UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

TCA FUND MANAGEMENT GROUP CORP., 

et al., 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

RECEIVER’S EIGHTH QUARTERLY STATUS REPORT

 Jonathan E. Perlman, Esq. 

 Florida Bar No. 773328 

 jperlman@gjb-law.com 

Receiver for the Receivership Entities 

 

 -andGENOVESE JOBLOVE & BATTISTA, P.A. 

100 Southeast 2nd Street, 44th Floor 

 Miami, FL 33131 

 Tel: (305) 349-2300 

Gregory M. Garno, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 87505 

ggarno@gjb-law.com 

Elizabeth G. McIntosh. Esq. 

 Florida Bar No. 1011555 

 emcintosh@gjb-law.com 

Attorneys for Jonathan E. Perlman, Esq., 

 Receiver for the Receivership Entities 

 

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 1 of 33
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

ii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 1

THE RECEIVER’S EIGHTH QUARTERLY STATUS REPORT ........................................ 3

I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 3

II. RELATED FUNDS ........................................................................................................... 4

III. ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE RECEIVER DURING THIS REPORTING PERIOD 4

A. The Receivership Bank Accounts .................................................................................... 4

B. Business Operations .......................................................................................................... 4

C. Accounting and Forensic Work ....................................................................................... 5

D. Receivership Entities’ Tax Returns ................................................................................. 5

E. Receivership Entities’ Technology Progress .................................................................. 6

F. Communications with Third Parties ............................................................................... 6

G. Website/Ongoing Communications ................................................................................. 7

H. Investor Interviews ........................................................................................................... 7

I. Receivership Entities’ Records ........................................................................................ 7

J. Investigation of Third Party Litigation Claims ............................................................. 7

K. Investigation of Investor, Subscriber and Redemption Claims, and Preparation of 

Interim Claims and Distribution Plan .................................................................................... 8

L. Net Winners Actions ......................................................................................................... 9

IV. CHAPTER 15 PROCEEDINGS .................................................................................... 10

V. CAYMAN ISLANDS ...................................................................................................... 10

VI. RECEIVERSHIP ESTATE ASSETS ........................................................................... 11

A. Cash Assets ...................................................................................................................... 11

B. Special Purpose Vehicles ................................................................................................ 11

1. SPV – Domestic ......................................................................................................... 11

2. SPV – International .................................................................................................. 12

3. SPV – Real Property and Other Assets .................................................................. 13

C. Loan Portfolio.................................................................................................................. 14

1. Sale of the Loan Portfolio ........................................................................................ 14

2. Continuing Overview of the Loan Portfolio ........................................................... 14

D. TCA Aerospace ............................................................................................................... 16

E. Third Party Litigation Initiated by the Receiver ......................................................... 17

F. Litigation Initiated by the Master Fund Against Borrowers ...................................... 17

VII. THE RECEIVER’S OBSERVATIONS ........................................................................ 27

VIII. CONTINUING WORK .................................................................................................. 28

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 2 of 33
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1. On May 11, 2020, this Court appointed Jonathan E. Perlman, Esq. as Receiver over 

Defendants and Relief Defendants TCA Fund Management Group Corp., TCA Global 

Credit Master Fund, LP, TCA Global Credit Fund GP, Ltd., TCA Global Credit Fund LP, 

and TCA Global Credit Fund, Ltd. See [ECF No. 5]. On May 18, 2020, the Court expanded 

the Receivership to include TCA Global Lending Corp., which served as a “tax blocker” 

for the TCA Global Credit Fund, Ltd. feeder fund investors. See [ECF No. 16]. 

2. At the time of the Receiver’s appointment, the Receivership Entities’ combined U.S. bank 

accounts had a total balance of $308,267. The Receivership Entities’ bank accounts at Axos 

Bank currently have a combined balance of $67,783,732. Income and expenses are 

reflected in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. 

3. The Receiver previously engaged B. Riley Advisory Services (“B. Riley”) to facilitate the 

sale of the Receivership’s loan portfolio. During this Eighth Reporting Period, B. Riley 

and the Receiver completed the first round of bidding, picked finalists, and are negotiating 

highest and best final offers. The Receiver expects to complete the sale of the loan portfolio 

during the next reporting period. 

4. During this Eighth Reporting Period, the Receiver also settled one of his fraudulent transfer 

lawsuits for $200,000. The Receiver issued additional demand letters to third parties 

seeking to claw back fraudulent transfers, and entered into tolling agreements with 

potential defendants in certain cases where the transfer recipients have agreed to discuss 

settlement. The Receiver also obtained Court approval to pursue claims for transfers to net 

winner investors and issued demand letters to significant net winners. The Receiver and 

his professionals also continued to investigate and prepare additional lawsuits seeking 

recoveries for the ultimate benefit of stakeholders. 

5. As promised in the last report, during this period the Receiver filed his Motion for Approval 

of Distribution Plan and First Interim Distribution [ECF No. 208], and the Court set April 

29, 2022 as the deadline for stakeholders to file or submit objections or comments to the 

proposed Distribution Plan. [ECF No. 215]. Seven stakeholders filed objections to the 

proposed Distribution Plan with the Court. During this reporting period, the Receiver spent 

a great deal of time responding to investor inquiries regarding their claims, investigating 

such claims and resolving them where possible. The Receiver and his team also began 

analyzing objections and comments, and preparing his reply in support of the Motion for 

Approval of Distribution Plan and First Interim Distribution that is due in June. 

6. During this Eighth Reporting Period, the Receiver also successfully concluded settlement 

negotiations with EdisonLearning. EdisonLearning agreed to pay the Receiver $5.4 million 

by June 30, 2022, and the Court approved the settlement. [ECF Nos. 250, 251]. If payment 

is not received, the Receiver will pursue his rights to a larger judgment. 

7. During this reporting period, the Receiver also successfully resolved litigation in New 

Zealand regarding competing ownership claims to JLE Holdings, LTD, a New Zealand 

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 3 of 33
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

2 

company in the electrical contracting business. As a result of the court-approved 

settlement, the Receiver is in a position to maximize the value of this receivership asset. 

8. The Receiver also attended mediation in order to resolve his claims upon the 

Receivership’s $5 million director and officer insurance policy and the Receiver’s claims 

against certain directors and officers. The mediation remains ongoing. If the matter cannot 

be resolved, the Receiver may have no choice but to file lawsuits against the appropriate 

parties. 

 

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 4 of 33
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

3 

THE RECEIVER’S EIGHTH QUARTERLY STATUS REPORT

 Jonathan E. Perlman, as court-appointed Receiver (the “Receiver”) over the Receivership 

Defendants TCA Fund Management Group Corp. (“FMGC”) and TCA Global Credit Fund GP, 

Ltd. (“GP”) (FMGC and GP are hereinafter referred to collectively as “Defendants”) and Relief 

Defendants TCA Global Credit Fund, LP (“Feeder Fund LP”), TCA Global Credit Fund, Ltd. 

(“Feeder Fund Ltd.,” and with Feeder Fund LP, “Feeder Funds”), TCA Global Credit Master Fund, 

LP (the “Master Fund”) (Master Fund, together with Feeder Funds, are the “Funds”), and TCA 

Global Lending Corp. (“Global Lending”) (Defendants, the Funds, and Global Lending are 

hereinafter referred to collectively as the “Receivership Entities”), by and through undersigned 

counsel and pursuant to this Court’s order appointing the Receiver [ECF No. 5], respectfully 

submits his Eighth Quarterly Status Report (the “Report”). 

I. BACKGROUND 

The Receiver filed his First Quarterly Status Report on August 4, 2020 (the “First Report”) 

and his Second Quarterly Status Report (the “Second Report”) on November 5, 2020. See [ECF 

Nos. 48, 70]. The First and Second Reports provide background information on the events leading 

up to the appointment of the Receiver and provide a detailed explanation of the Receivership 

Entities and the Receiver’s professionals.1

 The Report covers the period of February 9, 2022 to the 

date of this filing (the “Eighth Reporting Period”).2

 The Report contains assessments and 

 

1

 All capitalized terms will have the same meaning as defined in the Receiver’s First Report and 

First Interim Omnibus Application for Allowance and Payment of Professional Fees and 

Reimbursement of Expenses for May 11, 2020 through June 30, 2020. [ECF No. 48, 55]. See also, 

the Receiver’s Third Quarterly Status Report (“Third Report”) filed February 3, 2021 [ECF No. 

108]. 

2

 The Eighth Interim Omnibus Application for Allowance and Payment of Professional Fees and 

Reimbursement of Expenses for January 1, 2022 through March 31, 2022 covers a slightly 

different timeframe than the Eighth Reporting Period. 

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 5 of 33
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

4 

observations, which are subject to change as the Receiver and his professionals continue to conduct 

their investigation and review the affairs of the Receivership Entities and related parties. 

II. RELATED FUNDS 

As discussed in prior reports, two affiliated investment funds with overlapping 

management and employees, TCA Opportunities Fund, I-A, LP (“TCA Opportunities Fund”) and 

the TCA Special Situations Credit Strategies ICAV (an Irish Collective Asset Vehicle incorporated 

in Ireland) (“TCA ICAV”), marketed themselves as operating under the “TCA Capital” umbrella. 

During the Eighth Reporting Period, the Receiver continued to engage with the TCA ICAV 

Joint Official Liquidators regarding the $1.2 million claim the Receiver submitted in the TCA 

ICAV voluntary liquidation pending in Ireland, and interrelated loans and transactions. With 

regard to a significant promissory note owed by TCA Opportunities Fund, the Receiver attempted 

to realize a recovery as part of a mediation that took place during this Reporting Period. The 

mediation was not successful, and the Receiver believes he will have no choice but to pursue legal 

remedies. 

III. ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE RECEIVER DURING THIS REPORTING PERIOD 

A. The Receivership Bank Accounts

The Receiver continues to maintain six Receivership bank accounts at Axos Bank. As of 

the filing of this Report, the Receivership accounts have a total balance of $67,783,732. A schedule 

of the Receiver’s receipts and disbursements is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” 

B. Business Operations 

DSI continued to provide financial advisory services to aid in overseeing operations and 

maximizing the value of the Special Purpose Vehicles (“SPVs”), and other Receivership assets, 

including in particular with regard to JLE Holdings, Transmarine, and Cleland. During the Eighth 

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 6 of 33
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

5 

Reporting Period, the Receiver and his counsel negotiated a reduction in the services and amount 

charged for those services with Tierpoint (a cloud based storage system for electronic files of the 

Receivership Entities) for a net benefit to the Receivership Estate. 

C. Accounting and Forensic Work 

Since filing the Receiver’s Motion for Approval of Distribution Plan and First Interim 

Distribution [ECF No. 208] (the “Distribution Plan”) on February 28, 2022, the Receiver received 

over 350 inquiries from individual investors and/or investor nominees regarding the Distribution 

Plan. During this Eighth Reporting Period, the Receiver’s counsel provided Yip Associates with 

updated call/email logs containing the investor inquiries. Yip Associates analyzed the investor 

inquiries, including emails and any additional records provided, reconciled discrepancies between 

the Distribution Plan and the inquires, and assisted the Receiver’s counsel in preparing responses 

to these investor inquiries. Clarification based on investor inquiries resulted in various updates to 

the distribution analysis. 

In addition, Yip Associates continued to prepare litigation damages analyses at the request 

of Receiver’s counsel. This included a tracing analysis to identify the sources of funds used to pay 

redemptions during the period of January 2018 through May 2020 and prepared demonstrative 

flow charts. 

D. Receivership Entities’ Tax Returns 

During this Eighth Reporting Period, Rehmann, the Receiver’s tax consultant, prepared 

and filed extensions for the 2021 federal income tax returns for each of the Receivership Entities. 

Rehmann also began preparation of the work papers and the draft amended income tax return for 

the 2018 tax year for TCA Global Credit Master Fund, LP. Further, Rehmann began preparation 

of work papers required to prepare the amended income tax returns for the 2019 tax year for TCA 

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 7 of 33
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

6 

Global Credit Master Fund, LP. 

 Rehmann also continued to gather information needed to prepare the necessary income tax 

filings, prepared various tax forms, reviewed outstanding tax issues, coordinated tax compliance 

matters for the Receivership Estate. Rehmann continued to handle tax issues that arose prereceivership, tax issues relating to certain SPVs and asset dispositions, and execution of various 

IRS forms on behalf of the Receivership Entities. 

E. Receivership Entities’ Technology Progress 

The Receiver continued to receive documents, which are uploaded and maintained by EHounds on a secure searchable database. 

F. Communications with Third Parties 

During the Eighth Reporting Period, the Receiver served additional persons and entities 

with the Court’s appointment order, document requests, and demands for turnover of information. 

The Receiver communicated with 375 investors or investor representatives regarding his 

proposed Distribution Plan. In connection with these communications, the Receiver received and 

reviewed information investors provided to address questions and concerns. The Receiver then 

made case-by-case decisions related such concern. The Receiver’s current deadline for filing his 

reply in support of his Motion for Approval of Distribution Plan and First Interim Distribution is 

June 6, 2022. See [ECF No. 249]. 

 During this Reporting Period, the Receiver also filed a motion with the Court seeking 

approval of a process to make demand and pursue claims against “net winner” investors which 

also established settlement parameters. [ECF No. 225]. Following the Court’s granting of the 

motion [ECF No. 226], the Receiver sent out an initial tranche of over 60 demand letters to 

significant net winner investors. 

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 8 of 33
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

7 

G. Website/Ongoing Communications 

The Receiver continued to maintain the toll-free Receivership “Hotline” at 833-984-1101 

and 305-913-6731, and an email address for general inquiries: receiver@tcafundreceivership.com. 

The Receiver also regularly updated the Receivership website www.tcafundreceivership.com to 

provide new information for investors and interested parties. This Report will be posted on the 

Receivership website. The Receiver also plans to send the Report to investors for whom the 

Receiver has e-mail addresses. 

H. Investor Interviews 

The Receiver and his team, as discussed above, continued to communicate with investors 

and investment advisors (many of whom represent multiple investors). The Receiver also 

continues to maintain a repository of documents and information provided by investors. 

I. Receivership Entities’ Records 

The Receivership Entities’ records contain millions of pages of documents relating to: (1) 

assets, (2) operations, (3) personnel files, (4) marketing, and (5) compliance with industry norms 

and regulations. The Receiver and his professionals continued to review the Receivership Entities’ 

corporate business records. The Receiver and his team also continue to review data and 

information from various sources in response to document requests and subpoenas. 

J. Investigation of Third Party Litigation Claims 

During the Eighth Reporting Period, the Receiver and his professionals continued to 

investigate significant potential claims against numerous third party claims, as well as numerous 

fraudulent transfer claims. A number of fraudulent transfer claims that are being handled by GJB 

on a contingency basis have been filed. During this Eighth Reporting Period, GJB executed a 

settlement agreement in one case in the amount of $200,000 and received payment in full. GJB 

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 9 of 33
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

8 

continues to investigate and analyze all potential fraudulent transfer claims and other potential 

sources of recovery available to the Receiver. 

 The Receiver also continued to discuss resolving pre-suit claims the Receivership may 

have against former management of the Receivership Entities. In September 2021, Robert Press 

entered into a settlement with the SEC with respect to the SEC’s claims against him. Under this 

settlement, amongst other things, Press is required to pay to the Receiver $5,457,294 over 18 

months. On September 30, 2021, the Receiver received the first installment of $1,364,326. On 

April 8, 2022, the Receiver received an installment payment of $500,000. The SEC settlement 

does not resolve all of the Receiver’s claims against Press. 

As discussed in the last Report, the Receiver made a timely demand on certain insurance 

coverage totaling $5,000,000 maintained by the Receivership Entities and scheduled a mediation 

in an attempt to resolve pre-suit both the coverage claims, and the Receiver’s claims against certain 

directors and officers. During the Eighth Reporting Period, the Receiver attended the mediation, 

as well as a second mediation which occurred after the respondents produced preliminary financial 

information. The mediation remains ongoing. If the matter cannot be resolved, the Receiver may 

have no choice but to file a lawsuit against the appropriate parties. 

K. Investigation of Investor, Subscriber and Redemption Claims, and 

Preparation of Interim Claims and Distribution Plan 

On March 8, 2021, the Receiver filed a Motion to Compel Financial Institutions to Disclose 

the Investment Details of Beneficial Owners. [ECF No. 118]. During the Eighth Reporting Period, 

the Receiver and his professionals continued to finalize a comprehensive data collection and 

analysis project from information received from financial institutions, nominees, custodian 

account managers, financial advisors, and/or the beneficial owners directly disclosing the ultimate 

beneficial owners and their investment transaction history. GJB and the Receiver communicated 

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 10 of 33
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

9 

with nominees, beneficial owners, and financial institutions in attempts to secure their compliance 

with the Court’s orders and capture the data necessary to complete the analysis the Receiver will 

use in his formulation of a liquidation and distribution plan. As a result of GJB and the Receiver’s 

efforts, the initial investor pool grew from approximately 430 investors to over 1400 investors. On 

February 28, 2022, the Receiver filed his Motion for Approval of Distribution Plan and First 

Interim Distribution. [ECF No. 208]. Of the over 1400 investors and stakeholders, only fifteen 

filed objections or submitted any negative comment to the Receiver about the proposed 

Distribution Plan. The Receiver will address those objections and comments as part of his Reply 

Brief in support of his Motion for Approval of Distribution Plan and First Interim Distribution due 

in June. 

L. Net Winners Actions 

The Receiver’s investigation revealed that some investors did not receive any funds back 

on account of their investments, some investors received a portion of the funds they invested, and 

other investors received more back than they invested. For the investors receiving more back than 

they invested (the “Net Winners”), the Receiver calculated those total “profits” to be more than 

$70 million. The Receiver contends that any “profits” received in excess of the amount invested 

are transfers made to the investors that are avoidable and recoverable for the benefit of all investors 

(the “Net Winnings Claims”). Accordingly, on April 8, 2022, the Receiver filed a Motion for Leave 

of Court to Pursue Avoidance Actions and Approval of Proposed Procedures [ECF No. 225] (the 

“Procedures Motion”), which sought approval to pursue collection of the Net Winnings Claims 

from the Net Winners and to fix procedures for the litigation and settlement process to streamline 

the process. The Court granted the Procedures Motion. [ECF No. 226]. 

The court-approved procedures to pursue the Net Winnings Claims are as follows: (a) the 

Receiver will send demand letters to the Net Winners who received more than $10,000 in Net 

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 11 of 33
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

10 

Winnings; (b) the Receiver will include a proposed settlement agreement; (c) at the Receiver’s 

business discretion, and after conferral with the SEC, the Receiver may consider and/or offer 

discounts based upon a Hardship Discount or Reasonably Sustainable Defenses. See [ECF No. 

225]. 

During the Eighth Reporting Period, the Receiver sent 60 demand letters to Net Winners. 

The Receiver’s efforts to gather the necessary information and pursue collections for each of the 

Net Winners, as approved by the Court, is ongoing. 

IV. CHAPTER 15 PROCEEDINGS 

By stipulated order, this Court withdrew its reference of this Chapter 15 Case from the U.S. 

Bankruptcy Court for this District and directed that all further filings be made in this Receivership 

Case. During the Eighth Reporting Period, the Receiver continued to express willingness to the 

Cayman Islands-recognized joint liquidators for Feeder Fund Ltd. (“JOLs”) to discuss ways in 

which they might work together to increase amounts available for distribution to stakeholders, 

including potentially working together on foreign litigation and/or arbitration matters on a 

contingency basis. To date, no such cooperative proposal has been received. However, on April 

29, 2022, the JOLs filed objections to the Receiver’s proposed Distribution Plan and asked this 

Court to instead implement a distribution scheme in contravention of U.S. federal law that would 

likely pay nothing to investors, but would pay over $1 million to the JOLs who the Receiver 

believes have not provided any tangible benefit to the Receivership Estate. [ECF Nos. 236, 240, 

241]. 

V. CAYMAN ISLANDS 

During this Eighth Reporting Period, Collas Crill continued to provide the Receiver with 

advice and assistance regarding ongoing foreign law, regulatory and tax matters in the Cayman 

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 12 of 33
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

11 

Islands. 

VI. RECEIVERSHIP ESTATE ASSETS 

A. Cash Assets 

In accordance with the Receivership Order, the Receiver and GJB continued to investigate 

financial accounts associated with the Receivership Entities and advise of the asset freeze ordered 

by the Court. To date, the Receiver has recovered $74,078,705 for the Receivership Estate. 

The Receiver also maintains one additional BB&T account in the name of TCA Fund 

Management Group Corp. This account is a general lockbox to receive funds deposited from 

various loan portfolio clients and is maintained in case additional funds are received from portfolio 

clients, even though the Receiver and his Retained Professionals have directed loan portfolio 

clients to begin making payments to the Receivership accounts at Axos Bank. The TCA Fund 

Management Group Corp. account at BB&T has a balance of $308,267. 

B. Special Purpose Vehicles 

The Receivership’s assets include businesses that the Master Fund owns (typically as 100% 

member/manager) through SPVs. The Master Fund typically began its relationship with these 

businesses by providing secured debt financings. When the borrower failed to meet its obligations, 

the Master Fund sued and ultimately executed an Article 9 UCC foreclosure sale of the borrower’s 

assets to a newly formed operating entity owned by the Master Fund. 

Below is a summary of the current SPVs and their status, broken down into investment 

categories: 

1. SPV – Domestic3

Pivot Energy aka TCA Microgrid, LLC. The sale of TCA Microgrid assets concluded 

 

3

 For a detailed analysis of each asset and its position within the portfolio, please see Section 6.B 

of the First Report. 

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 13 of 33
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

12 

during the Fifth Reporting Period, as set forth in the Fifth Quarterly Status Report. [ECF No. 163 

at p. 6]. The sale of TCA Microgrid netted the Receivership Estate almost $52 million. The 

Receiver continued to address post-closing tax issues relating to TCA Microgrid during the Eighth 

Reporting Period. 

Transmarine. During the Eighth Reporting Period, Transmarine continued to operate on 

a positive basis without the need for capital infusion. However, the Receiver and his consultant 

Mark Iammartino at DSI have had to spend more time assisting with operational issues during this 

Eighth Reporting Period. The Receiver also continued to consider strategic options. 

 The Receiver and his professionals also continued to work with Transmarine and the tax 

attorneys it retained to resolve a tax liability claim asserted by the IRS. As explained in the Fifth 

Quarterly Status Report, Transmarine’s counsel has requested an administrative hearing to dispute 

the IRS claim. Unfortunately, because the IRS has still not scheduled the hearing, the Receiver has 

been unable to conduct a sales process. The Receiver will continue to work on a sales process to 

maximize value and will execute on such plan as soon as the IRS claim is resolved, but will also 

explore potential options regarding the sale of the company subject to the IRS claim. 

2. SPV – International 

Cleland Ltd. As discussed previously, the Receiver’s professionals in Scotland 

successfully obtained a limited defense against money laundering application from the UK 

National Crime Agency, a necessary step towards full re-registration of the legal entity and the 

real estate it owns. Scotland counsel also formally commenced proceedings to complete the 

registration. During the Eighth Reporting Period, the Receiver completed an environmental 

assessment to validate no issues are present that would inhibit the sale of the property. The 

Receiver and his advisors are now finalizing the registration of the company and discussing a 

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 14 of 33
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

13 

potential sales process with an interested party, which may include hiring a broker. 

JLE Holdings, LTD/Zeecol Finance LLC. SPV Zeecol Finance LLC is the record owner 

of JLE Holdings, LTD, a New Zealand company in the electrical contracting business in New 

Zealand. As discussed previously, a prior owner of JLE asserted a significant ownership interest 

in JLE and Zeecol and filed a lawsuit in New Zealand seeking legal determination and enforcement 

of such purported ownership interest. JLE previously obtained, with the Receiver’s approval, an 

independent valuation of the business for approximately $4.2 to $5.3 million USD. 

During this Eighth Reporting Period, at the conclusion of two lengthy mediations, the 

Receiver and other parties to the litigation executed settlement term sheets, and then a definitive 

settlement agreement, which the Receiver submitted to this Court for approval, and the court 

subsequently approved. [ECF. Nos. 218, 227]. Since then, the prior owner of JLE’s option rights 

to acquire the Receivership Estate’s loan and equity interests in JLE have expired. As a result, and 

consistent with the settlement agreement, JLE will now undergo a market sales process overseen 

by the Receiver and professionals. 

3. SPV – Real Property and Other Assets 

Galveston, Texas Real Property (owned through SPV TCA Acquisitions III, LLC). 

This “Property” consisted of three separate non-contiguous tracts totaling 2,134 acres in Galveston 

County, Texas, primarily wetlands accessible only by airboat. As discussed in the Receiver’s Sixth 

Report, the Receiver successfully closed on the sale of the parcels for $2,524,000, an amount equal 

to the highest of five disinterested and independent appraised values commissioned by the parties, 

on November 15, 2021, a few days prior to the beginning of the Seventh Reporting Period. [ECF 

No. 190 at pp. 14-15]. During the Eighth Reporting Period, the Receiver and his professionals 

attended to related administrative tax responsibilities. 

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 15 of 33
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

14 

Lexington, North Carolina Real Property. TCA Share Holdings, LLC (f/k/a TCA MCA, 

LLC (NV)), is the titleholder of certain real property located at 419 Salem Street, Lexington, North 

Carolina. The Master Fund is the 100% equity owner of TCA Shareholdings, LLC. During this 

Period, the Receiver dealt with local compliance issues and performed maintenance on the 

property. The Receiver will seek approval of the selling broker momentarily. 

C. Loan Portfolio 

1. Sale of the Loan Portfolio 

 The Receiver engaged B. Riley to facilitate the sale of the loan portfolio. B. Riley prepared 

marketing materials and sent solicitations to its extensive network of financial professionals and 

potential purchasers to participate in the sales process. These parties included investors, hedge 

funds, and private equity firms. 

 During this Reporting Period, prospective purchasers continued to conduct due diligence 

on the loan portfolio and submitted bids. The Receiver selected final bidders and B. Riley is in the 

process of negotiating the highest, best offer and a backup offer. The loan portfolio sale is expected 

to be concluded during the Ninth Reporting Period. 

2. Continuing Overview of the Loan Portfolio 

As explained in previous reports, the Fund prospectuses, annual financial audits, and 

monthly and other reports suggest that one of the Receivership’s most substantial and valuable 

assets are performing loans. As explained in prior reports, however, the Receiver and his 

professionals discovered that there were only two performing loans, and two others that were 

paying regularly, but far less than the monthly amount due under their loan agreements. 

 Given the upcoming sale of almost all of the loan portfolio, this Report only discusses 

loans for which there has been some notable activity or status to report during the Eighth Reporting 

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 16 of 33
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

15 

Period. 

Amian Angels (f/k/a Oncologix) 

Loan Origination: January 2014 

Loan Principal: $127,211 

Loan Interest: $1,640 

Last Payment: March 2022 

Remaining Balance: $128,850 

Status: Communicating and Making Payments 

Amian Angels made its monthly payments of $8,030.53 during this Reporting Period. 

Pacific Ventures 

Loan Origination: June 2017 

Loan Principal: $2,399,966 

Loan Interest: $821,088 

Total Balance: $3,221,054 

Last Payment: March 18, 2022 

Status: Communicating and Making Partial Payments 

Prior to the Receiver’s appointment, the Defendants permitted PACV to pay only $10,000 

(not the required $75,000) per month, to avoid a default so PACV could attempt to complete a 

capital raise. During the Eighth Reporting Period, the Receiver received two $10,000 payments 

and PACV continued its efforts to complete a capital or debt raise to pay off the purchase debt for 

both San Diego Farmers’ Market and Seaport Meat. This loan is included as part of the loan 

portfolio being sold. 

CD International Enterprises, Inc. 

Loan Origination: March 2014 

Last Known Balance: $760,458.51 

In about March 2014, Receivership Entity Master Fund made a series of loans to CD 

International Enterprises, Inc. totaling $2,000,000. In connection with the loan, Yue Jian Wang 

(“Mr. Wang”), the borrower’s principal, executed a guaranty and a security agreement to Master 

Fund with an “Assignment of Life Insurance Policy as Collateral” which assigned a certain life 

insurance policy Mr. Wang had with Guardian Life Insurance Company of America (“Guardian”) 

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 17 of 33
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

16 

to Master Fund (the “Policy”). After Mr. Wang refused to consent to turnover, the Receiver moved 

to compel turnover [ECF No. 188], which the Court granted. [ECF No.189]. On or about 

November 22, 2021, during the Seventh Reporting Period, the Receiver received the Policy 

proceeds of $233,818.01. The remainder of the loan obligation is part of the loan portfolio being 

sold. 

D. TCA Aerospace 

TCA Aerospace is a former SPV of Master Fund that was sold to affiliated entity TCA 

Opportunities Fund in 2019. TCA Opportunities Fund was managed and operated by the same 

management and employees that managed and operated TCA Receivership Entities, including 

Press, Schreiber, and Fickling. The 2019 transaction documents provided that Master Fund was 

selling TCA Aerospace to the Opportunities Fund for $2 million in cash plus a promissory note in 

the face amount of $8.5 million, of which only $5 million would be secured (by TCA Aerospace 

assets), plus an annual right to 50% profit share payments should a stated threshold be exceeded. 

On March 13, 2020, at a time when management was engaged in negotiations for entry of the 

consent judgment and agreed appointment of a receiver, management nonetheless executed a 

restated replacement note, apparently for no consideration that among other things eliminated TCA 

Opportunities Fund’s obligation to make monthly interest payments on the $8.5 million promissory 

note, and instead provided that no payments would be due (to the Receiver) for three full years. 

In October 2020, DSI visited TCA Aerospace and met with TCA Aerospace management 

to better understand the operations and business models for each of the TCA Aerospace operating 

companies. The Receiver requested and received some financial information from these operating 

companies in the Fourth Reporting Period, but the information was determined to be very stale 

and lacking in the detail required. After TCA Aerospace and its subsidiaries, Maney, and V&M 

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 18 of 33
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

17 

refused to provide current financial information regarding the entities to which the Receiver was 

entitled to under the Receivership Order and as creditor, the Receiver issued subpoenas, to which 

the subpoena recipients objected on grounds of relevance. The Receiver filed a motion to compel 

against Precision Aerospace, which was granted. See [ECF Nos. 168, 169]. 

Precision Aerospace Group (f/k/a TCA Aerospace) ultimately provided updated financial 

statements on a monthly basis for year-to-date through September 2021. DSI provided its 

preliminary analysis of current results to the Receiver. The Receiver and GJB analyzed the updated 

financial statements. Thereafter, the Receiver demanded TCA Opportunities Fund to permit 

inspection of all books and records at its expense, as authorized by the security agreement. 

As discussed elsewhere, during this Reporting Period, the Receiver was unsuccessful in 

resolving this debt obligation during a mediation. The Receiver continues to determine the best 

course of action to collect on the debt obligation-fraudulent transfer. 

E. Third Party Litigation Initiated by the Receiver 

During the Eighth Reporting Period, the Receiver and GJB continued its investigation into 

multiple third party transferees to evaluate the most effective way to recover via claw back and 

avoidance litigation. GJB negotiated an extension of the tolling agreement with one target to allow 

additional time to investigate and negotiate the potential claims with the transferees. Previously, 

the Receiver filed an avoidance and recovery of fraudulent transfer complaint against American 

Express. During this Eighth Reporting Period, the case was settled, and the Receiver was paid in 

full under the settlement agreement. 

F. Litigation Initiated by the Master Fund Against Borrowers 

 The Receiver and his counsel, GJB, continued to monitor and prosecute pending litigation 

matters involving the Receivership Entities, with a goal toward reaching a favorable resolution or 

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 19 of 33
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

18 

to final judgment. 

Given the upcoming sale of almost all of the loan portfolio, this Report only discusses those 

litigation matters for which there has been some notable activity or status to report during the 

Eighth Reporting Period. 

 TCA Global Credit Master Fund v. Montbriar, Inc., Paycation Travel, Inc., at al., 

Broward County Circuit Court, Case No. CACE-16-019532 

 Paycation Travel, Inc., Xstream Travel, Inc., and David Manning, v. TCA Global Credit 

Master Fund, Montbriar, Inc., Jeremy Monte, et al., Collin County Court, Texas, Case 

No. 199-03524-2016 

The Master Fund brought suit against the borrower and the guarantors for breach of a 

secured credit facility agreement and replacement note, pursuant to which TCA loaned the 

borrower a total of $7.78 million. Two of the corporate guarantors and its principal, Paycation 

Travel, Xstream Travel, and David Manning, all located in Texas, filed a preemptive suit in Texas 

state court against the borrower and the Master Fund. The Florida court stayed the Florida 

proceeding pending conclusion of the Texas proceeding under the first-to-file rule. The Master 

Fund reached a settlement in the Florida action with the borrower and remaining guarantors, in 

exchange for cooperation and assistance in the Texas proceedings. The Florida court entered an 

order administratively closing the Florida proceeding. The case may be re-opened on motion by 

any party. 

In the Texas proceeding, the guarantors pled claims against the borrower and the Master 

Fund for fraud and conspiracy in connection with the loans, among other claims. The Master Fund 

raised counterclaims in the Texas proceeding for breach of the credit facility agreement and notes, 

and for fraudulent transfer, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment. Based upon limited 

discovery, those claims include Manning’s transfer of at least $2 million in funds from Paycation 

to another travel services company, Traverus, which continues to operate. During the pendency of 

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 20 of 33
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

19 

the proceeding, $1.4 million in receipts held by a third-party credit merchant vendor, World Pay 

U.S., Inc., was placed in escrow with the Texas court, pending determination of the Receiver’s 

counterclaims to recover the loan proceeds. Both Manning and the Receiver claim entitlement to 

those funds, but it does provide an established source of recovery should the Receiver prevail. 

 The Receiver’s counsel has approached Paycation’s counsel to determine whether a 

settlement is possible. This loan and the associated foreclosure rights are included for sale as part 

of the loan portfolio. 

 TCA Global Credit Master Fund, L.P. v. Medytox Solutions, Inc., Health Technology 

Solutions, Inc. f/k/a Medytox Information Technology, Inc., et al., Broward County 

Circuit Court, Case No. CACE-18-018385 (21) 

On August 1, 2018, the Master Fund filed suit seeking $2,029,748.20 in principal, fees and 

interest against a defaulted borrower and guarantors on loan agreements in connection with a senior 

secured redeemable debenture. The total loan amount was $3,000,000. The borrower was a Nevada 

integrated medical solutions provider operating out of Palm Beach, Florida. Guarantor/Defendant 

Rennova Health, Inc. owns several other related medical solutions companies. 

Prior to the Receiver’s appointment, the defaulting parties did not vigorously defend this 

lawsuit. The Master Fund’s former counsel and counsel for the defendants agreed to put the 

litigation on hold to enter into informal settlement negotiations, which were never consummated. 

Since that time, Shutts & Bowen appeared as new counsel for the borrower and guarantors. During 

the Sixth Reporting Period, counsel for the Receiver successfully negotiated and settled this matter 

for $500,000 payable with an initial payment of $200,000, followed by six monthly payments of 

$50,000. As of May 1, 2022, all payments due under the settlement have been received, though 

some monies were received after the applicable due date. 

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 21 of 33
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

20 

 Intelligent Highway Solutions, Inc. v. TCA Global Credit Master Fund, L.P. v. Crescent 

Construction Company, Inc., Philip Kirkland, William D. Jones, Broward County 

Circuit Court, Case No. CACE 18-000934 (02) 

On April 30, 2018, the defaulted borrower, Intelligent Solutions, an Elk Grove, California 

company that services and provides energy-saving technology for intelligent highway systems, 

filed a pre-emptive lawsuit against the Master Fund, Intelligent Highway Solutions vs. TCA Global 

Credit Master Fund, L.P., 2017-00219822-CU-FR (Sac. Cty Sup. Ct., CA), asserting claims for 

unlicensed lending under California law among other claims. The borrower alleged that the Master 

Fund failed to provide advisory services (for which it agreed to pay $1.5 million) in connection 

with the loan funds it received ($631,855). The court dismissed the California action due to a forum 

selection clause in the loan agreements. The borrower filed an identical action in Florida. 

The Master Fund moved to dismiss the borrower’s claims, and filed counter and cross 

claims against the borrower, co-borrower and guarantors, seeking to recover for breach of the 

credit agreement, revolving note, and guarantees. After motion practice, the borrower abandoned 

its affirmative claims for relief, filed its answer, and borrower’s counsel withdrew from the case. 

Borrowers have now obtained new counsel. During the Seventh Reporting Period, the parties 

agreed to reopen settlement discussions, which the parties initiated during this Eighth Reporting 

Period. This loan is included for sale as part of the loan portfolio. 

 TCA Global Credit Master Fund, L.P. v. Independent Charter Academy Network, LLC, 

EdisonLearning, Inc., Edison Receivables Company LLC, Edison Schools, Inc., Edison 

Learning Limited, Bridgescape Learning, LLC, Provost Systems, Inc., Theodore 

Roosevelt College and Career Academy, Inc., Provost International, Inc., Learnnow, 

Inc., and Thomas M. Jackson, Broward County Circuit Court, Case No. CACE 18-

016887 (09) 

In January 2017, the Master Fund loaned $8.1 million to the borrower, EdisonLearning, 

Inc., an education services company that manages and operates public charter schools and provides 

online learning services in multiple states. The borrower and its principal, however, defaulted on 

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 22 of 33
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

21 

the loan and diverted funds otherwise available to the Master Fund in repayment, among other 

violations of the terms of the loan agreements. After the Master Fund brought suit to foreclose on 

the loan, on June 25, 2019, the parties executed a settlement agreement, by which the debtors 

agreed to market and sell the EdisonLearning E-Learning Business by June 25, 2020 for a 

minimum of $10.5 million, to be paid to the Master Fund to settle its remaining debts. The Receiver 

is entitled to file a consent judgment for that amount with the court. 

During the Eighth Reporting Period, the Receiver successfully entered into an amendment 

of the settlement agreement with EdisonLearning, which the Court approved. [ECF Nos. 250, 251]. 

As set forth in the Receiver’s Unopposed Motion to Approve Amendment to Settlement 

Agreement, EdisonLearning agrees to pay the Receiver the aggregate sum of five million four 

hundred thousand dollars ($5,400,000.00) (the “Settlement Amount”) by June 30, 2022 to satisfy 

the payment obligations contained in the Settlement Agreement. The settlement described therein 

(and in the attached First Amendment) reflects the realities and limitations of EdisonLearning’s 

operations, as well as a third parties’ ability to monetize the company’s operations and assets to 

repay EdisonLearning’s debt obligation to Master Fund. In the event of a default under the First 

Amendment, the First Amendment shall be deemed void, and the Receiver may pursue all rights 

and remedies he is entitled to under the original settlement. 

 TCA Global Credit Master Fund, L.P. v. American Gold Rush, LLC, Krystal LazaresScaretta, and Robert Scaretta, Broward County Circuit Court, Case No. CACE-17-

021221 

On November 21, 2017, the Master Fund sued the borrower and guarantors for

$1,073,439.95 plus fees and interest, due to the borrower’s default on an original $800,000 secured 

debenture, later increased to $1,040,272.21 under an amended secured redeemable debenture. On 

February 12, 2019, the court entered summary judgment against the borrower and Ms. LazaresCase 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 23 of 33
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

22 

Scaretta. On April 12, 2019, the Master Fund secured a default judgment against Mr. Scaretta. The 

Master Fund retained local counsel to domesticate the judgments in New York, where the 

guarantors previously held property. The guarantors have evaded service for collection on the 

judgments, but the Receiver learned that the guarantors do not have any assets, with one exception, 

a claimed original Picasso painting provided by guarantor Robert Scaretta as collateral for the loan. 

A preliminary appraisal determined that the work is not by Picasso. Additionally, ownership of the 

painting is disputed. During this Eighth Reporting Period, Receiver’s counsel was contacted by a 

broker for a potential buyer, who agreed to review the hi-resolution photographs and to further 

investigate, at the buyer’s expense, whether there is value in the work. This loan and judgment, 

but not painting, are included for sale as part of the loan portfolio. 

 TCA Global Credit Master Fund, L.P. v. Keith Eric Petron, RZNK, LLC, Tarps R Us, 

Inc., RZNK 2, LLC, Broward Collision Truck and Auto Repair Center, LLC, Broward 

County Circuit Court, Case No. CACE 18-024831 (14) 

 TCA 4675 NW 103 Avenue Sunrise, LLC v. RZNK 2, LLC, et al., Case No. CACE-18-

019377 (09) 

 Alliance Holdco, LLC v. TCA Broward Collision, LLC, COSO 19-4553 (61), CACE 19-

20581 (13), CACE 20-1309 (9) 

 Atlantic Southern Paving and Sealcoating, LLC v. TCA Broward Collision, LLC, et al., 

CACE 19-14792 (3) 

This series of related cases involves borrower Broward Collision, the recipient and obligor 

on two loans from the Master Fund in June and December 2017. Broward Collision eventually 

filed for bankruptcy on June 22, 2018 (In Re Broward Collision, Inc., Case 18-17492-RBR (Bankr.

S.D. Fla.)). The Master Fund filed a claim for $1.6 million pursuant to the loan transaction. The 

bankruptcy court approved the sale of Broward Collision to a Master Fund affiliate, TCA Broward 

Collision, LLC, for $332,985.50. TCA Broward Collision then purchased leases for two auto body 

shops located on properties in Sunrise and Lauderdale Lakes, Florida. The owner brought eviction 

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 24 of 33
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

23 

actions against TCA Broward Collision. Atlantic Southern Paving and Lease Corp. also brought 

actions against tenant Broward Collision on a construction lien for paving services and to repossess 

auto-body paint equipment. The Receiver turned over the premises to the landlord in connection 

with the shuttering of the business. 

The Broward County court entered an order staying the state court proceedings as to TCA 

Broward Collision on December 16, 2020. During this Eighth Reporting Period, Receiver’s 

counsel continued to monitor this proceeding. 

In the TCA 4675 NW 103 Avenue Sunrise, LLC v. RZNK 2, LLC, et al. matter, counsel for 

the Plaintiff was successful in reopening this proceeding, but the Defendant has filed a Notice of 

Appeal of the underlying February 2020 Order of Foreclosure. Receiver’s counsel continued to 

monitor this proceeding during the Eighth Reporting Period. 

 TCA Global Credit Master Fund, L.P. v. Groupe Mercator Transport US, Inc., 8894132 

Canada, Inc., 8895791 Canada, Inc., d/b/a Utc Air Ground, and Jean-Pierre Apelian, 

Broward County Circuit Court, Case No. CACE-19-000406 (14) 

On January 4, 2019, the Master Fund filed a complaint against the borrower and guarantors, 

based on their defaults on a loan under a series of transactions. The Master Fund arranged to 

provide financing to Groupe Mercator, a Canadian freight-forwarding firm, to pay off Mercator’s 

lenders. In connection with that transaction, the Master Fund allegedly arranged for another Fund 

borrower, David Fuselier, to operate the Groupe Mercator business through two new companies 

in Canada. The loan amount was $2.6 million; the current loan payoff, with interest, is $3.1 million. 

Receiver’s counsel has learned that Groupe Mercator Transport is an active company, with annual 

sales of $5.78 million. 

On March 4, 2019, the defendant guarantors filed counterclaims against the Master Fund 

and against former Chief Portfolio Manager, Donna M. Silverman. Defendants assert that Ms. 

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 25 of 33
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

24 

Silverman committed fraud in presenting Fuselier as trustworthy, when she knew otherwise. 

Defendants also claimed that the Master Fund charged an excessive rate of interest in violation of 

the Nevada High Interest Lending Statute.4

 However, the Master Fund alleged that Fuselier 

diverted funds owed to it, and directed Robert Gagnon, manager of the new companies, 8894132 

Canada, Inc. and 8895791 Canada, Inc. (the “Numbered Entities”), to withhold financial reporting, 

and not to deposit revenues into the lockbox as required in the loan agreements. Fuselier and 

Gagnon then allegedly moved all the assets of the Canadian Numbered Entities, which were 

essentially formed to collect and hold Mercator’s receivables to another company, ATL Canada, 

Inc., which is now conducting the same business. The Master Fund sued Fuselier separately, but 

he declared bankruptcy and the debt was discharged. Neither the borrower nor the guarantors ever 

repaid either loan. 

 The court set the case for trial on the September 2021 trial docket. The parties engaged in 

mediation and in non-binding arbitration as the court ordered. On August 16, 2021, the arbitrator 

entered an award in favor of the Receiver and against all defendants. On September 14, 2021, the 

court granted the Receiver’s Motion for Entry of Judgment to Confirm Arbitration Award Against 

Defendant Groupe Mercator, and entered judgment against Groupe Mercator for $4,399,475.57. 

On September 10, 2021, the court also granted the Receiver’s motion for summary judgment as to 

liability against the guarantors. 

A trial on damages took place on September 13, 2021. In October, the court entered a 

judgment in the amount of $1,500,000 against Apelian and in the amount of $4,392,640.24 against 

the remaining guarantor entities, jointly and severally. The Receiver plans to seek to recover its 

attorneys’ fees and will initiate efforts to collect on the judgment, including by domesticating the 

 

4

 The controlling loan documents require the application of Nevada law. 

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 26 of 33
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

25 

judgment in Canada and seeking to enforce it there. 

On November 18, 2021, the guarantors filed a notice of appeal of the final judgment. The 

appeal without bond does not, however, preclude execution on the judgment. Accordingly, the 

Receiver initiated steps to domesticate and collect upon the judgment in Canada, as well as to 

collect upon the judgment in the United States. Specifically, the Receiver served written discovery 

in aid of execution upon the defendants, and served defendants’ Florida counsel with subpoenas 

to obtain documents reflecting payments made by defendants’ to their counsel for legal services. 

The Receiver also served defendants’ counsel with writs of garnishment in an effort to obtain any 

funds being held by defendants’ counsel. In response to the Receiver’s receipt of one of the 

answers to a writ of garnishment, the Receiver has demanded a trial to determine whether 

defendants’ counsel is holding funds. 

During the Seventh Reporting Period, the Receiver also obtained an order granting its 

motion for attorneys’ fees as a result of defendants’ filing of a bad faith affidavit in opposition to 

the Receiver’s Motion for Summary Judgment. An evidentiary hearing is being scheduled at which 

the Court will determine the amount of fees to be awarded to the Receiver. 

During the Eighth Reporting Period, defendants filed their initial appellate brief arguing 

that the trial court erred by applying Nevada law to defendants’ fraud-based claims. The Receiver’s 

response brief is currently due to be filed on June 27, 2022. 

 8894132 Canada Inc. v. Semafo Inc. and TCA Global Credit Master Fund, LP, Quebec, 

Case No. 500-17-088880-151; In the matter of the Bankruptcy of 8894132 Canada Inc. 

(debtor) and TCA Global Credit Master Fund, LP (creditor), Quebec 540-11-010847-

194; In the matter of the Bankruptcy of 8895791 Canada Inc. (debtor) and TCA Global 

Credit Master Fund, LP, Quebec 540-11-010848-192 

In a proceeding related to the Groupe Mercator proceedings, the Master Fund retained 

Canadian counsel to institute involuntary bankruptcy actions against the Numbered Entities. 

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 27 of 33
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

26 

Counsel for the Receiver has been in contact with the Master Fund’s local counsel in Canada, who 

informed the Receiver that there are likely no assets in either of these proceedings. 

However, local counsel was also tasked to pursue a collection action against a South 

African mining company, Semafo, for its failure to remit $300,000 in payments owed to Groupe 

Mercator for freight services provided. The court previously stayed that proceeding indefinitely at 

the end of 2019, after a local terrorist attack in South Africa. The court re-set the matter for trial in 

early December 2020. 

Counsel for the Receiver participated in a two-day trial in Canada against Semafo and its 

local entities. In a victory for the Receivership Estate, on January 5, 2021, the court entered 

judgment in the Receiver’s favor and against Semafo, requiring Semafo to pay the Receiver 

approximately $318,000. Semafo appealed. During this Reporting Period, Canadian appellate 

court ruled that the Canadian defendant was not a corporate guarantor of the debt, and reversed the 

judgment. Because the remaining entities to be sued are located in Africa, and the matter is likely 

time-barred, the Receiver no longer anticipates any recovery in this matter. However, a demand 

letter was issued to the African entities. 

 AW Exports Pty Ltd. & Ors ats Australian Worldwide Pty Ltd (in liq) & Anor Supreme 

Court of New South Wales, Proceedings 2017/00040926; In re Pie Face Pty Ltd. (A.C.N. 

087 384 736) 

The Master Fund loaned monies to two entities in Australia, Australian Worldwide (a 

grocery exporter) and Pie Face (a fast food pie chain). Both of those entities are currently in 

liquidation. In Australian Worldwide, the Master Fund retained a receiver/liquidator under 

Australian procedure to pursue an adversary proceeding against the officer and directors of the 

debtor, for fraudulent transfers. The Master Fund did not prevail in that proceeding, and the court 

entered an award of fees and costs in defendants’ favor. Defendants have sought to recover 

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 28 of 33
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

27 

approximately $400,000 (AUS) from the liquidator in that proceeding and, in turn, from the 

Receiver. 

In the Pie Face matter, the Master Fund also engaged a receiver/liquidator, which has been 

served with a $1.9 million (AUD) tax liability from the Australian Taxation Office, for which the 

liquidator may potentially also seek indemnification from the Receivership for some amount. 

AW Exports appeared and filed an objection to the Receiver’s proposed Distribution Plan 

stating that they are foreign judgment holders deserving of trade creditor status in the amount of 

$425,575.92 AUD, plus post-judgment interest, and asking that the Court order that all trade 

creditors be paid immediately in full, prior to all investors, and that the Receiver immediately 

propose a dispute resolution process. [ECF No. 242]. The Receiver’s Motion for Approval of 

Distribution Plan and First Interim Distribution lists AW Exports and related parties as potentially 

having a creditor claim in such amount. 

VII. THE RECEIVER’S OBSERVATIONS 

 The Receiver’s priorities for the Eighth Reporting Period included completing and filing 

the Receiver’s Motion for Approval of Distribution Plan and First Interim Distribution, continuing 

to resolve matters necessary to sell remaining SPVs and their assets, progressing the sale of the 

Receivership’s loan and judgment portfolio, and continuing to investigate and file third party 

litigation claims, while seeking to settle such matters pre-suit wherever feasible. 

The Receiver made significant progress on the stated priorities. With respect to 

distributions, the Receiver and his team completed his proposed Distribution Plan and filed and 

served his Motion for Approval of Distribution Plan and First Interim Distribution on stakeholders 

and others. Even though the proposed Distribution Plan affects and compromises over 1400 

stakeholders’ claims, only fifteen objections or negative comments were received. It will be for 

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 29 of 33
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

28 

the Court to determine whether to approve the Receiver’s proposed Distribution Plan. The 

Receiver believes, however, that his proposed Distribution Plan is most fair and equitable, 

consistent with governing law, and significantly superior to the alternatives proposed by objectors. 

With respect to SPVs, the Receiver successfully settled significant litigation in New 

Zealand over the ownership of its operating business in New Zealand. Besides avoiding additional 

litigation expense and the possibility of loss on the merits, the settlement authorizes a market sales 

process that will maximize value to the Receivership Estate. Regarding sale of the Receivership’s 

loan portfolio, the Receiver and his investment banker, B. Riley, completed the initial bid process 

and is in the process of determining the highest and best offer, which the Receiver will submit to 

the Court for approval shortly. 

The Receiver also continued to investigate and pursue claims against various parties on 

behalf of the Receivership Estate, and to progress fraudulent transfer claims and demands already 

asserted or filed. As a result of these efforts, the Receiver successfully resolved one significant 

transfer claim for $200,000. 

The Receiver also obtained court approval of a process to pursue and resolve net winner 

claims, and issued the first tranche of demand letters in an effort to settle as many claims as 

possible without filing suit. 

Lastly, with respect to loan collection matters, the Receiver limited his team’s efforts given 

the upcoming sale of the majority of the loan portfolio. In appropriate cases, however, the Receiver 

obtained necessary orders to domesticate judgments, issued writs of garnishment, and issued postjudgment discovery. 

VIII. CONTINUING WORK 

During the next reporting period, the Receiver’s priorities will include obtaining final 

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 30 of 33
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

29 

approval of the distribution plan, making an initial distribution, and completing the sale of the 

Receivership’s loan and judgment portfolio. 

The Receiver and his professionals will also continue to seek to resolve matters preventing 

the disposition of remaining SPVs and other Receivership assets, and maximize value from such 

assets, as well as to resolve collection matters. The Receiver and counsel will also continue to 

investigate and file third party litigation claims, while seeking to settle such matters pre-suit 

wherever feasible. As previously mentioned, the value of assets in the Receiver’s possession 

(excluding litigation claims) is far less than stated on the Funds’ NAVs reported to investors and 

prospective investors. Accordingly, substantial litigation recoveries are essential to maximizing 

stakeholder distribution. The Receiver will seek counsel to handle such matters on a contingency 

basis to avoid risk of loss to the Receivership Estate wherever appropriate. 

Finally, the Receiver and his team will continue to handle investor inquiries and provide 

investors and investment advisors with information. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 Jonathan E. Perlman, Esq. 

 Florida Bar No. 773328 

 jperlman@gjb-law.com 

Receiver for the Receivership Entities 

 -andGENOVESE JOBLOVE & BATTISTA, P.A. 

100 S.E. Second Street, 44th Floor 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone: (305) 349-2300 

By: s/Elizabeth G. McIntosh 

Elizabeth G. McIntosh, FBN 1011555 

 emcintosh@gjb-law.com 

Gregory M. Garno, FBN 87505 

ggarno@gjb-law.com 

 Attorneys for Jonathan E. Perlman, Esq., 

 Receiver for the Receivership Entities 

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 31 of 33
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

30 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on May 25, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing document with 

the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served 

this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified via transmission or Notices of 

Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or 

parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. 

 /s/ Elizabeth G. McIntosh 

Attorney 

 

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 32 of 33
CASE NO. 20-CIV-21964-CMA 

31 

SERVICE LIST 

Securities and Exchange Commission v. TCA Fund Management Group Corp., et al. 

Case No. 20-Civ-21964-CMA 

Jean-Pierre Bado, Esq 

jbado@gjb-law.com

Paul Joseph Battista, Esq. 

pbattista@gjb-law.com

Michael A Friedman, Esq. 

mfriedman@gjb-law.com

Gregory M. Garno, Esq. 

ggarno@gjb-law.com 

John H. Genovese, Esq. 

jgenovese@gjb-law.com

Brett M. Halsey, Esq. 

bhalsey@gjb-law.com

Heather L. Harmon, Esq. 

hharmon@gjb-law.com 

Eric Jacobs, Esq. 

ejacobs@gjb-law.com

Elizabeth G. McIntosh, Esq. 

emcintosh@gjb-law.com

Jonathan Perlman, Esq. 

jperlman@gjb-law.com

Genovese Joblove & Battista, P.A. 

100 Southeast 2nd Street, Suite 4400 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Attorneys for Jonathan E. Perlman, 

Receiver 

Andrew O. Schiff, Esq. 

schiffa@sec.gov 

Stephanie N. Moot, Esq. 

moots@sec.gov 

801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1950 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Securities and 

Exchange Commission 

James J. Webb, Esq. 

jwebb@mitrani.com 

Mitrani, Rynor, Adamsky & Toland, P.A. 

1200 Weston Road, PH 

Weston, FL 33326 

Attorneys for Interested Parties Krystal 

Lazares-Scaretta, Robert A. Scaretta and 

American Gold Rush, LLC 

Andrew Fulton , IV, Esq. 

andrew@kelleylawoffice.com

Brian S. Dervishi, Esq. 

bdervishi@wdpalaw.com

Craig Vincent Rasile 

crasile@mwe.com

 

Gerald Edward Greenberg, Esq. 

ggreenberg@gsgpa.com

 

Gregg Alan Steinman 

gsteinman@sflp.law

Mark David Bloom, Esq. 

mark.bloom@bakermckenzie.com

Martha Rosa Mora, Esq. 

mmora@arhmf.com

Michael David Heidt, Esq. 

mheidt@aol.com

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 33 of 33