 | | |  | | |  | |  | | |
| Court cases Multiut |  |
Court Documents
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DYNEGY MARKETING and TRADE, a
Colorado Partnership, )
Plaintiff, )
) No. 02 C 7446
v. )
) Judge Nordberg
MULTIUT CORPORATION, an Illinois
Corporation and NACHSHON DRAIMAN, )
an Illinois Resident, FUTURE ASSOCIATES, )
an Illinois General Partnership, )
Defendants. )
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
Dynegy Marketing and Trade ("Dynegy"), by its attorneys, complains of Multiut Corporation ("Multiut"), Nachshon Draiman ("Draiman"), and Future Associates, as follows:
THE PARTIES
1. Dynegy is a Colorado general partnership with its principle place of business in Houston, Texas. The only partners of the partnership are Dynegy GP, Inc., a Delaware corporation which maintains its principle place of business in Texas, and DMT Holdings, LP, a Delaware limited partnership (f7k/a NGC GP, Inc.).
2. The only partners of DMT Holdings LP are (1) DMT G.P., LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and (2) DMT L.P., LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation.
3. The sole member of DMT G.P., LLC is DMT Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation which maintains its principle place of business in Texas.
4. The sole member of DMT L.P., LLC is DMT Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation which maintains its principle place of business in Texas.
5. Multiut is an Illinois corporation with its principle place of business located in Cook County, Illinois.
6. Future Associates has its principal place of business located in Cook County, and is, upon information and belief, an Illinois general partnership.
7. Draiman is an individual residing in Cook County, Illinois.
JURISDICTION
AND VENUE
8. This Court has jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(l), because the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states.
9. Venue is proper, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), because the defendants reside in and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this judicial district.
COUNTI (Breach of Agreement)
10. On or about January 1, 1994, Multiut signed a Natural Gas Sales Agreement with Natural Gas Clearinghouse ("NGC") for the purchase and sale of natural gas (the "Agreement"). A true and correct copy of the Agreement, with Exhibits A and B, is attached as Exhibit 1.
11. On July 7, 1998, NGC changed its name to Dynegy Marketing and Trade.
12. Under the Agreement, Multiut "[acted] as the duly authorized agent and representative of ultimate consumers and users of natural gas delivered to Multiut under the Agreement." (Agreement, page 1.)
13. Under the Agreement, Multiut is "responsible for collecting payment from its principals. The payment to [Dynegy] by Multiut on behalf of Multiut's principals shall be due on
-2-
the twentieth (20th) day of the month, or as to statements delivered after the tenth (10th), within ten (10) days after receipt of such statements." (Agreement, page 5, Article V-A (2).)
14. For natural gas Dynegy delivered to Multiut through December 2000, there existed an outstanding balance owed to Dynegy by Multiut of $1,664,501.06 (after offsets for payments made by Multiut through March 1, 2001).
15. Dynegy sent and/or Multiut received monthly invoices for the purchase and sale of natural gas under the Agreement from January 1, 2001 through December 31,2002 (the "Invoices").
16. Multiut breached the Agreement by failing and/or refusing to pay the Invoices in full when due.
17. As of April 30,2003, the unpaid principal balance due to Dynegy under the Invoices, after application of payments in accordance with Article V-A(3) of the Agreement, is $12,504,912.51 (the "Unpaid Principal Balance").
18. Under the Agreement, "Should Multiut fail to pay all of the amount of any bill when the same becomes due, Multiut shall pay [Dynegy] a late charge on the unpaid balance that shall accrue on each calendar day from the due date at a rate equal to two percent (2%) above the then-effective monthly prime commercial lending rate per annum announced by The Federal Reserve Bulletin from time to time . . . . " In addition, "the late charge . . . shall compound monthly." (Agreement, page 5, Article V-A (3).)
19. Under the-Agreement, "If either principal or late charges are due, any payments thereafter received shall first be applied to the late charges due, then to the previously outstanding principal due and lastly, to the most current principal due." (Agreement, page 5, Article V-A (3).)
-3-
2Q. As of April 30, 2003, the amount of interest due, in accordance with Article V-A(3) of the Agreement, is $593,997.74 (the "Interest").
21. Dynegy has performed all of its obligations under the Agreement.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of a judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgment, in an amount in excess of 5593,997.74, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
COUNT II
(Breach of Guaranty)
22. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as paragraph 22.
23. On or about October 31,1995, Draiman and Multiut executed a Guaranty (the "Guaranty"). A true and correct copy of the Guaranty is attached as Exhibit 2.
24. Under the Guaranty, Draiman and Multiut, jointly, severally, and unconditionally "[guaranteed] the payment to NGC promptly when due, or upon demand thereafter, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, the full amount of all obligation or indebtedness due to NGC under the Agreement."
25. Draiman and Multiut are jointly and severally liable for their obligations under the Guaranty.
26. Draiman and Multiut breached the Guaranty by failing to pay after demand, when due, the Unpaid Principal. Balance and the Interest.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of a judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgement, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
-4-
COUNT III
(Fraudulent Transfer In Law- Multiut)
27. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 26, inclusive, as paragraph 27.
28. At all relevant times, Draiman has been a director, officer and/or control ling shareholder of Multiut.
29. At all relevant times, Draiman has been a general partner in Future Associates or otherwise had authority and/or control over the business affairs of Futures Associates or an entity that had authority over the business affairs of Futures Associates.
30. Since at least January 1999, Multiut failed to make timely payment, when due, for some or all of the natural gas delivered by Dynegy.
31. On March 7, 2001, Ginger Wright of Dynegy and Lenore Kamien of Multiut ' agreed that Multiut owed Dynegy approximately $11,000,000, excluding interest.
32. On September 5, 2001, Dynegy representatives Pete Pavluk and Mark Ludwig met with Multiut representatives Lenore Kamien and/or Nachshon Draiman at Multiut's offices to discuss the amount owed by Multiut.
33. At that meeting, Mr. Draiman said that Multiut did not have funds sufficient to pay the debt owed and that Multiut would propose a payment plan by September 17, 2001.
34. In a September 17, 2001 letter, Multiut proposed a payment plan by which it would make monthly payments, from October 2001 through March 2002, in order to pay down the amount owed to Dynegy. The proposed payments ranged from $600,000 in some months to $1,800,000 in other months. According to Mr. Draiman, Multiut was, "insurefd] [sic] an additional annual profit of $2,000,000" and that, "in the meantime, [Multiut] was working on bank financing as well as funds from private sources for capital infusion."
-5-
35 . In an October 4, 2001 letter to Multiut, Dynegy responded to Multiut's September 17, 2001 proposal by asking for "a detailed formal plan by no later than Wednesday, October 10, 2001 that outlines bringing your account balance current by no later that [sic]-January 15, 2002."
36. In an October 12, 2001 letter, Multiut responded to Dynegy's October 4, 2001 letter by proposing "weekly payments for October through January." The weekly payments proposed by Multiut totaled $7,700,000.
37. Multiut did not make all the weekly payments described in its October 12, 2001
letter.
38. Multiut's check , dated August 23, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $300,000, was returned for insufficient funds.
39. Multiut's check, dated October 26, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $150,000, was returned for insufficient funds.
40. Multiut's check, dated November 9, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $200,000, was returned for insufficient funds.
41. Multiut check no. 1946, made payable to Dynegy for $200,000 and deposited on December 7, 2001, was returned twice due to insufficient funds.
42. On January 8, 2002, Multiut claimed it could not pay the amounts owed to Dynegy because of slow payment by the government in connection with Mr. Draiman's nursing homes.
43. On January 31, 2002, Multiut told Dynegy that it would make a $200,000 payment while it worked to raise cash through a factoring company and while it attempted to arrange a line of credit with Bank Leumi.
-6-
44. Multiut never raised cash through a factoring company or arranged a line of credit with Bank Leumi in 2002 or 2003.
45. In 2002 and 2003, Multiut did not have cash sufficient to pay the Invoices when due.
46. During 2000 and 2001, Multiut had creditors, in addition to Dynegy, to whom it did not make payments when due in the normal course of its business.
47. On June 19, 1998, Multiut entered into a Natural Gas Sales Agreement with WPS Energy Services, Inc. (“WPS”) for the purchase and sale of natural gas.
48. By June 2000, Multiut was indebted to WPS in the amount of $1,625,472 for natural gas delivered to Multiut prior to May 2000.
49. On September 27, 2000, Multiut gave WPS its promissory note in the amount of $1,570,337.87 (the “WPS” Promissory Note).
50. The WPS Promissory Note was a reaffirmation by Multiut of its debt to WPS incurred under the terms of the Natural Gas Sales Agreement between WPS and Multiut.
51. In the summer and fall of 2001, Multiut did not make payments, when due, in accordance with the WPS Promissory Note.
52. On September 27, 2001, WPS filed a lawsuit against Multiut alleging that Multiut defaulted on its obligation under the WPS Promissory Note by failing to make the required payments due on July 10, 2001, August 10, 2001 and September 10, 2001.
53. According to Multiut’s 2002 tax return, Multiut transferred approximately $2,000,000 (or more) to Future Associates, Draiman and/or other entities, including Draiman’s nursing home, hotel and/or other business ventures, at some time during 2001 when Multiut was indebted to Dynegy.
54. Multiut did not receive reasonably equivalent value for the transfer described in paragraph 53.
55. In the years 1999 through 2003, Multiut transferred cash or other assets to Future Associates, Draiman and/or other entities, including Draiman's nursing home, hotel or other business interests when Multiut was indebted to Dynegy.
56. Multiut did not receive reasonably equivalent value for the transfers desciibed in paragraph 55.
57. When Multiut made the transfers described in paragraphs 53 and 55 (the "Transfers"), Multiut was insolvent and/or became insolvent as a result of the Transfers.
58. The Transfers were fraudulent conveyances in violation of applicable laws.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of an order granting judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgment, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74; voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the Transfers to Multiut to be used to satisfy the debt to Dynegy; and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.
COUNT IV (Fraudulent Transfer In Fact- Multiut)
59. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 58, inclusive, as paragraph 59.
60. The Transfers were made with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud Dynegy, a creditor of Multiut and as-such constituted fraudulent conveyances in violation of applicable laws.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of an order granting judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgment, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74; voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the money to Multiut to be
-8-
used to satisfy the debt to Dynegy; punitive damages and such other relief as this Court deems
•
appropriate.
COUNT V
(Fraudulent Transfer in Law- Future Associates)
61. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 thorough 58, inclusive, as paragraph 61.
62. Future Associates accepted the Transfers of the assets without having provided adequate consideration for the Transfers.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of order granting judgment in. its favor and against Future Associates, voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the money to Multiut to be used to satisfy the debt to Dynegy; and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.
COUNT VI (Fraudulent Transfer in Law- Diraiman)
63. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 58, inclusive, as paragraph 63.
64. Draiman accepted the Transfers without having provided adequate consideration or reasonably equivalent value for the Transfers.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of order granting judgment in its favor and against Nachshon Draiman, voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the money to Multiut to be used to satisfy the debt to Dynegy; and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.
COUNT VII
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty)
65. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 58, inclusive, as paragraph 65.
-9-
66. When Multiut purchased natural gas from Dynegy in 2001 and 2002, Multiut was
*
insolvent.
67. Because Multiut was insolvent, Draiman, as a director and officer of Multiut, owed a fiduciary duty to Dynegy, as a creditor of Multiut.
68. Draiman breached his fiduciary duty to Dynegy by causing Multiut to take natural gas from Dynegy when Draiman knew that Multiut did not intend to and/or could not pay for it. Draiman also breached his fiduciary duties to Dynegy by making and/or authorizing the Transfers.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of an order granting judgment in its favor and against Draiman, for $ 12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgment, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74, and for punitive damages and any further relief that this Court deems appropriate.
DYNEGY MARKETING and TRADE
Barry S. Hyman (#6188142)
Helen Wilson
SCHIFF HARDIN & WATTE
6600 Sears Tower
Chicago, IL 60606
(312)258-5500 End
CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION
Israel Discount Bank, Ltd., a foreign company, ) Filed January 20, 2004
) Hon. Stuart A. Nudelman
Plaintiff, )
v. )
)
Nachshon . Draiman, ) 2004 L 000663
Defendant. ) JURY DEMANDED
COMPLAINT AT LAW
Plaintiff, Israel Discount Bank, Ltd. ("IDB") by and through its attorneys Peter B. Carey and Diana R. Lamphiere, for its Complaint against Defendant Nachshon . Draiman ('"Draiman"), states as follows:
1. Plaintiff IDB is a foreign company registered in the sovereign Nation of Israel and authorized to conduct business therein. IDB is a commercial bank that, among other things, extends credit to businesses for commercial purposes.
2. Nachshon . Draiman os a citizen of the United States of America and, on
information and belief, a resident of Cook County, Illinois. At all times material to this
Complaint, Draiman was an officer and agent for an Illinois corporation known as Jerusalem
Enterprises, Inc. On information and belief, Defendant Draiman was also the owner of
Jerusalem Enterprises, Inc., and controlled its operations in Israel through his actions and
those of other agents.
3. Jerusalem Enterprises, Inc. ("JEI") is an Illinois corporation that, among other things, was in the business of constructing improvements on real estate, including hotels, in the country of Israel.
4. From time to time during the 1990's Plaintiff IDE, at the special request of the Defendant Draiman, extended credit to JEI and provided banking services to it in Israel. In the beginning of 1999, JEI's debt to Plaintiff IDB equaled approximately $43,000,000.00.
5. From time to time, the Defendant Draiman, caused JEI to pledge certain security of Plaintiff IDB to secure the payment of the debts of JEI to IDB.
6. On or about July 31, 1998, and again on or about August 5, 1998, Defendant Draiman caused JEI to pledge $2,000,000.00 to IDB as security for its debts to IDB. Said $2,000,000.00 was in the form of three checks totaling $2,000,000.00 payable on United States bank accounts of JEI. On information and belief, Defendant Draiman caused the checks to be drawn, to be made payable to JEI, to be executed by JEI's agent in Israel, Elitzur Draiman, and to be delivered to the Plaintiff IDB as security for the debts of JEI.
Copies of the checks are attached hereto as Exhibits A, B and C, respectively.
7. At the time that Defendant Draiman caused these checks to be prepared,
signed and delivered to Plaintiff IDB, Defendant Draiman representedto Plaintiff IDB that
the checks were drawn on valid, existing bank accounts that contained sufficient funds to cover those checks at that time and would contain sufficient funds for as long as a balance on the JEI loans remained outstanding.
8. At the time that Defendant Draiman made the above representations of fact to
Plaintiff IDB, said representations were material to the continued extension of credit by the
2
Plaintiff IDB to Defendant Draiman's company JEI, and Defendant Draiman knew this. Said representations, at that time, were false in that with respect to the check drawn on Bank Leumi, the account had been closed on the date the check was drawn or was soon to be closed by Mr. Draiman and, in the case of the two checks drawn on the Success Bank of Lincolnwood Town Center, the bank account contained insufficient funds to cover those checks.
9. At the time these false material representations were made by Mr. Draiman to the Plaintiff IDB, Defendant Draiman knew that each representation was false. He also knew that the Plaintiff IDB was relying upon the truth of those representations in continuing to extend credit to his company, JEI.
10. At the time Defendant Draiman made the above described false representations, the Plaintiff IDB relied upon them as true and continued to extend credit to Mr. Draiman's company JEI in forbearance of any other rights that it then had against said company.
11. In January of 1999. when the debt of JEI to IDB was in default, IDB attempted to negotiate the above described checks given to it by Mr. Draiman as security for the debt of his company JEI.
12. Thereafter, in late January of 1999, Plaintiff learned that the above checks had
been dishonored, discovering for the first time that the representations made by Defendant
Draiman to Plaintiff IDB in July and October of 1998 were false. REG EIV E D
JAN 2 4 2006
7 MJCHAEL W, DOBBINS
6UERK, U.S. DISTRICT COUR>
13. As a direct result of the false representations made by Defendant Draiman to Plaintiff IDB, Plaintiff has been damaged to the extent of $2,000,000.00 plus interest since January of 1999 to the present.
14. At the time Defendant Draiman made the false representations described above to Plaintiff IDB, he did so deliberately and maliciously and with the intent to cause loss and harm to the Plaintiff IDB.
PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff Israel Discount Bank, Ltd. prays that judgment be entered against the Defendant Nachshon Z. Draiman in the amount of $2,000,000.00 plus interest, and punitive damages in the amount of $10,000,000.00.
Israel Discount Bank
Peter B. Carey, Esq.
Diana Lamphiere, Esq.
Law Offices of Peter B. Carey
11 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1600
Chicago, Illinois 60603
(312)541-0360
Attorney No. 53033 END
|
Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al 1:02-cv-07446. |
|
|
|
Court: |
|
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois - |
|
Case Title: |
|
Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al |
|
Case Number: |
|
1:02-cv-07446 |
|
Judge: |
|
Hon. John A. Nordberg |
|
Filed On: |
|
10/16/2002 |
SUMMARY
|
Case Number: |
|
1:02-cv-07446 |
|
Referred To: |
|
Honorable Michael T. Mason |
|
Jury Demand: |
|
Defendant |
|
Demand: |
|
$9999000 |
|
Nature of Suit: |
|
Contract: Other (190) |
|
Jurisdiction: |
|
Diversity |
|
Cause: |
|
28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
|
Case Updated: |
|
01/20/2005 |
NAMES
|
Party Name: |
|
Multiut Corporation an Illinois Corporation, |
|
Party Type: |
|
Defendant |
|
Attorney(s): |
|
Paul Thaddeus Fox |
|
|
|
(312) 456-8400 |
|
Firm Name: |
|
Greenberg Traurig, LLP. |
|
Firm Address: |
|
77 West Wacker Drive |
|
|
|
Suite 2500 |
|
|
|
Chicago, IL 60601 |
|
|
|
Alan Jay Mandel |
|
|
|
847-329-8450 |
|
Firm Name: |
|
Alan J Mandel Ltd |
|
Firm Address: |
|
7520 North Skokie Blvd |
|
|
|
Skokie, IL 60077 |
|
|
|
Ira P. Gould |
|
|
|
(312) 456-8400 |
|
Firm Name: |
|
Greenberg Traurig, LLP. |
|
Firm Address: |
|
77 West Wacker Drive |
|
|
|
Suite 2500 |
|
|
|
Chicago, IL 60601 |
|
|
|
Ronald F. Labedz |
|
|
|
(312) 456-8400 |
|
Firm Name: |
|
Greenberg Traurig, LLP. |
|
Firm Address: |
|
77 West Wacker Drive |
|
|
|
Suite 2500 |
|
|
|
Chicago, IL 60601 |
|
|
|
Steven C. Coberly |
|
|
|
(312) 456-8400 |
|
Firm Name: |
|
Greenberg Traurig, LLP. |
|
Firm Address: |
|
77 West Wacker Drive |
|
|
|
Suite 2500 |
|
|
|
Chicago, IL 60601 |
|
Party Name: |
|
Nachshon Draiman an Illinois Resident |
|
Party Type: |
|
Defendant |
|
Attorney(s): |
|
Paul Thaddeus Fox |
|
Firm Address: |
|
(See above for address) |
|
|
|
Alan Jay Mandel |
|
Firm Address: |
|
(See above for address) |
|
|
|
Ira P. Gould |
|
Firm Address: |
|
(See above for address) |
|
|
|
Ronald F. Labedz |
|
Firm Address: |
|
(See above for address) |
|
|
|
Steven C. Coberly |
|
Firm Address: |
|
(See above for address) |
|
Party Name: |
|
Future Associates an Illinois General Partnership |
|
128 |
|
01/10/2005 |
|
MINUTE ORDER of 1/10/05 by Honorable Michael T. Mason : As stated on the reverse of this order, plaintiff's motion to compel financial documents [124-1] and for sanctions is granted in part and denied in part. [124-2] Defendant's request for reconsideration is denied. (See reverse of minute order.) Notices mailed by judge's staff (hp) (Entered: 01/10/2005) |
|
|
|
|
|
Order Document for Later Delivery |
|
126 |
|
01/04/2005 |
|
BRIEF by Dynegy Mkg & Trade in opposition to defendants' motion for reconsideration and in support of Dynegy's motion to compel [95-1] (Attachments). (vmj) (Entered: 01/06/2005) |
|
|
|
|
|
Order Document for Later Delivery |
|
125 |
|
12/23/2004 |
|
MINUTE ORDER of 12/23/04 by Honorable Michael T. Mason : Plaintiff's reply to its motion to compel financial documents [124-1] and in response to defendant's motion for reconsideration to be filed by 01/03/05. Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 12/27/2004) |
|
|
|
|
|
Order Document for Later Delivery |
|
124 |
|
12/20/2004 |
|
MOTION by plaintiff to compel financial documents and for sanctions (Attachments); Notice. (hp) (Entered: 12/27/2004) |
|
|
|
|
|
Order Document for Later Delivery |
|
86 |
|
06/22/2004 |
|
RESPONSE by defendants to Dynegy's motion to compel [85-1] or for sanctions [85-2] and motion for protective order (Attachment). (hp) (Entered: 06/23/2004) |
|
|
|
|
|
Order Document for Later Delivery |
|
85 |
|
06/17/2004 |
|
MOTION by plaintiff Dynegy Marketing and Trade, to compel or for sanctions for failure to respond to discovery (Attachments); Notice. (hp) (Entered: 06/23/2004) |
|
|
|
|
|
Order Document for Later Delivery |
|
79 |
|
05/13/2004 |
|
MINUTE ORDER of 5/13/04 by Honorable Michael T. Mason: Status hearing held and continued to 9:00 a.m. on 6/29/04. Plaintiff has until 6/4/04 to answer or otherwise plead to defendant's first amended counterclaims. Fact discovery cutoff is extended to 7/19/04. Defendant's disclosure of expert and expert report by 8/2/04. Deposition of defendant's expert to be completed by 9/1/04. Plaintiff's disclosure of expert and expert report by 10/1/04. Deposition of plaintiff's expert to be completed by 10/15/04. Dispositive motion filing deadline of 8/16/04 is stricken. Plaintiff's motion for sanctions is granted in part and denied in part [78-1]. Defendants are ordered to respond to plaintiff's discovery requests by 5/27/04. Plaintiff's request for attorneys fees is denied. Mailed notice (air) (Entered: 05/14/2004) |
|
|
|
|
|
Order Document for Later Delivery |
|
77 |
|
05/12/2004 |
|
MINUTE ORDER of 5/12/04 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied. [44-1] Defendants' motion for leave to file the first amended answer is granted. [72-1] (See reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 05/13/2004) |
|
|
|
|
|
Order Document for Later Delivery |
|
76 |
|
05/12/2004 |
|
RESPONSE by defendants to plaintiff Dynegy's motion for sanctions [59-1] [65-1] (hp) (Entered: 05/13/2004) |
|
|
|
|
|
Order Document for Later Delivery |
|
78 |
|
05/10/2004 |
|
MOTION by plaintiff for sanctions (Attachment); Notice. (air) (Entered: 05/14/2004) |
|
|
|
|
|
Order Document for Later Delivery |
|
68 |
|
03/18/2004 |
|
MINUTE ORDER of 3/18/04 by Honorable Michael T. Mason : Motion hearing held. Plaintiff's second motion for sanctions is granted in part and denied in part. [65-1] Defendant is ordered to turn over any unproduced damage requests, invoices and related volumes for 2002 by 03/22/04. Plaintiff's request for dismissal of defendant's affirmative defenses and counterclaims and request for attonrey's fees are denied. Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 03/19/2004) |
|
|
|
|
|
Order Document for Later Delivery |
|
67 |
|
03/15/2004 |
|
AMENDED NOTICE of motion by plaintiff regarding motion for sanctions [65-1] (Attachments). (hp) (Entered: 03/19/2004) |
|
|
|
|
|
Order Document for Later Delivery |
|
64 |
|
03/08/2004 |
|
AMENDED NOTICE of motion by plaintiff regarding second motion for sanctions (hp) (Entered: 03/09/2004) |
|
|
|
|
|
Order Document for Later Delivery |
|
65 |
|
03/05/2004 |
|
SECOND MOTION by plaintiff for sanctions (Attachments); Notice (hp) (Entered: 03/11/2004) |
|
|
|
|
|
Order Document for Later Delivery |
|
61 |
|
02/17/2004 |
|
MINUTE ORDER of 2/17/04 by Honorable Michael T. Mason : Status hearing held and continued to 03/09/04 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff's motion for sanctions is granted in part and denied in part. [59-1] Plaintiff's request for an order dismissing the defendants' affirmative defenses and counterclaims is denied. Defendants to respond to outstanding written discovery regarding the breach of contract claims by 02/24/04. Defendants to respond to outstanding written discovery regarding the fraudulent transfer claims by 03/08/04. Plaintiff's request for attorneys fees incurred in bringing the motion for sanctions is granted. Fact discovery to close on 05/07/04. Expert discovery to close on 06/21/04. Dispositive motions to be filed by 07/21/04. No further extensions. Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 02/18/2004) |
|
|
|
|
|
Order Document for Later Delivery |
|
60 |
|
02/13/2004 |
|
ADDENDUM by plaintiff to their motion for sanctions (Attachments) [59-1]; Notice (hp) (Entered: 02/18/2004) |
|
|
|
|
|
Order Document for Later Delivery |
|
59 |
|
02/12/2004 |
|
MOTION by plaintiff for sanctions against defendants for failure to comply with discovery (Attachments); Notice (hp) (Entered: 02/18/2004) |
|
|
|
|
|
Order Document for Later Delivery |
END
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLLNQIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT - LAW DIVISION STATE FINANCIAL BANK, successor by
merger with Hawthorn Bank,
Plaintiff, v.
No. 04 L 008129
EMBASSY CARE ASSOCIATES, LP; NACHSHON DRAIMAN and RAM PERLSTEIN,
Amount Claimed: S4 17, 1 19.85 plus interest, attorney's fees and costs
COMPLAINT
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, STATE FINANCIAL BANK, successor by merger with Hawthorn Bank ("State Financial"), by its attorneys, JONES & JACOBS, and for its Complaint against the Defendants, EMBASSY CARE ASSOCIATES, LP; NACHSHON DRAIMAN and HAIM PERLSTEIN, states as follows:
1. Plaintiff, State Financial, is a banking association organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois, with its principal place of business 161 N. Delany Road, Gurnee, Illinois.
2.. Defendant, Embassy Care Associates, LP ("Borrower"}' is a limited partnership
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois with its principal of business at
7514 N. Skokie Blvd., Skokie, Illinois.
3. Defendants, Nachshon Draiman and Haim Perlstein ("Co-Borrowers") are citizens and residents of the State of Illinois, with their principal place of residence at 7520 N. Skokie Blvd.. Skokie, Illinois and 243 Kubbaro Road, Wiimstte, Illinois, respective!}'.
4. On or about September 25. 2003, Plaintiff made a loan to the Borrower and Co-
Borrowers in the principal amount of 2494,744.00 ("Loan").
5. The Lear; is evidenced by the Promissory Note dated September 25, 2002. made by
Borrower and Co-Borrowers payable to Plaintiff in the principal amount of S494.744.00 ("Note"), a
true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". -^
6. The maturity date of the Note was extended from Mach 25, 2004 to June 25, 2004
pursuant to the terms of the Change in Terms Agreement dated March 25, 2004, a true and correct
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B".
7. Default has occurred and exists under the terms of the Note, as extended by the Change in Terms Agreement, in that the Note fully matured and became due and payable on June 25, 2004, and has not been paid.
8. By reason of the foregoing defaults, Plaintiff has elected to declare the entire remaining balance of principal, interest and other charges to be immediately due and payable.
9. Tnere remains a principal balance due in the amount of $416.356.53, plus accrued interest to July 6, 2004 in the amount of $763.32. with per diem interest thereafter at the rate of $69.39 per day, plus late charges as provided for in the Note.
10. Pursuant to the terms of the Note, Plaintiff is entitled to recover its reasonable attorney's fees and costs herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, STATE FINANCIAL BANK, successor by merger with Hawthorn Bank, respectfully requests that this court enter judgment in its favor and against the Defendants, EMBASSY CARE ASSOCIATES, LP; NACHSHON DRAIMAN and HAM PEKLSTEIN, jointly and several!}', in the aggregate amount of principal, interest. late charges, attorney's fees and costs, and grant such other and further relief as may be just in the premises.
STATE FINANCIAL BANK, successor by merger with Hawthorn Bank,
|
TINA M-JACOBS One of Its Attorneys |
Richard C. Jones, Jr.. Esq.
Tina M. Jacobs, Esq.
Tonya M. Parravano, Esq.
JONES & JACOBS
77 W. Washington Street
Suite 1615
Chicago, Illinois 60602
(3121 419-0700
Attorney No. 34274
C'XDOCUME—1 WquinnVLOCALS—1 \Temp\iNotsE Web AccessComplainuooc^
0 END
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENT, 2ND DISTRICT
MULTIUT CORPORATION, An Illinois Corporation. Defendant.
04M2001804
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, ROBERT LUBIN by and through his attorney, PAUL GOODMAN, of PAUL GOODMAN & ASSOCIATES and as and for his Comlaint against the Defendant, MULTIUT CORPORATION, states as follows:
1 . That on September 7. 2002. the Plaintiff. ROBERT LUBIN -entered into
contract with MULTIuT CORPORATION for the sale of natural cas. See-Conlract
attached as Exhibit "A". !
. That the contract in paragraph 2 states as follows:
"MULTFJT hereby agrees to ship natural gas to CONSUMER according to the following Pricing Option: £.04 Percentage of Index Savings. Shipments may be subject to a $.02 per therm delivery charge." See
Contract attached as E |
|
|