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.

/

DEFENDANTS LISA MCELHONE AND JOSEPH LAFORTE’S MOTION FOR 

ENTRY OF AN ORDER DIRECTING THAT CASH BELONGING TO ENTITIES MS.

MCELHONE OWNS OR CONTROLS BE CREDITED TOWARDS THE JUDGMENT 

Defendants, Lisa McElhone and Joseph LaForte (collectively the “Defendants”), by and 

through their undersigned counsel, respectfully request that the Court enter an Order directing that 

all cash under the Receivership which belongs to entities owned or controlled by Ms. McElhone be 

credited towards Defendants’ joint and several disgorgement obligation under the Judgment, and as 

support therefore state as follows: 

 1. On November 22, 2022, this Court entered an amended final judgment against the 

Defendants (the “Judgment”) requiring them to disgorge $153,224,738.24 (including prejudgment 

interest), jointly and severally, and to pay civil penalties in the amount of $21,850,000 each. 

2. The Defendants have filed an appeal to the Eleventh Circuit challenging the Judgment 

and other underlying rulings entered in this case. Notwithstanding, the Defendants are endeavoring 

to satisfy the Judgment, in whole or in part, subject to a complete reservation of their rights on 

appeal.

1

1

 Including, in particular, the right to seek the return of monies credited towards the Judgment in the 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1531 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2023 Page 1 of 7
- 2 - 

 3. The Defendants and the SEC recently stipulated to the entry of an Order directing 

certain assets under the Receivership (cash seized from Defendants’ properties and the balance of an 

SEP IRA account) be credited toward Defendants’ disgorgement obligation under the Judgment 

(ECF 1524-1), and this Court promptly entered an Order affecting the stipulation (ECF 1525). 

 4. The Defendants now seek an Order directing that additional cash under the 

Receivership – which belong to Ms. McElhone, through entities she owns or controls2 – be credited 

toward Defendants’ joint and several disgorgement obligation under the Judgment.

5. The Receiver’s most recent Quarterly Report states that “[t]he Receivership holds 

approximately $162.3MM in tangible assets from CBSG and other entities owned by Defendant 

McElhone[.]” (ECF 1504-1, p. 4) (emphasis supplied). 

6. Exhibit E to the Quarterly Report shows that the cash portion of the tangible assets 

attributable to CBSG and other entities Ms. McElhone owns or controls is currently $103,515,947.

3

 

(Id. at p. 19). 

event that the Judgement is reversed, reduced, or otherwise modified such that Defendants’ liability 

becomes less than the amount of the monies credited towards the Judgment. 

2 Ms. McElhone is the Grantor and Trustee of the L.M.E. 2017 Family Trust (the “LME Trust”) and 

Mr. LaForte is a Trustee and Beneficiary. The LME Trust owns and controls various business entities 

under the Receivership. Ms. McElhone, (individually, or through the LME Trust) is the ultimate and 

sole owner of Complete Business Solutions Group, Inc. d/b/a/ Par Funding (CBSG”), Full Spectrum 

Processing, Inc. (“FSP”), Fast Advance Funding LLC (“FAF”), Heritage Business Consulting, Inc. 

(“HBC”), Eagle Six Consultants, Inc. (“ESC”), and Recruiting and Marketing Resources, Inc. 

(“RMR”). 

3 The Defendants expect this cash balance to grow as the Receiver continues his efforts to liquidate 

assets which belong to Ms. McElhone – including, without limitation, a portfolio of commercial real 

estate valued at over $45 MM, and $312.1MM in MCA receivables (which the Receiver has valued 

at $190 MM after taking a reserve to address collectability issues). On March 17, 2023 – the date 

Defendants advised the Receiver and the SEC they intended to file this Motion – the Receiver sent 

undersigned counsel an email advising that he intends to amend Exhibit E to the Quarterly Report 

(although he provided no information regarding the substance or timing of the amendment). If the 

Receiver adjusts the cash balances under Exhibit E, the amount of cash credited to the Judgement may 

need to be adjusted. However, the nature of the relief requested in this Motion – that the cash balance 

attributable to Ms. McElhone and the entities she owns or controls be credited and applied against the 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1531 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2023 Page 2 of 7
- 3 - 

 7. It is appropriate to credit the current cash balance of $103,515,947 to the Judgment

because Ms. McElhone has sole ownership or control over the entities to whom this cash belongs – 

and these entities are not subject to any separate liability in this case.

 8. CBSG and FSP entered Consent Judgments with the SEC, and the Court entered a 

Judgment of Permanent Injunction against them which states: “upon motion of the Commission, the 

Court shall determine whether it is appropriate to order disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and 

prejudgment interest against the Corporate Defendants and a civil penalty against the Corporate 

Defendants.” However, the SEC did not file a Motion seeking disgorgement or penalties as to CBSG 

or FSP, and the time to do so has now passed (since the case has been administratively closed, and 

counsel for the SEC has repeatedly stated that the liability and damages portion of this case has 

concluded and we are now in the collections phase). Accordingly, CBSG and FSP face no independent 

liability to the SEC which would justify the Receiver continuing to hold monies attributable to them 

– rather than applying these monies to the Judgment entered against Defendants.4

 9. The purpose of the Court’s Orders establishing the Receivership and imposing a broad 

asset freeze over the Defendants and other Receivership Entities (jointly and severally) was to 

facilitate enforcement of a potential disgorgement and penalties award. See ECF 42, p.11-12 and 

16-17 (freezing the assets of McElhone, LaForte, CBSG, FSP and the LME Trust, jointly and 

severally, in an amount up to the estimated receipts of the alleged securities fraud); ECF 436, p. 2 

(expanding the Receivership on the grounds that “tainted funds, which could be the subject of 

Judgement – will not be affected. 

4 Furthermore, because the Court based its calculation of the Defendants’ disgorgement on the illgotten gains of CBSG and FSP, rather than Defendants’ personal profit, any disgorgement as to 

CBSG and FSP would be coextensive with Defendants’ disgorgement. The same monies can only 

be disgorged once. Accordingly, there can be no disgorgement against CBSG and FSP separate and 

apart from Defendants’ disgorgement. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1531 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2023 Page 3 of 7
- 4 - 

disgorgement, may be found in the entities and properties identified”); SEC v. ETS Payphones, Inc., 

408 F. 3d 727, 734 (11th Cir. 2005) (finding an asset freeze appropriate “as a means of preserving 

funds for the equitable remedy of disgorgement”). 

10. Now that Defendants’ disgorgement and penalty obligations have been fixed and the

Judgment has been entered, there is no reason why the cash attributable to Ms. McElhone and her 

entities cannot be credited towards that Judgment. 

11. Indeed, given that the Defendants are incurring post-judgment interest on the $197 

MM Judgment, failing to credit this cash to the Judgment could result in millions of dollars of 

additional interest – and would effectively constitute an additional penalty assessment. 

12. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Defendants request an order directing the Parties 

as follows: 

a. The SEC will credit the cash within the Receivership Estate which is 

attributable to CBSG and other entities Ms. McElhone owns or controls to the 

Defendants’ joint and several disgorgement obligation under the Judgement. 

The Receiver’s most recent Quarterly Report reflects that this cash balance is 

currently $103,515,947, subject to potential adjustment in the amount (see 

footnote 2, above); 

b. The Receiver will retain these funds in accordance with the Court’s Orders 

appointing the Receiver; 

c. If the relief requested in 12 a. above is granted, Ms. McElhone and Mr. LaForte

relinquish all legal and equitable right, title, and interest in the funds described 

herein, and no part of the funds shall be returned to them, except that Ms. 

McElhone and Mr. LaForte reserve all rights they currently have or may have 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1531 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2023 Page 4 of 7
- 5 - 

in the future arising from or relating to their respective appeals of the Court’s 

Judgment to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Appeal Nos. 23-10228 

and 23-10234) including, without limitation, the right to seek the return of the 

assets identified in this Order, or the recoupment of other funds of equivalent 

value, in the event that the Judgment is reversed, reduced, or otherwise 

modified, such that Ms. McElhone and Mr. LaForte’s new joint and several 

disgorgement liability (if any) becomes less than the total amount of the assets 

identified in this Order; 

d. The SEC will promptly provide respective counsel for Ms. McElhone and Mr. 

LaForte with updated balances due once the SEC credits these funds to the 

disgorgement portion of the Judgment entered against them. 

REQUEST FOR HEARING

As discussed below, the Defendants have attempted to confer with the SEC about the relief 

sought in this Motion, but the SEC has not yet advised the Defendants of its position. If the SEC 

opposes the relief sought in this Motion, the Defendants request that the Court conduct a hearing so 

that the parties may present oral argument on the issues presented. The treatment and disposition of 

the assets identified in this Motion (and other assets which are owned by Ms. McElhone through 

various Receivership Entities) is critical to the Defendants ability to satisfy the Judgment entered 

against them and is therefore of paramount importance in this action. Defendants believe that, unless 

the parties have clarity on the issues presented in this motion, it will be virtually impossible for the 

parties to engage in meaningful discussions regarding the potential resolution of this action or the 

Defendants’ appeals to the Eleventh Circuit. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1531 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2023 Page 5 of 7
- 6 - 

S.D. Fla L. R. 7.1(a)(3) Certification of Counsel 

Counsel for the Defendants hereby certify that they conferred with counsel for the SEC – 

Michael Roessner, Marsha C. Massey and Amie Rigley Berlin – about the relief sought in this motion 

by email dated March 14, 2023, and requested that the SEC provide its position by close of business 

on March 16, 2023 so that the Defendants could file their motion on March 17, 2023. On March 15, 

2023, Mr. Roessner responded by email and offered March 22 or 23, 2023 for a conference call to 

discuss the motion. The undersigned responded to advise Mr. Roessner that the proposed dates would 

not work because counsel for Ms. McElhone and Mr. LaForte both have trials scheduled for that week, 

and proposed alternate times for a call on both March 16 and March 17. Despite their diligent efforts, 

counsel for the Defendants and the SEC have been unable to schedule a mutually agreeable date to 

confer by telephone, and counsel for the SEC has declined to otherwise apprise the Defendants of 

their position regarding the relief requested. Accordingly, counsel for the Defendants have made 

reasonable efforts to confer with the SEC regarding the relief sought in this motion, but have been 

unable to do so. The Parties will promptly notify the Court if an agreement is reached on the relief 

sought in this motion, in whole or in part. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1531 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2023 Page 6 of 7
- 7 - 

KOPELOWITZ OSTROW 

FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT

Attorneys for Defendant Joseph W. LaForte 

One W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Tel: (954) 525-4100 

By: /s/ David L. Ferguson 

DAVID L. FERGUSON

Florida Bar Number: 0981737 

Ferguson@kolawyers.com 

LAW OFFICES OF ALAN S. FUTERFAS

Attorneys for Defendant Lisa McElhone 

565 Fifth Avenue, 7th Floor 

New York, NY 10017 

Telephone: (212) 684-8400 

By: /s/ Alan S. Futerfas 

 ALAN S. FUTERFAS

 asfuterfas@futerfaslaw.com

 Admitted Pro Hac Vice 

KAPLAN ZEENA LLP

Attorneys for Defendant Lisa McElhone 

2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3050 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone: (305) 530-0800 

Facsimile: (305) 530-0801 

 

By: /s/ James M. Kaplan 

JAMES M. KAPLAN 

Florida Bar No.: 921040 

james.kaplan@kaplanzeena.com 

elizabeth.salom@kaplanzeena.com

service@kaplanzeena.com 

NOAH E. SNYDER

Florida Bar No.: 107415 

noah.snyder@kaplanzeena.com 

maria.escobales@kaplanzeena.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 17th day of March, 2023, I electronically filed the forgoing 

document with the clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is 

being served this day on counsel of record via transmissions of Notices of Electronic Filing generated 

by CM/ECF. 

By: /s/ James M. Kaplan 

 JAMES M. KAPLAN 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1531 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2023 Page 7 of 7