UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

 v. 

 Plaintiff 

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 

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

 Defendants 

______________________________________________/

Case No.: 9:20-cv-81205-RAR

AMENDED OPPOSITION NUNC PRO TUNC TO RECEIVER’S MOTION TO STAY

Dean Vagnozzi (“Dean”), Albert Vagnozzi (“Albert”), Alec Vagnozzi (“Alec”) 

(sometimes collectively referred to as the “Vagnozzis”), and Terry Kohler (“Kohler”), by and 

through undersigned counsel, Bochetto & Lentz, P.C. (“B&L”), hereby submit the following 

Amended Opposition Nunc Pro Tunc to the Receiver’s Motion to Stay (CM/ECF No. 2004). 

I. INTRODUCTION

In a scant four paragraphs of its motion to stay, relying mostly upon unpublished decisions, 

the Receiver attempts to distinguish Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., 603 U.S. ___ (2024), on 

the basis that Harrington is merely a bankruptcy case and not a receivership case. Unfortunately 

for the Receiver, Harrington completely eradicates the reasoning used by the Eleventh Circuit for 

granting receivership bar orders, and this Court should not allow the Receiver to offer Eckert 

Seamans Cherin & Mellot, LLC (“Eckert”), a bankruptcy discharge where Eckert fails to put all 

of its assets before its creditors like every other bankrupt. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 2019 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2024 Page 1 of 5
2 

II. ARGUMENT

Rather than respond to the Objectors to its proposed settlement and bar order, the Receiver 

moved on July 31, 2024—the day he was to respond—for a stay of the case in order to pursue 

mediation in light of Harrington. Although the Court granted the motion without time for any 

opposition to the Receiver’s motion to be considered, the Vagnozzis and Kohler file this 

opposition, nunc pro tunc, in order to preserve the record as to the legal sufficiency of the 

Receiver’s position1. 

The Receiver attempts to convince this Court that the Supreme Court’s Opinion in 

Harrington has no impact on the availability of a bar order in this case. He suggests Harrington

only overruled a line of cases that concern non-consensual bar orders as part of Chapter 11 

reorganizational plans, but did not overrule cases that entered bar orders in federal receiverships. 

See In re Seaside Engineering & Surveying, Inc., 780 F.3d 10170 (11th Cir. 2015); In re Mumford, 

Inc. 97 F.3d 449 (11th Cir. 1996). In support of its erroneous argument, the Receiver cites to an 

unpublished opinion, FTC v. Simple Health Plans, LLC 801 Fed. Appx. 685, 2020 U.S. App. 

LEXIS 3461 (11th Cir. Feb 5, 2020), which discusses both the Seaside and Mumford cases, and to 

an older case, In re U.S. Oil & Gas Litigation 967 F.2d 489, 492-93 (11th Cir. 1992). None of the 

cases upon which the Receiver relies support his arguments. Harrington upended the legal 

authority for a bar order in the Eleventh Circuit as it overruled the precedent for a bar order on 

which receivership cases relied.

As discussed in the Objection filed by the Vagnozzis and Kohler, In re U.S. Oil & Gas 

Litigation does not provide the safe harbor the Receiver thinks it does. 967 F.2d at 492-96. That 

case did not involve forcing non-consenting claimants to release claims against third-parties, 

1 The Vagnozzis and Kohler do not object to participation in mediation.

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 2019 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2024 Page 2 of 5
3

the draconian procedure the Receiver seeks here. Instead, the party objecting to the bar order, 

Pinnacle, settled with the plaintiff, and merely sought to preserve claims for “indemnity, fraud, 

and negligence” between itself and another settling defendant. Id. The Eleventh Circuit noted that 

an indemnity claim by the defendant was barred by law, and that the fraud and negligence claims 

were simply restated indemnity claims. Id. at 495-96. Thus, all the claims before the court in In re 

U.S. Oil & Gas Litigation with respect to its bar order were actually brought between parties in 

the case—there was no benefitting non-party like Eckert—and the court’s approval of the bar order 

was stated in the terms of “cross-claims,” not nonparties outside the jurisdiction of the court. Id. 

at 496 (“If the cross-claims that the district court seeks to extinguish through the entry of a bar 

order arise out of the same facts as those underlying the litigation, then the district court may 

exercise its discretion to bar such claims in reaching a fair and equitable settlement.”).

The Receiver’s reliance on the unpublished Eleventh Circuit cases is similarly flawed. The 

unpublished decision in In Re Centro Grp., LLC, No. 21-11364, 2021 WL 5158001, at *3 (11th 

Cir. 2021) (unreported) draws a distinction between In re Munford, 97 F.3d 449 (11th Cir. 1996), 

and In re Seaside Engineering & Surveying, Inc., 780 F.3d 1070 (11th Cir. 2015), two Chapter 11 

bankruptcy bar order cases, based on the goal sought by the bar order: settlement in Munford and 

reorganization in Seaside. No. 21-11364, 2021 WL 5158001, at *3. After Harrington, this is a 

distinction without a difference: the United States Supreme Court has found no support for either 

the Munford approach or the Seaside approach, because the Bankruptcy Code allows neither cases’ 

logic.

In Munford, the Eleventh Circuit approved the entry of a bar order against a non-debtor on 

the basis that 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) permitted this under the bankruptcy code. The Eleventh Circuit 

enumerated additional policy reasons for this decision. 97 F.3d 449, 455 (11th Cir. 1996). Munford

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 2019 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2024 Page 3 of 5
4 

has therefore been expressly overruled by Harrington, which invalidates 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) as a 

basis for bar orders and declines to consider the policy reasons advanced by the Eleventh Circuit 

as weighing in favor of bar orders. Harrington expressly overruled Seaside. Harrington, 603 U.S.

___, *6-7 n.1. Seaside reiterated the basis of bar orders benefitting non- debtors on 11 U.S.C. § 

105(a), relied on Munford, and incorporated the factors from In re Dow Corning Corp., 280 F.3d 

648, 658 (6th Cir. 2002), which was also abrogated by Harrington. 603 U.S. ___, * 6-7 n. 1. 

For these reasons, the Receiver’s legal position on Harrington should be rejected. 

Harrington represents a sea change in the availability of bar orders. The Receiver’s legal 

maneuvering and desperate attempts to resurrect the precedent supporting bar orders cannot 

change the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling2

. 

Respectfully submitted, 

BOCHETTO & LENTZ, P.C.

1524 Locust Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19102 

gbochetto@bochettoandlentz.com

mminsky@bochettoandlentz.com

/s/ Matthew L. Minsky 

By: _________________________ 

 George Bochetto, Esquire 

Pro Hac Vice 

 Matthew L. Minsky, Esquire 

 FBN: 1033408 

 Attorneys for Dean Vagnozzi, Albert 

 Vagnozzi, Alec Vagnozzi and Terry 

Kohler

2 Even assuming arguendo that Harrington provides the Receiver the authority to enter a bar order without consent of 

the affected claimants, applying the Munford fairness and equitable analysis would still result in the denial of such a 

rare bar order.

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 2019 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2024 Page 4 of 5
5 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing document was electronically filed August 29, 

2024, with the CM/ECF filing portal, which will send a notice of electronic filing to all counsel of 

record.

Respectfully submitted, this 29th day of August 2024. 

BOCHETTO & LENTZ, P.C.

1524 Locust Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19102 

gbochetto@bochettoandlentz.com

mminsky@bochettoandlentz.com

 

/s/ Matthew L. Minsky 

By: _________________________ 

 George Bochetto, Esquire 

Pro Hac Vice 

 Matthew L. Minsky, Esquire 

 FBN: 1033408 

 Attorneys for Dean Vagnozzi, Albert 

 Vagnozzi, Alec Vagnozzi and Terry 

Kohler

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 2019 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2024 Page 5 of 5