- 1 - 

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.

______________________________________/ 

RECEIVER’S REPLY TO PATRICA STAUB’S RESPONSE TO RECEIVER’S 

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT MOTION TO (1) APPROVE PROPOSED PLAN 

OF DISTRIBUTION AND (2) AUTHORIZE FIRST INTERIM DISTRIBUTION

Ryan K. Stumphauzer, Esq., Court-Appointed Receiver (“Receiver”) of the Receivership 

Entities, by and through his undersigned counsel, files this Reply to the Response from Patricia 

Staub [ECF No. 2053-1] to the Receiver’s Motion to Supplement [ECF No. 2047] (the “Motion to 

Supplement”) the Receiver’s Motion to (1) Approve Proposed Plan of Distribution and (2) 

Authorize First Interim Distribution [ECF No. 2014] (the “Distribution Motion”), and states:

In the Motion to Supplement, the Receiver has recommended (among other things) that the 

late-filed claims of seven Retirement Evolution investors be permitted and included in the claims 

process and proposed distribution plan. The Receiver recommended this proposed treatment 

because of the circumstances of the claims of these investors. Specifically, John Gissas, the 

manager for the Retirement Evolution funds, submitted a bulk claim to the Receiver on behalf of 

all investors in these funds. The Receiver rejected that bulk claim because these investment funds 

were Receivership Entities under the Receiver’s control and, therefore, the individual retail 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 2055 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2024 Page 1 of 5
- 2 -

investors—rather than Mr. Gissas—were the proper claimants under the claims procedures the 

Court had established.

Patrica Staub, an investor in the Retirement Evolution funds, objects to the Motion to 

Supplement because she opposes the Receiver’s proposed allowance of these seven late-filed 

claims. Ms. Staub explains that the inclusion of these late-filed claims will reduce the distributions 

to other Retirement Evolution investors who timely filed their claims. While the Receiver 

acknowledges and understands the concerns from Ms. Staub, the Receiver believes the fair and 

equitable result in this situation would be to include and allow the claims of these seven claimants.

The Court has broad discretion in establishing the claims and distribution procedures in a 

receivership. See SEC v. Equitybuild, Inc., 18-CV-5587, 2023 WL 2018906, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 

15, 2023) (“District courts have broad discretion in approving a plan for distribution of 

receivership funds.”). Included within that discretion is the authority to approve a proposed plan 

that allows late-filed claims where the claimants have provided a justification for their delay in 

submitting claims. See Callahan v. Moneta Capital Corp., 415 F.3d 114, 120 (1st Cir. 2005) (“[A] 

District Court acting as a receivership court has broad discretion in determining whether to permit 

a claimant to file a late claim or to amend a timely filed claim.”); SEC v. Nadel, 8:09-CV-87-T26TBM, 2013 WL 12161449, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 12, 2013) (noting that receiver allowed “latefiled claims in which the claimants provided reasons for missing the claims” as part of plan of 

distribution). When evaluating a request to allow a late-filed claim, the Court applies an 

“excusable neglect” standard, which takes into consideration “the excuse offered by the party 

seeking the waiver or extension and the consequences to all persons affected by the granting or 

denying of it.” Commodity Futures Trading Com’n v. Lake Shore Asset Mgmt. Ltd., 646 F.3d 401, 

405 (7th Cir. 2011).

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 2055 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2024 Page 2 of 5
- 3 -

Here, it appears that the seven investors with late-filed claims reasonably believed that 

John Gissas was submitting a claim on their behalf and, in fact, he did submit a claim on their 

behalf. Although the Receiver recommended rejection of the bulk claim from Mr. Gissas, the 

Receiver’s proposed treatment of the claim was apparently not conveyed to these claimants. That 

is because Mr. Gissas, as a condition of his pretrial release in connection with pending state law 

criminal charges involving the Retirement Evolution funds, was prohibited from contacting these

investors at the time the Receiver proposed the rejection of Mr. Gissas’ bulk claim. 

The Receiver believes the explanation for these investors’ failure to file their own 

individual claims, and failure to take prompt action after the Receiver denied Mr. Gissas’ bulk 

claim, is reasonable. Moreover, at this late stage of the claims process, the Receiver is not aware 

of any other potential claimants with circumstances that are similar to those of these seven 

claimants. Thus, the inclusion of these seven late-filed claims would not serve as an invitation for 

other claimants who did not file timely claims to seek similar relief. Additionally, to the extent 

another claimant seeks to have a late-filed claim allowed in the receivership claims process, the 

Receiver would analyze the individual circumstances surrounding the late submission of any such 

additional claim. In other words, the Receiver’s proposed recommendation about whether the 

Court should permit a different late-filed claim would be unaffected by, and untethered to, the 

Receiver’s proposed allowance of the seven late-filed claims at issue in this Motion to Supplement. 

Finally, given that there have not yet been any distributions in this receivership, the timing 

of the Receiver’s proposed inclusion of these late-filed claims will not delay or otherwise disrupt 

the Receiver’s proposed schedule for distribution. See Lake Shore Asset Mgmt. Ltd., 646 F.3d at 

405 (noting as factors supporting allowance of late-filed claim that the claim would have been 

accepted if timely filed and no distributions had occurred yet). In fact, the Receiver has already 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 2055 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2024 Page 3 of 5
- 4 - 

calculated the potential impact this decision would have on the allowed claim amounts for the 

other Retirement Evolution investors with allowed claims, and is prepared to proceed with a 

distribution consistent with these revised calculations upon the Court’s entry of an order on the 

Distribution Motion. 

WHEREFORE, the Receiver respectfully requests that the Court overrule the objections of 

Ms. Staub, approve the proposed amendments to the Distribution Motion as outlined in the Motion 

to Supplement, and grant the Distribution Motion as modified by the Motion to Supplement. 

Dated: October 16, 2024 Respectfully Submitted, 

STUMPHAUZER KOLAYA 

NADLER & SLOMAN, PLLC

Two South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1600 

Miami, FL 33131 

Telephone: (305) 614-1400 

By: /s/ Timothy A. Kolaya 

TIMOTHY A. KOLAYA

Florida Bar No. 056140 

tkolaya@sknlaw.com 

Co-Counsel for Receiver 

PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO 

BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP

1818 Market Street, Suite 3402 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Telephone: (215) 320-6200 

By: /s/ Gaetan J. Alfano 

GAETAN J. ALFANO 

Pennsylvania Bar No. 32971 

(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

GJA@Pietragallo.com

DOUGLAS K. ROSENBLUM

Pennsylvania Bar No. 90989 

(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

DKR@Pietragallo.com

Co-Counsel for Receiver 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 2055 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2024 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 16, 2024, 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 counsel of record via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing 

generated by CM/ECF. 

 /s/ Timothy A. Kolaya 

TIMOTHY A. KOLAYA

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 2055 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2024 Page 5 of 5