Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CV-81205-RAR

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v. 

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 

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

Defendants.

_______________________________/ 

ORDER AUTHORIZING RECEIVER’S SALE OF

REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 105 REBECCA COURT, PAUPACK, PA 18451

 THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Receiver’s Motion for Order Authorizing 

Receiver’s Sale of Real Property Located at 105 Rebecca Court, Paupack, PA 18451 (“Paupack 

Home” or the “Property”) [ECF No. 1624] (“Motion”), filed on June 28, 2023. Defendants Lisa 

McElhone and Joseph LaForte filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion (“Response”) on July 

5, 2023. [ECF No. 1631]. The Court having reviewed the Motion, the Response, and the record 

in this matter, and being otherwise fully advised, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion is GRANTED. In their Response, 

Defendants have misstated the financial position of the Receivership in a misguided effort to delay 

the sale of the Paupack Home. For instance, they consistently maintain the Receiver is in 

possession of merchant cash advance (MCA) receivables valued at approximately $192 million. 

Resp. at 4. But during multiple status conferences—all of which Defendants’ counsel has been 

present for—the Receiver has made clear that the bulk of these receivables are unrecoverable.

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1634 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 1 of 6
Page 2 of 6

Indeed, during the status conference held on June 29, 2023, counsel for the Receiver stated 

with disappointment that “his client is probably the largest holder of confessions of judgment in 

the City of Philadelphia,” referring to the many millions of dollars in MCA receivables the 

Receiver has been unable to collect due to bankruptcies and the overall commercial nonviability 

of the MCA debtors’ businesses. See Tr. of Status Conference [ECF No. 1625] at 16–17. 

Throughout the pendency of this litigation, the Receiver has consistently discovered that a

significant portion of the MCA loans that the Receivership entities issued were “commercially 

unreasonable.” Id. at 18. And the Receiver wishes to avoid “spending . . . good money to chase 

bad money” in an effort to optimize the ultimate payout to investors. Id. at 19. Accordingly, the 

$192 million figure that Defendants consistently cite is illusory. Yet, Defendants conveniently 

ignore all of these facts when framing their responses in opposition to almost every decision the 

Receiver makes. 

The Receiver has been charged with obtaining the maximum value possible for the real 

property currently within the Receivership Estate, the most valuable of which consists of a few 

residential properties, including the Paupack Home. Defendants’ counsel has failed to advance 

any plausible reason to doubt the Receiver’s sound business judgment to liquidate these properties 

at this time in order to maximize the Receivership assets for the benefit of defrauded investors. 

Moreover, Defendants overstate their position with respect to the four factors needed to stay an 

order pending appeal. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009). Their appeals before the 

Eleventh Circuit appear to have very little likelihood of succeeding on the merits, especially in 

light of the Eleventh Circuit’s recent affirmance of this Court’s Amended Final Judgment against 

co-defendant Joseph Cole Barleta. See SEC v. Complete Bus. Sols. Grp., Inc., No. 22-13811, 2023 

WL 4196949, at *1 (11th Cir. June 27, 2023). Moreover, the Court does not find the “irreparable 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1634 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 2 of 6
Page 3 of 6

injury” of losing a “vacation residence,” Resp. at 7, sufficient to outweigh the potential loss to 

defrauded investors if a stay is issued as to the pending sale. The public interest is best served by 

the efficient and fair administration of these claims.

Finally, although the Court will continue to afford Defendants an opportunity to state 

relevant objections, the Court will not countenance continued mischaracterizations of the 

Receivership’s financial position. The arguments advanced in recent responses filed by 

Defendants’ counsel restate objections that have already been carefully considered––and 

repeatedly rejected––by this Court. See, e.g., [ECF Nos. 1557, 1612, 1631]. Such objections sap 

precious judicial resources and delay efforts by Receiver’s counsel to follow this Court’s directive 

to achieve maximum recovery for the benefit of defrauded investors. Counsel is thus cautioned 

that the further filing of such repetitive and frivolous objections may result in the entry of 

sanctions. 

Based on the foregoing, and in accordance with its Order granting Receiver’s Motion for 

Order Authorizing Receiver’s Sale of All Real Property Within the Receivership Estate [ECF No. 

1486], this Court has reviewed the Declaration [ECF No. 1624–1] of Receiver Ryan K. 

Stumphauzer, Esq. regarding his proposed sale of the real property located at and commonly 

known as 105 Rebecca Court, Paupack, PA 18451 (Pike County, Pennsylvania, Deed Book 2531, 

Page R808) (“Paupack Home” or the “Property”), and ORDERS as follows:

A. The terms of the Standard Agreement for the Sale of Real Estate, a copy of which 

is attached to the Declaration as Exhibit A (collectively, the “Contract”), by and between the 

Receiver and J.S.1 (the “Buyer”) in connection with the Receiver’s proposed sale of the Property 

to Buyer are APPROVED;

1

 For security purposes, the Buyer’s identities have been redacted.

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1634 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 3 of 6
Page 4 of 6

B. The Court ratifies the Receiver’s execution of the Contract and authorizes the 

Receiver to perform all of his obligations under the Contract;

C. The Receiver is authorized to sell the Property to Buyer or Buyer’s designee, as 

contemplated in the Contract, in exchange for the aggregate sum of $3.3 million, subject to the 

applicable terms of this Order;

D. The Receiver is further authorized to pay any commissions provided for in the 

Contract and in connection with the consummation of his sale of the Property;

E. In accordance with the terms of the Contract, and without limiting those terms, 

Buyer or Buyer’s designee shall purchase the Property on an “as-is / where-is” basis, without any 

representations or warranties whatsoever by the Receiver and his agents and/or attorneys 

including, without limitation, any representations or warranties as to the condition of the Property, 

except as expressly set forth in the Contract. Buyer or its designee is responsible for all due 

diligence, including but not limited to, inspection of the condition of and title to the Property, and 

is not relying on any representation or warranty of the Receiver, except as expressly set forth in 

the Contract;

F. In the performance of his obligations pursuant to this Order, the Receiver’s liability 

in connection with the Contract and the sale of the Property to the Buyer shall be limited to the 

assets of the Receivership Estate (the “Estate”). Neither the Receiver nor his professionals shall 

have any personal liability for claims arising out of or relating to the performance of any actions 

necessary to complete the sale of the Property as provided for herein;

G. Provided Buyer or Buyer’s designee consents, in writing, the Receiver is hereby 

authorized to amend or otherwise modify the Contract, in writing, as necessary to complete the 

sale of the Property in the event that the Receiver determines, in his reasonable business judgment, 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1634 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 4 of 6
Page 5 of 6

that such amendment or modification is reasonable and necessary, will benefit the Estate, avoid 

the imposition of any liability upon the Estate, or is required pursuant to the terms of the Contract 

or any other amendment or modification thereto, provided that any such amendment or 

modification does not change the material terms of the Contract, including the parties to the 

Contract and the purchase price for the Property;

H. The Receiver is hereby authorized to take all actions and execute all documents 

necessary to consummate and otherwise effectuate the sale of the Property to Buyer or Buyer’s 

designee, including, but not limited to, the Contract itself, any other documents required to be 

executed pursuant to the Contract, and any related documentation, escrow instructions, or 

conveyance documents consistent with selling and conveying title to the Property to Buyer or 

Buyer’s designee. The Receiver shall execute all documents necessary to consummate and 

otherwise effectuate the sale of the Property as “Ryan K. Stumphauzer, Court-Appointed 

Receiver” or any reasonable variation thereof which clearly identifies the Receiver as a Courtappointed Receiver;

I. The Receiver is hereby authorized to execute and acknowledge a Receiver’s Deed, 

or similar instrument, conveying title to the Property to Buyer or Buyer’s designee (the “Receiver’s 

Deed”) to effectuate the conveyance, and cause the Receiver’s Deed to be recorded on the date on 

which close of escrow occurs pursuant to the terms of the Contract, or as determined by and 

between the Receiver and Buyer or Buyer’s designee;

J. Any licensed title insurer may rely on this Order as authorizing the Receiver to 

transfer title to the Property as provided in the Contract and as authorized herein;

K. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over any dispute involving the Receiver in 

connection with the sale of the Property; and

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1634 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 5 of 6
Page 6 of 6

L. The Receiver shall provide Buyer or Buyer’s designee with a certified copy of this 

Order, as entered by the Court, directly or through escrow, prior to the Close of Escrow, or as 

provided for in the Contract, and Buyer or Buyer’s designee shall acknowledge receipt of a copy 

of this Order, in writing. A certified copy of this Order may be recorded concurrently with the 

Receiver’s Deed, or at any time before the close of escrow, provided, however, that failure to 

record this Order shall not affect the enforceability of this Order, the enforceability and viability 

of the Contract, or the validity of the Receiver’s Deed.

Lastly, the Receiver shall endeavor to postpone the closing date of July 7, 2023, by one 

week to provide Defendants with an opportunity to retrieve their belongings. If the Receiver is 

unable to negotiate an extension of the closing date, the Receiver shall undertake all reasonable 

efforts to provide Defendants access to the property to recover their personal assets. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 5th day of July, 2023.

 _________________________________

 RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1634 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 6 of 6