UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-CIV-81205-RAR

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS GROUP, 

INC. d/b/a PAR FUNDING, et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________________________/

DEFENDANT MICHAEL C. FURMAN’S AGREED MOTION TO MODIFY THE 

SCOPE OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDERS AND ASSET FREEZE

Defendant Michael C. Furman (“Furman”), by and through his undersigned counsel, 

respectfully moves this Court per agreement with the Plaintiff, Securities and Exchange 

Commission (“Commission”), and the Receiver, Ryan Stumphauzer, Esq. (collectively with 

Furman, the “Parties”), to modify the scope of the receivership orders and asset freeze [ECF Nos. 

42 (the “Asset Freeze Order”), 56, 141, and 182 (collectively, the “Receivership and Asset Freeze 

Orders”).

1

 Specifically, the Parties seek to modify the Receivership and Asset Freeze Orders to: 

1) permit Furman to conduct his insurance business and other businesses that are unrelated to the 

instant case; and 2) provide him with reasonable living expenses for two (2) months from monies 

traceable to monies that are personal and that Mr. Furman made from businesses unrelated to the 

instant case.

1 Furman reserves his right to seek to further modify such orders in the future.

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 184 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2020 Page 1 of 4
2

1. Other Businesses and Accounts

Furman is asserting his Fifth Amendment rights in this case. Based on the proffer of the 

undersigned counsel and the bank records reviewed to date, the Receiver and the Commission have 

determined that Furman maintains other entities and have agreed that these separate entities: 

Fidelis CRE Fund LLC (“CRE Fund”), Fidelis Senior Living Fund LLC (“Living Fund”), and

Furman Holdings Inc. (“Furman Holdings”), should not be not subject to Receivership and Asset 

Freeze Orders.2 Therefore, the entities can operate at Mr. Furman’s direction and expense rather 

than that of the Receivership Estate. 

If the Receiver’s analysis of the additional bank records reveals that Par Funding-related 

investor funds were deposited into accounts in the names of CRE Fund, Living Fund, and/or 

Furman Holdings exceeding the amounts previously generated from these Furman’s other 

businesses, the Parties have agreed for any such entities that were in Receivership to be placed 

back into the Receivership upon a Motion by the Receiver.

Further, Mr. Furman understands that by agreeing to this relief, the Securities and 

Exchange Commission and the Receiver are not giving any opinion, legal or otherwise, on any 

issue whatsoever regarding Mr. Furman’s entities that are being carved out of the Receivership 

and asset freeze. The only issue is whether these entities hold funds related to Complete Business 

Solutions Group and/or Fidelis Financial Planning.

2

 While neither Senior Living nor Furman Holdings are subject to the Receivership Order, these 

entities maintain personal funds and Furman wants to ensure that he may utilize such funds. United 

Fidelis Group Corp., which is a Receivership entity, is the manager of the limited liability 

company, CRE Fund. the Receiver will work with Furman in amending the corporate filings of 

CRE Fund to remove United Fidelis Group Corp. as its manager.

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 184 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2020 Page 2 of 4
3

2. Personal Living Expenses

The Parties agree that the Court should permit Furman access to reasonable living expenses 

from funds deposited into either personal account(s) or business account(s) to the extent that the 

funds may be traced to monies that are personal and that Mr. Furman made from businesses 

unrelated to the instant matter. Specifically, the Parties have agreed that Furman may utilize 

$7,800 per month for two (2) months commencing on the entry of an order on this motion. While 

Furman may apply for additional reasonable living expenses in the future, the Commission and 

Receiver may oppose such a request.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

The Court’s power to supervise an equity receivership and determine the appropriate action 

to be taken in the administration of the receivership is extremely broad. SEC v. Elliott, 953 F.2d 

1560, 1566 (11th Cir. 1992); SEC v. First City Fin. Corp., 890 F.2d 1215, 1230 (D.C. Cir. 1989). 

The Court’s wide discretion derives from the inherent powers of an equity court to fashion relief. 

Elliott, 953 F.2d 1560, 1566 (citing SEC v. Safety Fin. Serv., Inc., 674 F.2d 368, 372 (5th Cir. 

1982)). As an exercise of its broad discretion to fashion equitable relief, the Parties submit the 

attached proposed order for the Court’s consideration. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Furman submits that the Court should use its broad discretion 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 184 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2020 Page 3 of 4
4

to fashion equitable relief by entering the proposed Order.

 Date: August 21, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

SALLAH, ASTARITA & COX, LLC

Counsel for Defendant Michael C. Furman

3010 N. Military Trail, Ste. 210

Boca Raton, FL 33431

Tel.: 561-989-9080

Fax: 561-989-9020

/s/ James D. Sallah

Fla. Bar No. 92584

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 21, 2020, the foregoing document is being served 

this day on all parties, witnesses, and counsel of record by CM/ECF.

/s/James D. Sallah

James D. Sallah

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 184 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2020 Page 4 of 4