftamayo@coffeyburlington.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| Pending Counts | Disposition | |
| None | ||
| Highest Offense Level (Opening) | ||
| None | ||
| Terminated Counts | Disposition | |
| None | ||
| Highest Offense Level (Terminated) | ||
| None | ||
| Complaints | Disposition | |
| 18:1349.F |
| Plaintiff | ||
| USA | represented by | David Norwich Gopstein U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of New York 271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201 718-254-6153 Fax: 718-254-6076 Email: david.gopstein@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Designation: Government Attorney |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 06/16/2021 | 19 |
ORDER TO CONTINUE – Ends of Justice as to Pushpesh Kumar Baid Time excluded from 6/18/21 until 7/16/21.. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr on 6/16/2021. (Sica, Michele) (Entered: 06/23/2021) |
| 06/21/2021 | 18 | ORDER granting 17 Motion to Modify Conditions of Release as to Pushpesh Kumar Baid (1)Ordered by Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 6/21/2021. (Yuen, Sui-May) (Entered: 06/21/2021) |
