UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO.: 9:20-cv-81205-RAR 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS GROUP, 

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

Defendants. 

____________________________________________/ 

SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT DEAN VAGNOZZI'S 

RESPONSE TO SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION’S 

FIRST REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES 

Specially appearing Defendant DEAN VAGNOZZI (hereinafter “Defendant”), by and 

through his undersigned counsel, hereby responds to Plaintiff SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION’S (“Plaintiff”) First Request for Interrogatories (the “Request”) as follows: 

GENERAL STATEMENT AND OBJECTIONS 

1. Defendant objects to the Request for lack of due process under the United States 

Constitution. The Court has imposed a two-calendar day response deadline without having 

provided Defendant any notice or opportunity to contest expedited discovery. This violates the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the United States Constitution. Defendant has not had 

adequate time to investigate his responses to the Request, which violates his Constitutional rights. 

Moreover, Defendant's counsel only appeared in this action the day prior to service of the Request, 

and has not had adequate time to investigate the allegations and the Interrogatory in order to 

properly advise Defendant on his responses, which further violates Defendant's Constitutional 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 1 of 154
2 

rights. To the extent this Request is attempted to be used in any criminal prosecution, the 

circumstances of the Request further deny Defendant his right to effective assistance of counsel 

under the United States Constitution. 

2. In responding to this Request, Defendant does not concede the information 

requested is relevant to the subject matter of this litigation or reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. Any response, in whole or in part, to the request is not intended 

to be, and should not be construed as, a waiver by Defendant of all or any part of any objection. 

Defendant reserves the right to object, and hereby gives notice of its intent to object, to the 

admissibility into any information disclosed herein. 

3. Defendant objects to the Request to the extent that it seeks to impose obligations 

that exceed, or are different from, those imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the 

Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 

4. Defendant objects to the Request to the extent it calls for the disclosure of 

information that is not in Defendant's possession, custody, or control, or that is not ascertainable 

after a reasonably diligent search. 

5. Defendant reserves the right to supplement its responses as more information is 

available. 

6. Defendant objects to the Request to the extent it seeks information that is not 

relevant to the issues in the pending action or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence supporting the claims in this proceeding. 

7. Defendant objects to the Request to the extent it is, in whole or part, vague or 

ambiguous, duplicative, harassing, overbroad, or unduly burdensome, not restricted by time or 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 2 of 154
3 

subject matter, in that the burdens imposed by responding to the Request clearly outweighs any 

potential value to Plaintiff of the response. 

8. Defendant objects to the Request to the extent it seeks information that is subject 

to the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product immunity doctrine, or any other 

applicable privilege or doctrine. Any inadvertent disclosure of such information shall not be 

deemed a waiver of the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product immunity doctrine, or 

any other applicable privilege or doctrine. 

9. Defendant objects to the Request to the extent it seeks information constituting 

trade secrets or other financial, strategic, confidential, proprietary, or otherwise highly sensitive 

commercial or personal information without protective measures necessary to prevent disclosure. 

10. No incidental or implied admissions are intended by the, or shall be inferred from, 

response to the Request. That Defendant has responded to any Request is not intended to be, and 

shall not be construed as, a waiver by Defendant of any part of any General or specific objection. 

Nor shall such a response be construed as a waiver of any argument, whether or not as of yet 

asserted, in support of judgment in favor of Defendant. 

11. Defendant objects to the Request insofar as it contains misstatements of fact and 

inaccurate assumptions. Nothing in the response shall be construed as constituting or implying an 

admission of any allegation or agreement with any assertion or characterization in the Request. 

12. Defendant objects to the Request to the extent it seek information that would require 

the production of information that include private consumer, banking, and financial information 

protected by various state and federal privacy laws. 

13. Defendant incorporates each of these General Objections into the specific response 

below as if fully set forth therein. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 3 of 154
4 

14. Without waiver of any of the foregoing general objections, Defendant responds and 

specifically objects to Plaintiff’s Request as follows: 

RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO INDIVIDUAL INTERROGATORY 

1. State the total amount of money, including but not limited to profits and 

compensation, you received in connection with or as the result of the Par Funding investment. 

Response: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the 

interrogatory is overbroad in scope, ambiguous, and not limited to the timeframe of 

the Complaint nor Securities and Exchange Commission’s Emergency Ex Parte

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief. Particularly, this 

Interrogatory is irrelevant and disproportionate for purposes of the August 4, 2020 

Preliminary Injunction Hearing. This Interrogatory also seeks information, which 

is irrelevant and disproportionate to the claims or defenses of this action. Defendant 

further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is not 

in the Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. Currently, records that would be 

necessary to respond to this Request are subject to the Court's receivership. 

Defendant has no access to his office in order to retrieve the information as a result 

of the Court's receivership. Specifically, the Receiver’s letter to Defendant, attached 

hereto as “Exhibit A”, directs Defendant to: (1)“[r]efrain from attempting to access 

the premises of ABetterFinancialPlan.com”; (2) “Immediately turn over to me any 

and all objects, assets or documents, including, but not limited to, any devices, 

writings, client or investor files and documents, ESI, invoices, and bank records 

pertaining to ABetterFinancialPlan.com d/b/a A Better Financial Plan, or any other 

Receivership Entities that are within your possession”; (3) refrain from accessing 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 4 of 154
Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 5 of 154
6 

Dated: August 3, 2020 

AKERMAN LLP 

Three Brickell City Centre, Suite 1100 

98 Southeast Seventh Street 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone: (305) 374-5600 

Facsimile: (305) 374-5095 

By: /s/ Brian P. Miller

Brian P. Miller, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 980633 

E-mail: brian.miller@akerman.com

E-mail: Kelly.connolly@akerman.com

Alejandro J. Paz, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 1011728 

E-mail: Alejandro.paz@akerman.com

Secondary: marylin.herrera@akerman.com

Attorneys for Dean Vagnozzi 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Specially Appearing 

Defendant Dean Vagnozzi's Response to Securities and Exchange Commission’s First Request for 

Interrogatories was served electronically this 3rd day of August, 2020 to: 

Amie Riggle Berlin 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1800 

Miami, FL 33131 

Direct: 305-982-6322 

Tel: 305-982-6300 

Fax: 305-536-4154 

Email: berlina@sec.gov

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Daniel Fridman 

Fridman Fels & Soto, PLLC 

2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 750 

Coral Gables, FL 33134 

Tel: 305-569-7720 

Fax: 786-627-4145 

Email: dfridman@ffslawfirm.com

Secondary: ypantin@ffslawfirm.com

James R. Froccaro, Jr. 

20 Vanderventer Avenue, Suite 103W 

Port Washington, NY 11050 

Tel: 516-944-5062 

Email: jrfresq61@aol.com

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 6 of 154
7 

Attorneys for Defendant Joseph W. LaForte 

Joseph A. DeMaria 

Robert F. Elgidely 

Fox Rothschild LLP 

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2750 

2 South Biscayne Blvd. 

Miami, FL 33131 

Tel: 305-442-6547 

Email: JDeMaria@FoxRothschild.com

Email: Relgidely@FoxRothschild.com

Secondary: mmillerhayle@foxrothschild.com

Alex L. Braunstein 

Fox Rothschild LLP 

777 S. Flagler Drive, Suite 1700 West Tower 

West Palm Beach, FL 33401 

Tel: 561-804-4497 

Email: ABraunstein@FoxRothschild.com

Attorneys for Complete Business Solutions 

Group, Inc., d/b/a Par Funding, Full 

Spectrum Processing, Inc., Lisa McElhone, 

Joseph Cole Barleta and Joseph W. LaForte 

and relief defendant L.M.E. 2017 Family 

Trust 

Ryan K. Stumphauzer 

Timothy A. Kolaya 

Adam M. Foslid 

Stumphauzer Foslid Sloman Ross & Kolaya, 

PLLC 

Two South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1600 

Miami, FL 33131 

Tel: 305-614-1400 

Fax: 305-614-1425 

Email: afoslid@sfslaw.com 

Email: tkolaya@sfslaw.com

Email: afoslid@sfslaw.com

Attorneys for Receiver, Ryan K. Stumphauzer, 

court-appointed receiver over Defendants 

Complete Business Solutions Group, Inc. d/b/a 

Par Funding; Full Spectrum Processing, Inc.; 

ABetterFinancialPlan.com LLC d/b/a A Better 

Financial Plan; ABFP Management Company, 

LLC f/k/a Pillar Life Settlement Management 

Company, LLC; ABFP Income Fund LLC; 

ABFP Income Fund 2, L.P.; United Fidelis 

Group Corp.,; Fidelis Financial Planning 

LLC; Retirement Evolution Group, LLC; RE 

Income Fund LLC; and RE Income Fund 2 

LLC 

Joel Hirschhorn 

GrayRobinson, P.A. 

333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 3200 

Miami, FL 33131 

Tel: 305-416-6880 

Fax: 305-416-6887 

Email: joel.hirschhorn@gray-robinson.com

Attorneys for Relief Defendant L.M.E. 2017 

Family Trust 

Gaetan J. Alfano 

Doulgas K. Rosenblum 

Pietragallo Godon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, 

LLP 

1818 Market Street, Suite 3402 

Phaladelphia, PA 19103 

Tel: 215-320-6200 

Email: GJA@pietragallo.com

Email: DKR@pietragallo.com

Attorney for Receiver, Ryan K. Stumphauzer 

Daniel I. Small 

Allison Kernisky 

Holland & Knight LLP 

701 Bickell Avenue, Suite 3300

Jeff Marcus 

Daniel L. Rashbaum 

Jason L. Mays 

Marcus Neiman Rashbaum & Pineiro LLP

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 7 of 154
8 

Miami, FL 33131 

Tel: 305-374-8500 

Fax: 305-789-7799 

Email: Daniel.Small@hklaw.com

Email: Allison.Kernisky@hklaw.com

Attorneys for John Gissas, Retirement 

Evolution Group, LLC, Retirement Evolution 

Income Fund, LLC f/k/a RE Income Fund 

LLC and RE Income Fund 2, LLC 

2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1750 

Miami, FL 33131 

Tel: 305-400-4260 

Email: jmarcus@mnrlawfirm.com

Email: drashbaum@mnrlawfirm.com

Email: jmays@mnrlawfirm.com

Attorneys for Defendant Perry S. Abbonizio 

Jeffrey L. Cox 

Sallah Astarita & Cox, LLC 

3100 N. Military Trail, Suite 210 

Boca Raton, FL 33431 

Tel: 561-989-9080 

Fax: 561-989-9020 

Email: jcox@sallahlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant Michael C. Furman 

/s/ Brian P. Miller 

Attorney

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 8 of 154
Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 9 of 154
Ryan K. Stumphauzer

Telephone: 305. 614. 1400

rstumphauzer@sfslaw.com

TWO S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, SUITE 2550 | MIAMI, FL 33131 | T + 1 305. 614. 1400 | F + 1 305. 614. 1425

July 31, 2020

VIA EMAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS

Dean J. Vagnozzi

c/o Brian Miller, Esq.

Akerman LLP 

Three Brickell City Centre

98 Southeast Seventh Street

Suite 1100

Miami, FL 33131

brian.miller@akerman.com

Re: SEC v. CBSG., et al, No. 20-CIV-81205 (S.D. Fla.)

Dear Mr. Vagnozzi,

In light of a preliminary injunction entered on July 28, 2020 by the Honorable Rodolfo A. 

Ruiz in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, I am writing this letter 

to direct you to preserve all documents, assets and electronically-stored information (ESI) relating 

to ABetterFinancialPlan.com d/b/a A Better Financial Plan.

On July 27, 2020, Judge Ruiz appointed me as Receiver in the above-referenced case. I 

am enclosing with this letter a copy of the Order Granting Plaintiff Securities and Exchange 

Commission’s Motion for Appointment of Receiver (“the Receivership Order”), along with a copy 

of the Order Granting Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Other 

Relief (the “Order Granting TRO”), which was entered on July 28, 2020.

The Receiver appointment relates to the following entities: Complete Business Solutions 

Group, Inc. d/b/a Par Funding, Full Spectrum Processing, Inc., ABetterFinancialPlan.com LLC 

d/b/a A Better Financial Plan, ABFP Management Company, LLC f/k/a Pillar Life Settlement 

Management Company, LLC, ABFP Income Fund, LLC, ABFP Income Fund 2, L.P., United 

Fidelis Group Corp., Fidelis Financial Planning LLC, Retirement Evolution Group, LLC, RE 

Income Fund LLC, and RE Income Fund 2 LLC (the “Receivership Entities”). 

Pursuant to the Receivership Order, the Receiver has been directed by the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of Florida to take possession of and safeguard all property 

and assets of the Receivership entities, including all ESI and accounts, immediately upon the Court 

granting a temporary restraining order. 

I understand that you are affiliated with ABetterFinancialPlan.com d/b/a A Better Financial 

Plan. Accordingly, I am writing to direct you to:

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 10 of

 154
Dean Vagnozzi/ SEC v. CBSG., et al, No. 20-CIV-81205 (S.D. Fla.)

July 31, 2020

Page 2 of 2

_______________________________________

• Refrain from attempting to access the premises of ABetterFinancialPlan.com d/b/a 

A Better Financial Plan, located at 234 Mall Blvd, Suite 270 King of Prussia, PA 

19406-2940;

• Immediately turn over to me any and all objects, assets or documents, including, 

but not limited to, any devices, writings, client or investor files and documents, ESI, 

invoices, and bank records pertaining to ABetterFinancialPlan.com d/b/a A Better

Financial Plan, or any other Receivership Entities that are within your possession;

• Do not destroy or tamper with any objects, assets or documents, including, but not 

limited to, any devices, writings, client or investor files and documents, ESI, 

invoices or bank records relating to ABetterFinancialPlan.com d/b/a A Better

Financial Plan, or any other Receivership Entities; and

• Do not access any bank accounts, email accounts, or other electronic media 

pertaining to ABetterFinancialPlan.com d/b/a A Better Financial Plan, or any other 

Receivership Entities. 

Please be advised that pursuant to the Receivership Order you are hereby restrained and 

enjoined from directly or indirectly taking any action, or causing any action to be taken, without 

the express written agreement of the Receiver that interferes with or hinders the Receiver’s efforts 

to take control, possession, or management of any accounts belonging to the Receivership Entities. 

Please contact me at rstumphauzer@sfslaw.com if you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

___________________________

Ryan K. Stumphauzer, Esq.

Enclosures: Receivership Order, Order Granting TRO

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 11 of

 154
Page 1 of 4

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.

_______________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S URGENT MOTION TO AMEND ORDER 

APPOINTING RECEIVER TO INCLUDE LITIGATION INJUNCTION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Securities and Exchange 

Commission’s (“Commission”) Urgent Motion to Amend Order Appointing Receiver to Include 

Litigation Injunction [ECF No. 48] (“Motion”), filed on July 31, 2020. In the Motion, Plaintiff 

seeks to amend the Court’s Order Granting Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission’s 

Motion for Appointment of Receiver [ECF No. 36] (“Order Appointing Receiver”), entered on 

July 27, 2020. 

Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to amend the Order Appointing Receiver to include a litigation 

injunction in all cases and proceedings to which the following entities are a party: Complete 

Business Solutions Group, Inc. d/b/a Par Funding (“Par Funding”), Full Spectrum Processing, Inc., 

ABetterFinancialPlan.com LLC d/b/a A Better Financial Plan (“ABFP”), ABFP Management 

Company, LLC f/k/a Pillar Life Settlement Management Company, LLC (“ABFP Management”), 

ABFP Income Fund, LLC, ABFP Income Fund 2, L.P., United Fidelis Group Corp., Fidelis 

Financial Planning LLC, Retirement Evolution Group, LLC, RE Income Fund LLC, and RE 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 12 of Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 1 of 4

 154
Page 2 of 4

Income Fund 2 LLC (collectively, the “Receivership Entities”). The Receiver agrees with and 

joins in the request for this relief. For the reasons set forth in the Motion, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission’s 

Motion to Amend Order Appointing Receiver to Include Litigation Injunction [ECF No. 48] is 

GRANTED.

The Receiver, Ryan Stumphauzer, is authorized, empowered, and directed as follows 

until further Order of the Court: 

1. To take custody, control, and possession of all Receivership Entity records, 

documents, and materials, and to safeguard these items until further Order of the Court; 

2. To secure and safeguard the Receivership Entities’ information technology, data, 

documents, storage systems, and documents, including by making contact with any third-party 

vendors, such as movers and information technology personnel, to assist in this process; 

3. To engage and employ persons in his discretion to assist him in carrying out his 

duties and responsibilities hereunder, including, but not limited to, accountants, lawyers, and 

paralegals (“Retained Personnel”); 

4. To take any other action as necessary and appropriate for the preservation of the 

Receivership Entities’ property interests or to prevent the dissipation or concealment of such 

property interests; and 

5. To take such other action as may be approved by this Court. 

6. Additionally, the Receiver shall promptly give notice of his appointment to all 

known officers, directors, agents, employees, shareholders, creditors, debtors, managers, and 

general and limited partners of each Receivership Entity, as the Receiver deems necessary or 

advisable to effectuate the operation of the receivership. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 13 of Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 2 of 4

 154
Page 3 of 4

7. In furtherance of his responsibilities in this matter, the Receiver is authorized to 

communicate with, and/or serve this Order upon, any person, entity or government office that he 

deems appropriate to inform them of the status of this matter and the Receiver’s appointment. 

8. The Receiver and Retained Personnel are entitled to reasonable compensation and 

expense reimbursement from the Receivership Entities’ estates. The Receiver shall seek the 

Court’s approval by filing a Motion for the reimbursement of expenses and compensation for 

time spent on the matters set forth herein. 

9. The Receivership Entities and all persons receiving notice of this Order shall not 

hinder or interfere with the Receiver’s efforts to take control or possession of the Receivership 

Entities’ property interests identified above or hinder his efforts to preserve them. 

STAY OF LITIGATION

“[W]hile it should be sparsely exercised, district courts possess the authority and 

discretion to enter anti-litigation orders” in the context of a Securities and Exchange Commission 

receivership. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Byers, 609 F.3d 87, 89 (2d Cir. 2010); see also Sec. & 

Exch. Comm’n v. Onix Capital, LLC, No. 16-24678-CIV, 2017 WL 6728814, at *4 (S.D. Fla. 

Jul. 24, 2017) (“That the receivership is not ‘substantially underway’ is not a compelling factor 

to lift a stay against litigation when balanced against the Receiver’s interest in preventing 

ancillary litigation during the early stages of the receivership.”); Liberte Capital Grp., LLC v. 

Capwill, 462 F.3d 543, 551 (6th Cir. 2006) (“[T]he receivership court may issue a blanket 

injunction, staying litigation against the named receiver and the entities under his control unless 

leave of that court is first obtained.”). 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 14 of Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 3 of 4

 154
Page 4 of 4

As set forth below, the following proceedings—excluding the instant proceeding—and 

all law enforcement, police, or regulatory actions and actions of the Commission related to the

above-captioned enforcement action, are hereby stayed until further Order of this Court:

All civil legal proceedings of any nature, including, but not limited to, bankruptcy 

proceedings, arbitration proceedings, foreclosure actions, default proceedings, or any 

other actions of any nature involving: (a) the Receiver, in his capacity as Receiver; (b) 

any of the Receivership Entities’ property interests, wherever located; (c) any of the 

Receivership Entities, including subsidiaries and partnerships; or, (d) any of a 

Receivership Entity’s past or present officers, directors, managers, agents, or general or 

limited partners sued for, or in connection with, any action taken by them while acting 

in such capacity of any nature, whether as plaintiff, defendant, third-party plaintiff, thirdparty defendant, or otherwise (such proceedings are hereinafter referred to as “Ancillary 

Proceedings”).

The parties to any and all Ancillary Proceedings are enjoined from commencing or 

continuing any such legal proceeding, or from taking any action, in connection with any such 

proceeding, including, but not limited to, the issuance or employment of process.

All Ancillary Proceedings are stayed in their entirety, and all Courts having any jurisdiction 

thereof are enjoined from taking or permitting any action until further Order of this Court. Further, 

as to a cause of action accrued or accruing in favor of one or more of the Receivership Entities 

against a third person or party, any applicable statute of limitation is tolled during the period in

which this injunction against commencement of legal proceedings is in effect as to that cause of

action.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 31st day of July, 2020.

_____________________________

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Copies to: Counsel of Record

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 15 of Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 4 of 4

 154
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CIV-81205-RAR

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE UNDER SEAL

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 

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

Defendants.

_______________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING EMERGENCY EX PARTE MOTION 

FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND OTHER RELIEF

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Emergency Ex Parte Motion for 

Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief [ECF No. 14] (“Motion”), filed on July 27, 2020. 

The Motion seeks the following relief with respect to Defendants Complete Business Solutions 

Group, Inc. d/b/a PAR Funding (“Par Funding”), Full Spectrum Processing, Inc. (“Full 

Spectrum”), ABetterFinancialPlan.com LLC d/b/a A Better Financial Plan (“ABFP”), ABFP 

Management Company, LLC f/k/a Pillar Life Settlement Management Company, LLC (“ABFP 

Management”), ABFP Income Fund, LLC (“ABFP Income Fund”), ABFP Income Fund 2, L.P.

(“ABFP Income Fund 2”), United Fidelis Group Corp. (“United Fidelis”), Fidelis Financial 

Planning LLC (“Fidelis Financial”), Retirement Evolution Group, LLC (“Retirement Evolution”), 

Retirement Evolution Income Fund LLC, a/k/a RE Income Fund (“RE Income Fund”), RE Income 

Fund 2 LLC (“RE Income Fund 2”), Lisa McElhone (“McElhone”), Joseph Cole Barleta, a/k/a Joe 

Cole (“Cole”), Joseph W. LaForte, a/k/a Joe Mack, a/k/a Joe Macki, a/k/a Joe McElhone

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 1 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 16 of

 154
- 2 -

(“LaForte”), Perry S. Abbonizio, Dean J. Vagnozzi, Michael C. Furman, and John Gissas, and 

Relief Defendant L.M.E. 2017 Family Trust (“L.M.E. Trust”):

1. a Temporary Restraining Order;

2. an Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not be Granted;

3. an Order Freezing the Assets of Defendants and Relief Defendant;

4. an Order Requiring Sworn Accountings;

5. an Order Prohibiting Destruction of Documents; and

6. an Order Expediting Discovery. 

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Motion, Plaintiff’s exhibits filed in 

support of the Motion, and the Response to Plaintiff’s Ex-Parte Motions for Appointment of a 

Receiver and for an Asset Freeze, submitted on July 28, 2020 by Defendants Par Funding, Full 

Spectrum, McElhone, Cole, LaForte, and L.M.E. Trust. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has made a sufficient and proper showing in support of the 

relief granted herein by: (i) presenting a prima facie case of securities laws violations by 

Defendants; and (ii) showing a reasonable likelihood the Defendants will harm the investing public 

by continuing to violate the federal securities laws unless they are immediately restrained. The 

Court also finds good cause to believe that unless immediately enjoined by Order of this Court, 

the Defendants may dissipate, conceal or transfer from the jurisdiction of this Court assets which 

could be subject to an Order of Disgorgement. Accordingly, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion [ECF No. 14] is GRANTED as 

follows:

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 2 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 17 of

 154
- 3 -

I.

SHOW CAUSE HEARING AND TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE

The Defendants shall show cause, if any, before the Court via a Zoom hearing on 

Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 3:30 P.M., or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard, why a 

Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should not be 

granted against Defendants, as requested by Plaintiff. In advance of the hearing, the Court will 

provide the parties with information on how to join via Zoom. 

Additionally, the Court will hold a telephonic status conference on Monday, August 3, 

2020 at 4:15 P.M. The parties are instructed to call 1-877-402-9753 by no later than 4:10 P.M. 

The access code is 9372453 and the password is 0918. The Court requires that the parties appear 

via a landline (i.e., not a cellular phone or a speaker phone) for clarity.

II.

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

A. Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act

Pending further Order of the Court, Defendants Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP 

Management, ABFP Income Fund, ABFP Income Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, 

McElhone, LaForte, Cole, Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, and Furman are preliminarily restrained and 

enjoined from violating Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), 15 

U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1), in the offer or sale of any security by the use of any means or instruments of 

transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails, directly or 

indirectly: to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, by, directly or indirectly (i) 

creating a false appearance or otherwise deceiving any person, or (ii) disseminating false or 

misleading documents, materials, or information or making, either orally or in writing, any false 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 3 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 18 of

 154
- 4 -

or misleading statement in any communication with any investor or prospective investor, about: 

(A) any investment in securities; (B) the prospects for success of any product or company; (C) the

use of investor funds; (D) the safety of any securities investment; (E) the use of investor funds or 

investment proceeds; (F) Orders issued against the Defendants by state or federal enforcement 

agencies; (G) the financial status of Par Funding; or (H) the management of Par Funding.

As provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), the foregoing paragraph also 

binds the following who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise: (a) 

any of Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP Management, ABFP Income Fund, ABFP Income 

Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, McElhone, LaForte, Cole, Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, or

Furman’s officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and (b) other persons in 

active concert or participation with Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP Management, ABFP 

Income Fund, ABFP Income Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, McElhone, LaForte, Cole, 

Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, or Furman.

B. Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act

Pending further Order of the Court, all Defendants are preliminarily restrained and enjoined 

from violating Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(2), in the offer or sale of 

any security by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in 

interstate commerce or by use of the mails, directly or indirectly: to obtain money or property by 

means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any omission to state a material fact necessary 

in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, 

not misleading, by, directly or indirectly (i) creating a false appearance or otherwise deceiving any 

person, or (ii) disseminating false or misleading documents, materials, or information or making, 

either orally or in writing, any false or misleading statement in any communication with any 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 4 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 19 of

 154
- 5 -

investor or prospective investor, about: (A) any investment in securities; (B) the prospects for 

success of any product or company; (C) the use of investor funds; (D) the safety of any securities 

investment; (E) the use of investor funds or investment proceeds; (F) Orders issued against the 

Defendants by state or federal enforcement agencies; (G) the financial status of Par Funding; or 

(H) the management of Par Funding.

As provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), the foregoing paragraph also 

binds the following who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise: (a) 

any of the Defendants’ officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and (b) other 

persons in active concert or participation with any Defendant.

C. Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act

Pending further Order of the Court, all Defendants are preliminarily restrained and enjoined 

from violating Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(3), in the offer or sale of 

any security by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in 

interstate commerce or by use of the mails, directly or indirectly: to engage in any transaction, 

practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the 

purchaser, by, directly or indirectly (i) creating a false appearance or otherwise deceiving any 

person, or (ii) disseminating false or misleading documents, materials, or information or making, 

either orally or in writing, any false or misleading statement in any communication with any 

investor or prospective investor, about: (A) any investment in securities; (B) the prospects for 

success of any product or company; (C) the use of investor funds; (D) the safety of any securities 

investment; (E) the use of investor funds or investment proceeds; (F) Orders issued against the 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 5 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 20 of

 154
- 6 -

Defendants by state or federal enforcement agencies; (G) the financial status of Par Funding; or

(H) the management of Par Funding.

As provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), the foregoing paragraph also 

binds the following who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise: (a) 

any of the Defendants’ officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and (b) other 

persons in active concert or participation with any Defendant.

D. Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) of the Exchange Act

Pending further Order of the Court, Defendants Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP 

Management, ABFP Income Fund, ABFP Income Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, 

McElhone, LaForte, Cole, Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, and Furman, and their respective directors, 

officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, representatives and those persons in active concert 

or participation with them, and each of them, are hereby restrained and enjoined from violating 

Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 15 

U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a), by using any means or instrumentality of interstate 

commerce, or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange, in connection 

with the purchase or sale of any security, to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, by, 

directly or indirectly (i) creating a false appearance or otherwise deceiving any person, or (ii) 

disseminating false or misleading documents, materials, or information or making, either orally or 

in writing, any false or misleading statement in any communication with any investor or 

prospective investor, about: (A) any investment in securities; (B) the prospects for success of any 

product or company; (C) the use of investor funds; (D) the safety of any securities investment; (E) 

the use of investor funds or investment proceeds; (F) Orders issued against the Defendants by state 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 6 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 21 of

 154
- 7 -

or federal enforcement agencies; (G) the financial status of Par Funding; or (H) the management 

of Par Funding.

As provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), the foregoing paragraph also 

binds the following who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise: (a) 

any of Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP Management, ABFP Income Fund, ABFP Income 

Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, McElhone, LaForte, Cole, Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, or 

Furman’s officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and (b) other persons in 

active concert or participation with Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP Management, ABFP 

Income Fund, ABFP Income Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, McElhone, LaForte, Cole, 

Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, or Furman.

E. Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) of the Exchange Act

Pending further Order of the Court, Defendants Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP 

Management, ABFP Income Fund, ABFP Income Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, 

McElhone, LaForte, Cole, Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, and Furman, and their respective directors, 

officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, representatives and those persons in active concert 

or participation with them, and each of them, are hereby restrained and enjoined from violating: 

Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5(b), 17 C.F.R. 

§ 240.10b-5(b), by using any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails, or 

of any facility of any national securities exchange, in connection with the purchase or sale of any 

security, to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, by, directly or indirectly (i) creating 

a false appearance or otherwise deceiving any person, or (ii) disseminating false or misleading 

documents, materials, or information or making, either orally or in writing, any false or misleading 

statement in any communication with any investor or prospective investor, about: (A) any 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 7 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 22 of

 154
- 8 -

investment in securities; (B) the prospects for success of any product or company; (C) the use of 

investor funds; (D) the safety of any securities investment; (E) the use of investor funds or 

investment proceeds; (F) Orders issued against the Defendants by state or federal enforcement 

agencies; (G) the financial status of Par Funding; or (H) the management of Par Funding.

As provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), the foregoing paragraph also 

binds the following who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise: (a) 

any of Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP Management, ABFP Income Fund, ABFP Income 

Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, McElhone, LaForte, Cole, Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, or 

Furman’s officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and (b) other persons in 

active concert or participation with Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP Management, ABFP 

Income Fund, ABFP Income Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, McElhone, LaForte, Cole, 

Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, or Furman.

F. Section 10(b) and Ruleb-5(c) of the Exchange Act

Pending further Order of the Court, Defendants Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP 

Management, ABFP Income Fund, ABFP Income Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, 

McElhone, LaForte, Cole, Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, and Furman and their respective directors, officers, 

agents, servants, employees, attorneys, representatives and those persons in active concert or 

participation with them, and each of them, are hereby restrained and enjoined from violating 

Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5(c), 17 C.F.R. 

§ 240.10b-5(c), by using any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails, or 

of any facility of any national securities exchange, in connection with the purchase or sale of any 

security, to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, by, directly or indirectly (i) creating 

a false appearance or otherwise deceiving any person, or (ii) disseminating false or misleading 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 8 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 23 of

 154
- 9 -

documents, materials, or information or making, either orally or in writing, any false or misleading 

statement in any communication with any investor or prospective investor, about: (A) any 

investment in securities; (B) the prospects for success of any product or company; (C) the use of 

investor funds; (D) the safety of any securities investment; (E) the use of investor funds or 

investment proceeds; (F) Orders issued against the Defendants by state of federal enforcement 

agencies; (G) the financial status of Par Funding; or (H) the management of Par Funding.

As provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), the foregoing paragraph also 

binds the following who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise: (a) 

any of Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP Management, ABFP Income Fund, ABFP Income 

Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, McElhone, LaForte, Cole, Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, or 

Furman’s officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and (b) other persons in 

active concert or participation with Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP Management, ABFP 

Income Fund, ABFP Income Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, McElhone, LaForte, Cole, 

Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, or Furman. 

G. Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act

Pending further Order of the Court, that all Defendants and their respective directors, 

officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, representatives and those persons in active concert 

or participation with them, and each of them, are hereby enjoined from violating Sections 5(a) and 

5(c) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77e, by directly or indirectly, in the absence of any 

applicable exemption:

(a) Unless a registration statement is in effect as to a security, making use of any means 

or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 9 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 24 of

 154
- 10 -

mails to sell such security through the use or medium of any prospectus or 

otherwise;

(b) Unless a registration statement is in effect as to a security, carrying or causing to 

be carried through the mails or in interstate commerce, by any means or instruments 

of transportation, any such security for the purpose of sale or for delivery after sale; 

or

(c) Making use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in 

interstate commerce or of the mails to offer to sell or offer to buy through the use 

or medium of any prospectus or otherwise any security, unless a registration 

statement has been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as to such 

security, or while the registration statement is the subject of a refusal order or stop 

order or (prior to the effective date of the registration statement) any public 

proceeding or examination under Section 8 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77h.

As provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), the foregoing paragraph also 

binds the following who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise: (a) 

any of Defendants’ officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and (b) other 

persons in active concert or participation with any Defendant.

III.

ASSET FREEZE AS TO PAR FUNDING, MCELHONE, AND LAFORTE 

Pending determination of Plaintiff’s request for a Preliminary Injunction:

A. Defendants Par Funding, McElhone, and LaForte and their respective directors, 

officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, depositories, banks, and those persons in active 

concert or participation with any one or more of them, and each of them, who receive notice of 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 10 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 25 of

 154
- 11 -

this Order by personal service, mail, email, facsimile transmission or otherwise, hereby are 

restrained from, directly or indirectly, transferring, setting off, receiving, changing, selling, 

pledging, assigning, liquidating or otherwise disposing of, or withdrawing any assets or property, 

including but not limited to cash, free credit balances, fully paid for securities, personal property, 

real property, and/or property pledged or hypothecated as collateral for loans, or charging upon or 

drawing from any lines of credit, owned by, controlled by, or in the possession of, whether jointly 

or singly, and wherever located, Par Funding, Lisa McElhone, and Joseph LaForte, a/k/a Joe Mack, 

a/k/a Joe Macki, a/k/a Joe McElhone.

B. Any financial or brokerage institution or other person or entity holding any such 

funds or other assets, in the name, for the benefit or under the control of Defendants Par Funding,

McElhone, or LaForte, directly or indirectly, held jointly or singly, and wherever located, and 

which receives actual notice of this Order by personal service, mail, email, facsimile, or otherwise, 

shall hold and retain within its control and prohibit the withdrawal, removal, transfer, disposition, 

pledge, encumbrance, assignment, set off, sale, liquidation, dissipation, concealment, or other 

disposal of any such funds or other assets.

This asset freeze is limited to the amount received from the securities fraud, which is 

estimated at this time to be $482,000,000.

ASSET FREEZE AS TO FULL SPECTRUM

Pending determination of Plaintiff’s request for a Preliminary Injunction:

Defendant Full Spectrum and its respective directors, officers, agents, servants, employees, 

attorneys, depositories, banks, and those persons in active concert or participation with any one or 

more of them, and each of them, who receive notice of this Order by personal service, mail, email, 

facsimile transmission or otherwise, hereby are restrained from, directly or indirectly, transferring, 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 11 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 26 of

 154
- 12 -

setting off, receiving, changing, selling, pledging, assigning, liquidating or otherwise disposing of, 

or withdrawing any assets or property of Par Funding, Full Spectrum, McElhone, or LaForte.

This asset freeze is limited to the amount received from the securities fraud, which is 

estimated at this time to be $4,398,535.

ASSET FREEZE AS TO DEFENDANT ABFP, 

ABFP INCOME FUND, AND ABFP INCOME FUND 2 

Pending determination of Plaintiff’s request for a Preliminary Injunction:

A. Defendants ABFP, ABFP Income Fund, and ABFP Income Fund 2, and their

respective directors, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, depositories, banks, and those 

persons in active concert or participation with any one or more of them, and each of them, who 

receive notice of this Order by personal service, mail, email, facsimile transmission or otherwise, 

hereby are restrained from, directly or indirectly, transferring, setting off, receiving, changing, 

selling, pledging, assigning, liquidating or otherwise disposing of, or withdrawing any assets or 

property, including but not limited to cash, free credit balances, fully paid for securities, personal 

property, real property, and/or property pledged or hypothecated as collateral for loans, or charging 

upon or drawing from any lines of credit, owned by, controlled by, or in the possession of, whether 

jointly or singly, and wherever located: ABFP, ABFP Income Fund, and ABFP Income Fund 2.

B. Any financial or brokerage institution or other person or entity holding any such 

funds or other assets, in the name, for the benefit or under the control of Defendants ABFP, ABFP 

Income Fund, and ABFP Income 2, directly or indirectly, held jointly or singly, and wherever 

located, and which receives actual notice of this Order by personal service, mail, email, facsimile, 

or otherwise, shall hold and retain within its control and prohibit the withdrawal, removal, transfer, 

disposition, pledge, encumbrance, assignment, set off, sale, liquidation, dissipation, concealment, 

or other disposal of any such funds or other assets.

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 12 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 27 of

 154
- 13 -

C. This asset freeze is limited to the amounts ABFP, ABFP Income Fund, and ABFP 

Income Fund 2 received from the securities fraud, which is estimated at this time to be:

$25,487,690 as to ABFP Income Fund and ABFP, jointly and severally; $13,252,600 as to ABFP 

Income Fund 2 and ABFP, jointly and severally; and $1,914,045 as to ABFP independent of ABFP 

Income Fund and ABFP Income Fund 2.

ASSET FREEZE AS TO DEFENDANTS UNITED FIDELIS AND FIDELIS FINANCIAL

Pending determination of Plaintiff’s request for a Preliminary Injunction:

A. Defendants United Fidelis and Fidelis Financial, and their respective directors, 

officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, depositories, banks, and those persons in active 

concert or participation with any one or more of them, and each of them, who receive notice of 

this Order by personal service, mail, email, facsimile transmission or otherwise hereby are, 

restrained from, directly or indirectly, transferring, setting off, receiving, changing, selling, 

pledging, assigning, liquidating or otherwise disposing of, or withdrawing any assets or property, 

including but not limited to cash, free credit balances, fully paid for securities, personal property, 

real property, and/or property pledged or hypothecated as collateral for loans, or charging upon or 

drawing from any lines of credit, owned by, controlled by, or in the possession of, whether jointly 

or singly, and wherever located: United Fidelis and Fidelis Financial.

B. Any financial or brokerage institution or other person or entity holding any such 

funds or other assets, in the name, for the benefit or under the control of United Fidelis and Fidelis 

Financial, directly or indirectly, held jointly or singly, and wherever located, and which receives 

actual notice of this Order by personal service, mail, email, facsimile, or otherwise, shall hold and 

retain within its control and prohibit the withdrawal, removal, transfer, disposition, pledge, 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 13 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 28 of

 154
- 14 -

encumbrance, assignment, set off, sale, liquidation, dissipation, concealment, or other disposal of 

any such funds or other assets.

C. This asset freeze is limited to the amounts United Fidelis and Fidelis Financial 

received from the fraud, which is estimated at this time to be: $11,603,000, jointly and severally.

ASSET FREEZE AS TO DEFENDANTS RETIREMENT EVOLUTION, 

RE INCOME FUND, AND RE INCOME FUND 2

Pending determination of Plaintiff’s request for a Preliminary Injunction:

A. Defendants Retirement Evolution, RE Income Fund, and RE Income Fund 2, and 

their respective directors, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, depositories, banks, and 

those persons in active concert or participation with any one or more of them, and each of them, 

who receive notice of this Order by personal service, mail, email, facsimile transmission or 

otherwise, hereby are restrained from, directly or indirectly, transferring, setting off, receiving, 

changing, selling, pledging, assigning, liquidating or otherwise disposing of, or withdrawing any 

assets or property, including but not limited to cash, free credit balances, fully paid for securities, 

personal property, real property, and/or property pledged or hypothecated as collateral for loans, 

or charging upon or drawing from any lines of credit, owned by, controlled by, or in the possession 

of, whether jointly or singly, and wherever located: Retirement Evolution, RE Income Fund, and 

RE Income Fund 2.

B. Any financial or brokerage institution or other person or entity holding any such 

funds or other assets, in the name, for the benefit or under the control of Retirement Evolution, RE 

Income Fund, and RE Income Fund 2, directly or indirectly, held jointly or singly, and wherever 

located, and which receives actual notice of this Order by personal service, mail, email, facsimile, 

or otherwise, shall hold and retain within its control and prohibit the withdrawal, removal, transfer, 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 14 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 29 of

 154
- 15 -

disposition, pledge, encumbrance, assignment, set off, sale, liquidation, dissipation, concealment, 

or other disposal of any such funds or other assets.

C. This asset freeze is limited to the amounts Retirement Evolution, RE Income Fund, 

and RE Income Fund 2 received from the fraud, which is estimated at this time to be: $6.5 million 

as to Retirement Evolution; $5,450,000 as to RE Income Fund; and $150,000 as to RE Income 

Fund 2.

ASSET FREEZE AS TO DEFENDANT COLE

Pending determination of Plaintiff’s request for a Preliminary Injunction:

A. Defendant Cole and his respective directors, officers, agents, servants, employees, 

attorneys, depositories, banks, and those persons in active concert or participation with any one or 

more of them, and each of them, who receive notice of this Order by personal service, mail, email, 

facsimile transmission or otherwise, hereby are restrained from, directly or indirectly, transferring, 

setting off, receiving, changing, selling, pledging, assigning, liquidating or otherwise disposing of, 

or withdrawing any assets or property, including but not limited to cash, free credit balances, fully 

paid for securities, personal property, real property, and/or property pledged or hypothecated as 

collateral for loans, or charging upon or drawing from any lines of credit, owned by, controlled 

by, or in the possession of, whether jointly or singly, and wherever located: Joseph Cole Barleta, 

a/k/a Joe Cole.

B. Any financial or brokerage institution or other person or entity holding any such 

funds or other assets, in the name, for the benefit or under the control of Cole, directly or indirectly, 

held jointly or singly, and wherever located, and which receives actual notice of this Order by 

personal service, mail, email, facsimile, or otherwise, shall hold and retain within its control and 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 15 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 30 of

 154
- 16 -

prohibit the withdrawal, removal, transfer, disposition, pledge, encumbrance, assignment, set off, 

sale, liquidation, dissipation, concealment, or other disposal of any such funds or other assets.

C. This asset freeze is limited to the amount Cole received from the fraud, which is 

estimated at this time to be $16,159,000.

ASSET FREEZE AS TO L.M.E. 2017 FAMILY TRUST

Pending determination of Plaintiff’s request for a Preliminary Injunction:

A. Relief Defendant L.M.E. 2017 Family Trust and its respective directors, officers, 

agents, servants, employees, attorneys, depositories, banks, and those persons in active concert or 

participation with any one or more of them, and each of them, who receive notice of this Order by 

personal service, mail, email, facsimile transmission or otherwise, hereby are restrained from, 

directly or indirectly, transferring, setting off, receiving, changing, selling, pledging, assigning, 

liquidating or otherwise disposing of, or withdrawing any assets or property, including but not 

limited to cash, free credit balances, fully paid for securities, personal property, real property, 

and/or property pledged or hypothecated as collateral for loans, or charging upon or drawing from 

any lines of credit, owned by, controlled by, or in the possession of, whether jointly or singly, and 

wherever located: The L.M.E. 2017 Family Trust.

B. Any financial or brokerage institution or other person or entity holding any such 

funds or other assets, in the name, for the benefit or under the control of the L.M.E. 2017 Family 

Trust, directly or indirectly, held jointly or singly, and wherever located, and which receives actual 

notice of this Order by personal service, mail, email, facsimile, or otherwise, shall hold and retain 

within its control and prohibit the withdrawal, removal, transfer, disposition, pledge, encumbrance, 

assignment, set off, sale, liquidation, dissipation, concealment, or other disposal of any such funds 

or other assets.

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 16 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 31 of

 154
- 17 -

C. This asset freeze is limited to the amount the L.M.E. 2017 Family Trust received 

from the fraud, which is estimated at this time to be $14.3 million.

IV.

SWORN ACCOUNTINGS

Accounting and Identification of Accounts by Each Defendant

Within five calendar days of the issuance of this Order, each Defendant, separately, shall:

(a) make a sworn accounting to this Court and the Plaintiff of all funds, whether in the 

form of compensation, commissions, income (including payments for assets, shares or property of

any kind), and other benefits (including the provision of services of a personal or mixed business 

and personal nature) received, directly or indirectly, by the Defendant making the sworn 

accounting; 

(b) make a sworn accounting to this Court and the Plaintiff of all assets, funds, or other 

properties, whether real or personal, held by the Defendant making the sworn accounting, jointly 

or individually, or for its direct or indirect beneficial interest, or over which it maintains control, 

wherever situated, stating the location, value, and disposition of each such asset, fund, and other 

property; and

(c) provide to the Court and the Plaintiff a sworn identification of all accounts 

(including, but not limited to, bank accounts, savings accounts, securities accounts and deposits of 

any kind and wherever situated) in which the Defendant making the sworn accounting (whether 

solely or jointly), directly or indirectly (including through a corporation, partnership, relative, 

friend or nominee), either has an interest or over which he has the power or right to exercise 

control.

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 17 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 32 of

 154
- 18 -

V.

RECORDS PRESERVATION

Pending determination of the Plaintiff’s request for a Preliminary Injunction, all Defendants 

and the Relief Defendant, their directors, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, 

depositories, banks, and those persons in active concert or participation with any one or more of 

them, and each of them, hereby are restrained and enjoined from, directly or indirectly, destroying, 

mutilating, concealing, altering, disposing of, or otherwise rendering illegible in any manner, any 

of the books, records, documents, correspondence, brochures, manuals, papers, ledgers, accounts, 

statements, obligations, files and other property of or pertaining to any and all Defendants and the 

Relief Defendant, wherever located and in whatever form, electronic or otherwise, until further 

Order of this Court.

VI.

EXPEDITED DISCOVERY 

(a) Immediately upon entry of this Order, and while the Plaintiff’s request for a 

Preliminary Injunction is pending, the parties may take depositions upon oral examination of 

parties and non-parties subject to two days’ notice. Should any Defendant fail to appear for a 

properly noticed deposition, that party may be prohibited from introducing evidence at the hearing 

on the Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction;

(b) Immediately upon entry of this Order, and while the Plaintiff’s request for a 

Preliminary Injunction is pending, the parties shall be entitled to serve interrogatories, requests for 

the production of documents and requests for admissions. The parties shall respond to such 

discovery requests within two days of service;

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 18 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 33 of

 154
- 19 -

(c) Immediately upon entry of this Order, and while the Plaintiff’s request for a 

Preliminary Injunction is pending, the parties may issue subpoenas for documents, things and 

electronically stored information to non-parties pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, with responses due 

within one week of the date of service;

(d) All responses to the Plaintiff’s discovery requests shall be delivered to Amie Riggle 

Berlin, Esq. at 801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1950, Miami, Florida 33131 by the most expeditious 

means available; and

(e) Service of discovery requests shall be sufficient if made upon the parties by email, 

facsimile, or overnight courier, and depositions may be taken by telephone or other remote 

electronic means. 

VII.

RETENTION OF JURISDICTION

This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter and Defendants and Relief Defendants

in order to implement and carry out the terms of all Orders and Decrees that may be entered and/or 

to entertain any suitable application or motion for additional relief within the jurisdiction of this 

Court, and will order other relief that this Court deems appropriate under the circumstances.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 28th day of July, 2020.

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: Counsel of Record

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 19 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 34 of

 154
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO.: 9:20-cv-81205-RAR 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS GROUP, 

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

Defendants. 

____________________________________________/ 

SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT DEAN VAGNOZZI'S 

RESPONSE TO SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION’S 

FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

Specially Appearing Defendant DEAN VAGNOZZI (hereinafter “Defendant”), by and 

through his undersigned counsel, hereby responds to Plaintiff SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSIONS’S (“Plaintiff”) First Request for Production (the “Request”) as follows: 

GENERAL STATEMENT AND OBJECTIONS 

1. Defendant objects to the Request for lack of due process under the United States 

Constitution. The Court has imposed a two-calendar day response deadline without having 

provided Defendant any notice or opportunity to contest expedited discovery. This violates the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the United States Constitution. Defendant has not had 

adequate time to investigate his responses to the Request, which violates his Constitutional rights. 

Moreover, Defendant's counsel only appeared in this action the day prior to service of the Request, 

and has not had adequate time to investigate the allegations and the Request in order to properly 

advise Defendant on his responses, which further violates Defendant's Constitutional rights. To 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 35 of

 154
2 

the extent these Request are attempted to be used in any criminal prosecution, the circumstances 

of the Request further deny Defendant his right to effective assistance of counsel under the United 

States Constitution. 

2. In responding to this Request, Defendant does not concede the information 

requested is relevant to the subject matter of this litigation or reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. Any response, in whole or in part, to the request is not intended 

to be, and should not be construed as, a waiver by Defendant of all or any part of any objection. 

Defendant reserves the right to object, and hereby gives notice of its intent to object, to the 

admissibility into any information disclosed herein. 

3. Defendant objects to the Request to the extent that it seeks to impose obligations 

that exceed, or are different from, those imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the 

Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 

4. Defendant objects to the Request to the extent it calls for the disclosure of 

information that is not in Defendant's possession, custody, or control, or that is not ascertainable 

after a reasonably diligent search. In responding, Defendant does not certify that “any,” (as that 

term is used in the Requests) item(s) of responsive information has or have been identified or 

located, and Defendant reserves the right to supplement its responses as more information is 

available. 

5. Defendant objects to the Request to the extent it seeks information that is not 

relevant to the issues in the pending action or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence supporting the claims in this proceeding. 

6. Defendant objects to the Request to the extent it is, in whole or part, vague or 

ambiguous, duplicative, harassing, overbroad, or unduly burdensome, not restricted by time or 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 36 of

 154
3 

subject matter, in that the burdens imposed by responding to the Request clearly outweighs any 

potential value to Plaintiff of the response. 

7. Defendant objects to the Request to the extent it seeks information that is subject 

to the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product immunity doctrine, or any other 

applicable privilege or doctrine. Any inadvertent disclosure of such information shall not be 

deemed a waiver of the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product immunity doctrine, or 

any other applicable privilege or doctrine. 

8. Defendant objects to the Request to the extent it seeks information constituting 

trade secrets or other financial, strategic, confidential, proprietary, or otherwise highly sensitive 

commercial or personal information without protective measures necessary to prevent disclosure. 

9. No incidental or implied admissions are intended by the, or shall be inferred from, 

response to the Request. That Defendant has responded to any Request is not intended to be, and 

shall not be construed as, a waiver by Defendant of any part of any General or specific objection. 

Nor shall such a response be construed as a waiver of any argument, whether or not as of yet 

asserted, in support of judgment in favor of Defendant. 

10. Defendant objects to the Request insofar as it contains misstatements of fact and 

inaccurate assumptions. Nothing in the response shall be construed as constituting or implying an 

admission of any allegation or agreement with any assertion or characterization in the Request. 

11. Defendant objects to the Request to the extent it seek documents that would require 

the production of documents that include private consumer, banking, and financial information 

protected by various state and federal privacy laws. 

12. Defendant incorporates each of these General Objections into the specific response 

below as if fully set forth therein. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 37 of

 154
4 

13. Without waiver of any of the foregoing general objections, Defendant responds and 

specifically objects to Plaintiff’s Production Request as follows: 

RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO INDIVIDUAL REQUEST 

1. All Bank Records from July 1, 2015 through the present for any bank account you 

have owned, controlled, and/or been a signatory for. 

Response: Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that the Request is 

overbroad, ambiguous, and not limited to the timeframe of the Complaint nor 

Securities and Exchange Commission’s Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Temporary 

Restraining Order and Other Relief. Particularly, this Request is irrelevant and 

disproportionate for purposes of the August 4, 2020 Preliminary Injunction Hearing. 

This Request also seeks a voluminous quantity of documents, which are irrelevant 

and disproportionate to the claims or defenses of this action. Rule 34 permits 

discovery of "designated documents or electronically stored information . . . or . . . 

designated tangible things." Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). The rule does not permit a 

general inspection of an adversary's records as it constitutes nothing more than a 

fishing expedition for irrelevant information. Defendant further objects to this 

Request to the extent that it seeks documents that are not in the Defendant’s 

possession, custody, or control. Currently, bank records that would be necessary to 

respond to this Request are subject to the Court's receivership. Defendant has no 

access to his office in order to retrieve the information as a result of the Court's 

receivership. Specifically, the Receiver’s letter to Defendant, attached hereto as 

“Exhibit A”, directs Defendant to: (1)“[r]efrain from attempting to access the 

premises of ABetterFinancialPlan.com”; (2) “Immediately turn over to me any and 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 38 of

 154
5 

all objects, assets or documents, including, but not limited to, any devices, writings, 

client or investor files and documents, ESI, invoices, and bank records pertaining to 

ABetterFinancialPlan.com d/b/a A Better Financial Plan, or any other Receivership 

Entities that are within your possession”; (3) refrain from accessing “bank accounts, 

email accounts, or other electronic media pertaining to ABetterFinancialPlan.com 

d/b/a A Better Financial Plan, or any other Receivership Entities”; and (4) refrain 

from “directly or indirectly taking any action, or causing any action to be taken, 

without the express written agreement of the Receiver that interferes with or hinders 

the Receiver’s efforts to take control, possession, or management of any accounts 

belonging to the Receivership Entities.” Lastly, Defendant generally objects to this 

Request for the reason it imposes a burden and expense on Defendant which 

outweighs any potential benefit. 

Dated: August 3, 2020 

AKERMAN LLP 

Three Brickell City Centre, Suite 1100 

98 Southeast Seventh Street 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone: (305) 374-5600 

Facsimile: (305) 374-5095 

By: /s/ Brian P. Miller

Brian P. Miller, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 980633 

E-mail: brian.miller@akerman.com

E-mail: Kelly.connolly@akerman.com

Alejandro J. Paz, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 1011728 

E-mail: Alejandro.paz@akerman.com

Secondary: marylin.herrera@akerman.com

Attorneys for Dean Vagnozzi 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 39 of

 154
6 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Specially appearing 

Defendant Dean Vagnozzi's Response to Securities and Exchange Commission’s First Request for 

Production was served electronically this 3rd day of August, 2020 to: 

Amie Riggle Berlin 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1800 

Miami, FL 33131 

Direct: 305-982-6322 

Tel: 305-982-6300 

Fax: 305-536-4154 

Email: berlina@sec.gov

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Daniel Fridman 

Fridman Fels & Soto, PLLC 

2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 750 

Coral Gables, FL 33134 

Tel: 305-569-7720 

Fax: 786-627-4145 

Email: dfridman@ffslawfirm.com

Secondary: ypantin@ffslawfirm.com

James R. Froccaro, Jr. 

20 Vanderventer Avenue, Suite 103W 

Port Washington, NY 11050 

Tel: 516-944-5062 

Email: jrfresq61@aol.com

Attorneys for Defendant Joseph W. LaForte 

Joseph A. DeMaria 

Robert F. Elgidely 

Fox Rothschild LLP 

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2750 

2 South Biscayne Blvd. 

Miami, FL 33131 

Tel: 305-442-6547 

Email: JDeMaria@FoxRothschild.com

Email: Relgidely@FoxRothschild.com

Secondary: mmillerhayle@foxrothschild.com

Alex L. Braunstein 

Fox Rothschild LLP 

777 S. Flagler Drive, Suite 1700 West Tower 

West Palm Beach, FL 33401 

Tel: 561-804-4497 

Email: ABraunstein@FoxRothschild.com

Ryan K. Stumphauzer 

Timothy A. Kolaya 

Adam M. Foslid 

Stumphauzer Foslid Sloman Ross & Kolaya, 

PLLC 

Two South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1600 

Miami, FL 33131 

Tel: 305-614-1400 

Fax: 305-614-1425 

Email: afoslid@sfslaw.com 

Email: tkolaya@sfslaw.com

Email: afoslid@sfslaw.com

Attorneys for Receiver, Ryan K. Stumphauzer, 

court-appointed receiver over Defendants 

Complete Business Solutions Group, Inc. d/b/a 

Par Funding; Full Spectrum Processing, Inc.; 

ABetterFinancialPlan.com LLC d/b/a A Better 

Financial Plan; ABFP Management Company, 

LLC f/k/a Pillar Life Settlement Management 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 40 of

 154
7 

Attorneys for Complete Business Solutions 

Group, Inc., d/b/a Par Funding, Full 

Spectrum Processing, Inc., Lisa McElhone, 

Joseph Cole Barleta and Joseph W. LaForte 

and relief defendant L.M.E. 2017 Family 

Trust 

Company, LLC; ABFP Income Fund LLC; 

ABFP Income Fund 2, L.P.; United Fidelis 

Group Corp.,; Fidelis Financial Planning 

LLC; Retirement Evolution Group, LLC; RE 

Income Fund LLC; and RE Income Fund 2 

LLC 

Joel Hirschhorn 

GrayRobinson, P.A. 

333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 3200 

Miami, FL 33131 

Tel: 305-416-6880 

Fax: 305-416-6887 

Email: joel.hirschhorn@gray-robinson.com

Attorneys for Relief Defendant L.M.E. 2017 

Family Trust 

Gaetan J. Alfano 

Doulgas K. Rosenblum 

Pietragallo Godon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, 

LLP 

1818 Market Street, Suite 3402 

Phaladelphia, PA 19103 

Tel: 215-320-6200 

Email: GJA@pietragallo.com

Email: DKR@pietragallo.com

Attorney for Receiver, Ryan K. Stumphauzer 

Daniel I. Small 

Allison Kernisky 

Holland & Knight LLP 

701 Bickell Avenue, Suite 3300 

Miami, FL 33131 

Tel: 305-374-8500 

Fax: 305-789-7799 

Email: Daniel.Small@hklaw.com

Email: Allison.Kernisky@hklaw.com

Attorneys for John Gissas, Retirement 

Evolution Group, LLC, Retirement Evolution 

Income Fund, LLC f/k/a RE Income Fund 

LLC and RE Income Fund 2, LLC 

Jeff Marcus 

Daniel L. Rashbaum 

Jason L. Mays 

Marcus Neiman Rashbaum & Pineiro LLP 

2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1750 

Miami, FL 33131 

Tel: 305-400-4260 

Email: jmarcus@mnrlawfirm.com

Email: drashbaum@mnrlawfirm.com

Email: jmays@mnrlawfirm.com

Attorneys for Defendant Perry S. Abbonizio 

Jeffrey L. Cox 

Sallah Astarita & Cox, LLC 

3100 N. Military Trail, Suite 210 

Boca Raton, FL 33431 

Tel: 561-989-9080 

Fax: 561-989-9020 

Email: jcox@sallahlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant Michael C. Furman

/s/ Brian P. Miller 

Attorney

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 41 of

 154
Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 42 of

 154
Ryan K. Stumphauzer

Telephone: 305. 614. 1400

rstumphauzer@sfslaw.com

TWO S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, SUITE 2550 | MIAMI, FL 33131 | T + 1 305. 614. 1400 | F + 1 305. 614. 1425

July 31, 2020

VIA EMAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS

Dean J. Vagnozzi

c/o Brian Miller, Esq.

Akerman LLP 

Three Brickell City Centre

98 Southeast Seventh Street

Suite 1100

Miami, FL 33131

brian.miller@akerman.com

Re: SEC v. CBSG., et al, No. 20-CIV-81205 (S.D. Fla.)

Dear Mr. Vagnozzi,

In light of a preliminary injunction entered on July 28, 2020 by the Honorable Rodolfo A. 

Ruiz in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, I am writing this letter 

to direct you to preserve all documents, assets and electronically-stored information (ESI) relating 

to ABetterFinancialPlan.com d/b/a A Better Financial Plan.

On July 27, 2020, Judge Ruiz appointed me as Receiver in the above-referenced case. I 

am enclosing with this letter a copy of the Order Granting Plaintiff Securities and Exchange 

Commission’s Motion for Appointment of Receiver (“the Receivership Order”), along with a copy 

of the Order Granting Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Other 

Relief (the “Order Granting TRO”), which was entered on July 28, 2020.

The Receiver appointment relates to the following entities: Complete Business Solutions 

Group, Inc. d/b/a Par Funding, Full Spectrum Processing, Inc., ABetterFinancialPlan.com LLC 

d/b/a A Better Financial Plan, ABFP Management Company, LLC f/k/a Pillar Life Settlement 

Management Company, LLC, ABFP Income Fund, LLC, ABFP Income Fund 2, L.P., United 

Fidelis Group Corp., Fidelis Financial Planning LLC, Retirement Evolution Group, LLC, RE 

Income Fund LLC, and RE Income Fund 2 LLC (the “Receivership Entities”). 

Pursuant to the Receivership Order, the Receiver has been directed by the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of Florida to take possession of and safeguard all property 

and assets of the Receivership entities, including all ESI and accounts, immediately upon the Court 

granting a temporary restraining order. 

I understand that you are affiliated with ABetterFinancialPlan.com d/b/a A Better Financial 

Plan. Accordingly, I am writing to direct you to:

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 43 of

 154
Dean Vagnozzi/ SEC v. CBSG., et al, No. 20-CIV-81205 (S.D. Fla.)

July 31, 2020

Page 2 of 2

_______________________________________

• Refrain from attempting to access the premises of ABetterFinancialPlan.com d/b/a 

A Better Financial Plan, located at 234 Mall Blvd, Suite 270 King of Prussia, PA 

19406-2940;

• Immediately turn over to me any and all objects, assets or documents, including, 

but not limited to, any devices, writings, client or investor files and documents, ESI, 

invoices, and bank records pertaining to ABetterFinancialPlan.com d/b/a A Better

Financial Plan, or any other Receivership Entities that are within your possession;

• Do not destroy or tamper with any objects, assets or documents, including, but not 

limited to, any devices, writings, client or investor files and documents, ESI, 

invoices or bank records relating to ABetterFinancialPlan.com d/b/a A Better

Financial Plan, or any other Receivership Entities; and

• Do not access any bank accounts, email accounts, or other electronic media 

pertaining to ABetterFinancialPlan.com d/b/a A Better Financial Plan, or any other 

Receivership Entities. 

Please be advised that pursuant to the Receivership Order you are hereby restrained and 

enjoined from directly or indirectly taking any action, or causing any action to be taken, without 

the express written agreement of the Receiver that interferes with or hinders the Receiver’s efforts 

to take control, possession, or management of any accounts belonging to the Receivership Entities. 

Please contact me at rstumphauzer@sfslaw.com if you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

___________________________

Ryan K. Stumphauzer, Esq.

Enclosures: Receivership Order, Order Granting TRO

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 44 of

 154
Page 1 of 4

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.

_______________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S URGENT MOTION TO AMEND ORDER 

APPOINTING RECEIVER TO INCLUDE LITIGATION INJUNCTION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Securities and Exchange 

Commission’s (“Commission”) Urgent Motion to Amend Order Appointing Receiver to Include 

Litigation Injunction [ECF No. 48] (“Motion”), filed on July 31, 2020. In the Motion, Plaintiff 

seeks to amend the Court’s Order Granting Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission’s 

Motion for Appointment of Receiver [ECF No. 36] (“Order Appointing Receiver”), entered on 

July 27, 2020. 

Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to amend the Order Appointing Receiver to include a litigation 

injunction in all cases and proceedings to which the following entities are a party: Complete 

Business Solutions Group, Inc. d/b/a Par Funding (“Par Funding”), Full Spectrum Processing, Inc., 

ABetterFinancialPlan.com LLC d/b/a A Better Financial Plan (“ABFP”), ABFP Management 

Company, LLC f/k/a Pillar Life Settlement Management Company, LLC (“ABFP Management”), 

ABFP Income Fund, LLC, ABFP Income Fund 2, L.P., United Fidelis Group Corp., Fidelis 

Financial Planning LLC, Retirement Evolution Group, LLC, RE Income Fund LLC, and RE 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 45 of Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 1 of 4

 154
Page 2 of 4

Income Fund 2 LLC (collectively, the “Receivership Entities”). The Receiver agrees with and 

joins in the request for this relief. For the reasons set forth in the Motion, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission’s 

Motion to Amend Order Appointing Receiver to Include Litigation Injunction [ECF No. 48] is 

GRANTED.

The Receiver, Ryan Stumphauzer, is authorized, empowered, and directed as follows 

until further Order of the Court: 

1. To take custody, control, and possession of all Receivership Entity records, 

documents, and materials, and to safeguard these items until further Order of the Court; 

2. To secure and safeguard the Receivership Entities’ information technology, data, 

documents, storage systems, and documents, including by making contact with any third-party 

vendors, such as movers and information technology personnel, to assist in this process; 

3. To engage and employ persons in his discretion to assist him in carrying out his 

duties and responsibilities hereunder, including, but not limited to, accountants, lawyers, and 

paralegals (“Retained Personnel”); 

4. To take any other action as necessary and appropriate for the preservation of the 

Receivership Entities’ property interests or to prevent the dissipation or concealment of such 

property interests; and 

5. To take such other action as may be approved by this Court. 

6. Additionally, the Receiver shall promptly give notice of his appointment to all 

known officers, directors, agents, employees, shareholders, creditors, debtors, managers, and 

general and limited partners of each Receivership Entity, as the Receiver deems necessary or 

advisable to effectuate the operation of the receivership. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 46 of Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 2 of 4

 154
Page 3 of 4

7. In furtherance of his responsibilities in this matter, the Receiver is authorized to 

communicate with, and/or serve this Order upon, any person, entity or government office that he 

deems appropriate to inform them of the status of this matter and the Receiver’s appointment. 

8. The Receiver and Retained Personnel are entitled to reasonable compensation and 

expense reimbursement from the Receivership Entities’ estates. The Receiver shall seek the 

Court’s approval by filing a Motion for the reimbursement of expenses and compensation for 

time spent on the matters set forth herein. 

9. The Receivership Entities and all persons receiving notice of this Order shall not 

hinder or interfere with the Receiver’s efforts to take control or possession of the Receivership 

Entities’ property interests identified above or hinder his efforts to preserve them. 

STAY OF LITIGATION

“[W]hile it should be sparsely exercised, district courts possess the authority and 

discretion to enter anti-litigation orders” in the context of a Securities and Exchange Commission 

receivership. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Byers, 609 F.3d 87, 89 (2d Cir. 2010); see also Sec. & 

Exch. Comm’n v. Onix Capital, LLC, No. 16-24678-CIV, 2017 WL 6728814, at *4 (S.D. Fla. 

Jul. 24, 2017) (“That the receivership is not ‘substantially underway’ is not a compelling factor 

to lift a stay against litigation when balanced against the Receiver’s interest in preventing 

ancillary litigation during the early stages of the receivership.”); Liberte Capital Grp., LLC v. 

Capwill, 462 F.3d 543, 551 (6th Cir. 2006) (“[T]he receivership court may issue a blanket 

injunction, staying litigation against the named receiver and the entities under his control unless 

leave of that court is first obtained.”). 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 47 of Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 3 of 4

 154
Page 4 of 4

As set forth below, the following proceedings—excluding the instant proceeding—and 

all law enforcement, police, or regulatory actions and actions of the Commission related to the

above-captioned enforcement action, are hereby stayed until further Order of this Court:

All civil legal proceedings of any nature, including, but not limited to, bankruptcy 

proceedings, arbitration proceedings, foreclosure actions, default proceedings, or any 

other actions of any nature involving: (a) the Receiver, in his capacity as Receiver; (b) 

any of the Receivership Entities’ property interests, wherever located; (c) any of the 

Receivership Entities, including subsidiaries and partnerships; or, (d) any of a 

Receivership Entity’s past or present officers, directors, managers, agents, or general or 

limited partners sued for, or in connection with, any action taken by them while acting 

in such capacity of any nature, whether as plaintiff, defendant, third-party plaintiff, thirdparty defendant, or otherwise (such proceedings are hereinafter referred to as “Ancillary 

Proceedings”).

The parties to any and all Ancillary Proceedings are enjoined from commencing or 

continuing any such legal proceeding, or from taking any action, in connection with any such 

proceeding, including, but not limited to, the issuance or employment of process.

All Ancillary Proceedings are stayed in their entirety, and all Courts having any jurisdiction 

thereof are enjoined from taking or permitting any action until further Order of this Court. Further, 

as to a cause of action accrued or accruing in favor of one or more of the Receivership Entities 

against a third person or party, any applicable statute of limitation is tolled during the period in

which this injunction against commencement of legal proceedings is in effect as to that cause of

action.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 31st day of July, 2020.

_____________________________

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Copies to: Counsel of Record

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 48 of Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 4 of 4

 154
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CIV-81205-RAR

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE UNDER SEAL

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 

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

Defendants.

_______________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING EMERGENCY EX PARTE MOTION 

FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND OTHER RELIEF

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Emergency Ex Parte Motion for 

Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief [ECF No. 14] (“Motion”), filed on July 27, 2020. 

The Motion seeks the following relief with respect to Defendants Complete Business Solutions 

Group, Inc. d/b/a PAR Funding (“Par Funding”), Full Spectrum Processing, Inc. (“Full 

Spectrum”), ABetterFinancialPlan.com LLC d/b/a A Better Financial Plan (“ABFP”), ABFP 

Management Company, LLC f/k/a Pillar Life Settlement Management Company, LLC (“ABFP 

Management”), ABFP Income Fund, LLC (“ABFP Income Fund”), ABFP Income Fund 2, L.P.

(“ABFP Income Fund 2”), United Fidelis Group Corp. (“United Fidelis”), Fidelis Financial 

Planning LLC (“Fidelis Financial”), Retirement Evolution Group, LLC (“Retirement Evolution”), 

Retirement Evolution Income Fund LLC, a/k/a RE Income Fund (“RE Income Fund”), RE Income 

Fund 2 LLC (“RE Income Fund 2”), Lisa McElhone (“McElhone”), Joseph Cole Barleta, a/k/a Joe 

Cole (“Cole”), Joseph W. LaForte, a/k/a Joe Mack, a/k/a Joe Macki, a/k/a Joe McElhone

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 1 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 49 of

 154
- 2 -

(“LaForte”), Perry S. Abbonizio, Dean J. Vagnozzi, Michael C. Furman, and John Gissas, and 

Relief Defendant L.M.E. 2017 Family Trust (“L.M.E. Trust”):

1. a Temporary Restraining Order;

2. an Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not be Granted;

3. an Order Freezing the Assets of Defendants and Relief Defendant;

4. an Order Requiring Sworn Accountings;

5. an Order Prohibiting Destruction of Documents; and

6. an Order Expediting Discovery. 

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Motion, Plaintiff’s exhibits filed in 

support of the Motion, and the Response to Plaintiff’s Ex-Parte Motions for Appointment of a 

Receiver and for an Asset Freeze, submitted on July 28, 2020 by Defendants Par Funding, Full 

Spectrum, McElhone, Cole, LaForte, and L.M.E. Trust. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has made a sufficient and proper showing in support of the 

relief granted herein by: (i) presenting a prima facie case of securities laws violations by 

Defendants; and (ii) showing a reasonable likelihood the Defendants will harm the investing public 

by continuing to violate the federal securities laws unless they are immediately restrained. The 

Court also finds good cause to believe that unless immediately enjoined by Order of this Court, 

the Defendants may dissipate, conceal or transfer from the jurisdiction of this Court assets which 

could be subject to an Order of Disgorgement. Accordingly, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion [ECF No. 14] is GRANTED as 

follows:

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 2 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 50 of

 154
- 3 -

I.

SHOW CAUSE HEARING AND TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE

The Defendants shall show cause, if any, before the Court via a Zoom hearing on 

Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 3:30 P.M., or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard, why a 

Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should not be 

granted against Defendants, as requested by Plaintiff. In advance of the hearing, the Court will 

provide the parties with information on how to join via Zoom. 

Additionally, the Court will hold a telephonic status conference on Monday, August 3, 

2020 at 4:15 P.M. The parties are instructed to call 1-877-402-9753 by no later than 4:10 P.M. 

The access code is 9372453 and the password is 0918. The Court requires that the parties appear 

via a landline (i.e., not a cellular phone or a speaker phone) for clarity.

II.

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

A. Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act

Pending further Order of the Court, Defendants Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP 

Management, ABFP Income Fund, ABFP Income Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, 

McElhone, LaForte, Cole, Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, and Furman are preliminarily restrained and 

enjoined from violating Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), 15 

U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1), in the offer or sale of any security by the use of any means or instruments of 

transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails, directly or 

indirectly: to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, by, directly or indirectly (i) 

creating a false appearance or otherwise deceiving any person, or (ii) disseminating false or 

misleading documents, materials, or information or making, either orally or in writing, any false 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 3 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 51 of

 154
- 4 -

or misleading statement in any communication with any investor or prospective investor, about: 

(A) any investment in securities; (B) the prospects for success of any product or company; (C) the

use of investor funds; (D) the safety of any securities investment; (E) the use of investor funds or 

investment proceeds; (F) Orders issued against the Defendants by state or federal enforcement 

agencies; (G) the financial status of Par Funding; or (H) the management of Par Funding.

As provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), the foregoing paragraph also 

binds the following who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise: (a) 

any of Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP Management, ABFP Income Fund, ABFP Income 

Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, McElhone, LaForte, Cole, Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, or

Furman’s officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and (b) other persons in 

active concert or participation with Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP Management, ABFP 

Income Fund, ABFP Income Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, McElhone, LaForte, Cole, 

Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, or Furman.

B. Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act

Pending further Order of the Court, all Defendants are preliminarily restrained and enjoined 

from violating Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(2), in the offer or sale of 

any security by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in 

interstate commerce or by use of the mails, directly or indirectly: to obtain money or property by 

means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any omission to state a material fact necessary 

in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, 

not misleading, by, directly or indirectly (i) creating a false appearance or otherwise deceiving any 

person, or (ii) disseminating false or misleading documents, materials, or information or making, 

either orally or in writing, any false or misleading statement in any communication with any 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 4 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 52 of

 154
- 5 -

investor or prospective investor, about: (A) any investment in securities; (B) the prospects for 

success of any product or company; (C) the use of investor funds; (D) the safety of any securities 

investment; (E) the use of investor funds or investment proceeds; (F) Orders issued against the 

Defendants by state or federal enforcement agencies; (G) the financial status of Par Funding; or 

(H) the management of Par Funding.

As provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), the foregoing paragraph also 

binds the following who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise: (a) 

any of the Defendants’ officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and (b) other 

persons in active concert or participation with any Defendant.

C. Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act

Pending further Order of the Court, all Defendants are preliminarily restrained and enjoined 

from violating Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(3), in the offer or sale of 

any security by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in 

interstate commerce or by use of the mails, directly or indirectly: to engage in any transaction, 

practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the 

purchaser, by, directly or indirectly (i) creating a false appearance or otherwise deceiving any 

person, or (ii) disseminating false or misleading documents, materials, or information or making, 

either orally or in writing, any false or misleading statement in any communication with any 

investor or prospective investor, about: (A) any investment in securities; (B) the prospects for 

success of any product or company; (C) the use of investor funds; (D) the safety of any securities 

investment; (E) the use of investor funds or investment proceeds; (F) Orders issued against the 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 5 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 53 of

 154
- 6 -

Defendants by state or federal enforcement agencies; (G) the financial status of Par Funding; or

(H) the management of Par Funding.

As provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), the foregoing paragraph also 

binds the following who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise: (a) 

any of the Defendants’ officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and (b) other 

persons in active concert or participation with any Defendant.

D. Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) of the Exchange Act

Pending further Order of the Court, Defendants Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP 

Management, ABFP Income Fund, ABFP Income Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, 

McElhone, LaForte, Cole, Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, and Furman, and their respective directors, 

officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, representatives and those persons in active concert 

or participation with them, and each of them, are hereby restrained and enjoined from violating 

Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 15 

U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a), by using any means or instrumentality of interstate 

commerce, or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange, in connection 

with the purchase or sale of any security, to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, by, 

directly or indirectly (i) creating a false appearance or otherwise deceiving any person, or (ii) 

disseminating false or misleading documents, materials, or information or making, either orally or 

in writing, any false or misleading statement in any communication with any investor or 

prospective investor, about: (A) any investment in securities; (B) the prospects for success of any 

product or company; (C) the use of investor funds; (D) the safety of any securities investment; (E) 

the use of investor funds or investment proceeds; (F) Orders issued against the Defendants by state 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 6 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 54 of

 154
- 7 -

or federal enforcement agencies; (G) the financial status of Par Funding; or (H) the management 

of Par Funding.

As provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), the foregoing paragraph also 

binds the following who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise: (a) 

any of Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP Management, ABFP Income Fund, ABFP Income 

Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, McElhone, LaForte, Cole, Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, or 

Furman’s officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and (b) other persons in 

active concert or participation with Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP Management, ABFP 

Income Fund, ABFP Income Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, McElhone, LaForte, Cole, 

Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, or Furman.

E. Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) of the Exchange Act

Pending further Order of the Court, Defendants Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP 

Management, ABFP Income Fund, ABFP Income Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, 

McElhone, LaForte, Cole, Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, and Furman, and their respective directors, 

officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, representatives and those persons in active concert 

or participation with them, and each of them, are hereby restrained and enjoined from violating: 

Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5(b), 17 C.F.R. 

§ 240.10b-5(b), by using any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails, or 

of any facility of any national securities exchange, in connection with the purchase or sale of any 

security, to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, by, directly or indirectly (i) creating 

a false appearance or otherwise deceiving any person, or (ii) disseminating false or misleading 

documents, materials, or information or making, either orally or in writing, any false or misleading 

statement in any communication with any investor or prospective investor, about: (A) any 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 7 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 55 of

 154
- 8 -

investment in securities; (B) the prospects for success of any product or company; (C) the use of 

investor funds; (D) the safety of any securities investment; (E) the use of investor funds or 

investment proceeds; (F) Orders issued against the Defendants by state or federal enforcement 

agencies; (G) the financial status of Par Funding; or (H) the management of Par Funding.

As provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), the foregoing paragraph also 

binds the following who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise: (a) 

any of Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP Management, ABFP Income Fund, ABFP Income 

Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, McElhone, LaForte, Cole, Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, or 

Furman’s officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and (b) other persons in 

active concert or participation with Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP Management, ABFP 

Income Fund, ABFP Income Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, McElhone, LaForte, Cole, 

Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, or Furman.

F. Section 10(b) and Ruleb-5(c) of the Exchange Act

Pending further Order of the Court, Defendants Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP 

Management, ABFP Income Fund, ABFP Income Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, 

McElhone, LaForte, Cole, Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, and Furman and their respective directors, officers, 

agents, servants, employees, attorneys, representatives and those persons in active concert or 

participation with them, and each of them, are hereby restrained and enjoined from violating 

Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5(c), 17 C.F.R. 

§ 240.10b-5(c), by using any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails, or 

of any facility of any national securities exchange, in connection with the purchase or sale of any 

security, to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, by, directly or indirectly (i) creating 

a false appearance or otherwise deceiving any person, or (ii) disseminating false or misleading 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 8 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 56 of

 154
- 9 -

documents, materials, or information or making, either orally or in writing, any false or misleading 

statement in any communication with any investor or prospective investor, about: (A) any 

investment in securities; (B) the prospects for success of any product or company; (C) the use of 

investor funds; (D) the safety of any securities investment; (E) the use of investor funds or 

investment proceeds; (F) Orders issued against the Defendants by state of federal enforcement 

agencies; (G) the financial status of Par Funding; or (H) the management of Par Funding.

As provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), the foregoing paragraph also 

binds the following who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise: (a) 

any of Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP Management, ABFP Income Fund, ABFP Income 

Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, McElhone, LaForte, Cole, Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, or 

Furman’s officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and (b) other persons in 

active concert or participation with Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP Management, ABFP 

Income Fund, ABFP Income Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, McElhone, LaForte, Cole, 

Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, or Furman. 

G. Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act

Pending further Order of the Court, that all Defendants and their respective directors, 

officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, representatives and those persons in active concert 

or participation with them, and each of them, are hereby enjoined from violating Sections 5(a) and 

5(c) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77e, by directly or indirectly, in the absence of any 

applicable exemption:

(a) Unless a registration statement is in effect as to a security, making use of any means 

or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 9 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 57 of

 154
- 10 -

mails to sell such security through the use or medium of any prospectus or 

otherwise;

(b) Unless a registration statement is in effect as to a security, carrying or causing to 

be carried through the mails or in interstate commerce, by any means or instruments 

of transportation, any such security for the purpose of sale or for delivery after sale; 

or

(c) Making use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in 

interstate commerce or of the mails to offer to sell or offer to buy through the use 

or medium of any prospectus or otherwise any security, unless a registration 

statement has been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as to such 

security, or while the registration statement is the subject of a refusal order or stop 

order or (prior to the effective date of the registration statement) any public 

proceeding or examination under Section 8 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77h.

As provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), the foregoing paragraph also 

binds the following who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise: (a) 

any of Defendants’ officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and (b) other 

persons in active concert or participation with any Defendant.

III.

ASSET FREEZE AS TO PAR FUNDING, MCELHONE, AND LAFORTE 

Pending determination of Plaintiff’s request for a Preliminary Injunction:

A. Defendants Par Funding, McElhone, and LaForte and their respective directors, 

officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, depositories, banks, and those persons in active 

concert or participation with any one or more of them, and each of them, who receive notice of 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 10 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 58 of

 154
- 11 -

this Order by personal service, mail, email, facsimile transmission or otherwise, hereby are 

restrained from, directly or indirectly, transferring, setting off, receiving, changing, selling, 

pledging, assigning, liquidating or otherwise disposing of, or withdrawing any assets or property, 

including but not limited to cash, free credit balances, fully paid for securities, personal property, 

real property, and/or property pledged or hypothecated as collateral for loans, or charging upon or 

drawing from any lines of credit, owned by, controlled by, or in the possession of, whether jointly 

or singly, and wherever located, Par Funding, Lisa McElhone, and Joseph LaForte, a/k/a Joe Mack, 

a/k/a Joe Macki, a/k/a Joe McElhone.

B. Any financial or brokerage institution or other person or entity holding any such 

funds or other assets, in the name, for the benefit or under the control of Defendants Par Funding,

McElhone, or LaForte, directly or indirectly, held jointly or singly, and wherever located, and 

which receives actual notice of this Order by personal service, mail, email, facsimile, or otherwise, 

shall hold and retain within its control and prohibit the withdrawal, removal, transfer, disposition, 

pledge, encumbrance, assignment, set off, sale, liquidation, dissipation, concealment, or other 

disposal of any such funds or other assets.

This asset freeze is limited to the amount received from the securities fraud, which is 

estimated at this time to be $482,000,000.

ASSET FREEZE AS TO FULL SPECTRUM

Pending determination of Plaintiff’s request for a Preliminary Injunction:

Defendant Full Spectrum and its respective directors, officers, agents, servants, employees, 

attorneys, depositories, banks, and those persons in active concert or participation with any one or 

more of them, and each of them, who receive notice of this Order by personal service, mail, email, 

facsimile transmission or otherwise, hereby are restrained from, directly or indirectly, transferring, 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 11 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 59 of

 154
- 12 -

setting off, receiving, changing, selling, pledging, assigning, liquidating or otherwise disposing of, 

or withdrawing any assets or property of Par Funding, Full Spectrum, McElhone, or LaForte.

This asset freeze is limited to the amount received from the securities fraud, which is 

estimated at this time to be $4,398,535.

ASSET FREEZE AS TO DEFENDANT ABFP, 

ABFP INCOME FUND, AND ABFP INCOME FUND 2 

Pending determination of Plaintiff’s request for a Preliminary Injunction:

A. Defendants ABFP, ABFP Income Fund, and ABFP Income Fund 2, and their

respective directors, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, depositories, banks, and those 

persons in active concert or participation with any one or more of them, and each of them, who 

receive notice of this Order by personal service, mail, email, facsimile transmission or otherwise, 

hereby are restrained from, directly or indirectly, transferring, setting off, receiving, changing, 

selling, pledging, assigning, liquidating or otherwise disposing of, or withdrawing any assets or 

property, including but not limited to cash, free credit balances, fully paid for securities, personal 

property, real property, and/or property pledged or hypothecated as collateral for loans, or charging 

upon or drawing from any lines of credit, owned by, controlled by, or in the possession of, whether 

jointly or singly, and wherever located: ABFP, ABFP Income Fund, and ABFP Income Fund 2.

B. Any financial or brokerage institution or other person or entity holding any such 

funds or other assets, in the name, for the benefit or under the control of Defendants ABFP, ABFP 

Income Fund, and ABFP Income 2, directly or indirectly, held jointly or singly, and wherever 

located, and which receives actual notice of this Order by personal service, mail, email, facsimile, 

or otherwise, shall hold and retain within its control and prohibit the withdrawal, removal, transfer, 

disposition, pledge, encumbrance, assignment, set off, sale, liquidation, dissipation, concealment, 

or other disposal of any such funds or other assets.

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 12 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 60 of

 154
- 13 -

C. This asset freeze is limited to the amounts ABFP, ABFP Income Fund, and ABFP 

Income Fund 2 received from the securities fraud, which is estimated at this time to be:

$25,487,690 as to ABFP Income Fund and ABFP, jointly and severally; $13,252,600 as to ABFP 

Income Fund 2 and ABFP, jointly and severally; and $1,914,045 as to ABFP independent of ABFP 

Income Fund and ABFP Income Fund 2.

ASSET FREEZE AS TO DEFENDANTS UNITED FIDELIS AND FIDELIS FINANCIAL

Pending determination of Plaintiff’s request for a Preliminary Injunction:

A. Defendants United Fidelis and Fidelis Financial, and their respective directors, 

officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, depositories, banks, and those persons in active 

concert or participation with any one or more of them, and each of them, who receive notice of 

this Order by personal service, mail, email, facsimile transmission or otherwise hereby are, 

restrained from, directly or indirectly, transferring, setting off, receiving, changing, selling, 

pledging, assigning, liquidating or otherwise disposing of, or withdrawing any assets or property, 

including but not limited to cash, free credit balances, fully paid for securities, personal property, 

real property, and/or property pledged or hypothecated as collateral for loans, or charging upon or 

drawing from any lines of credit, owned by, controlled by, or in the possession of, whether jointly 

or singly, and wherever located: United Fidelis and Fidelis Financial.

B. Any financial or brokerage institution or other person or entity holding any such 

funds or other assets, in the name, for the benefit or under the control of United Fidelis and Fidelis 

Financial, directly or indirectly, held jointly or singly, and wherever located, and which receives 

actual notice of this Order by personal service, mail, email, facsimile, or otherwise, shall hold and 

retain within its control and prohibit the withdrawal, removal, transfer, disposition, pledge, 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 13 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 61 of

 154
- 14 -

encumbrance, assignment, set off, sale, liquidation, dissipation, concealment, or other disposal of 

any such funds or other assets.

C. This asset freeze is limited to the amounts United Fidelis and Fidelis Financial 

received from the fraud, which is estimated at this time to be: $11,603,000, jointly and severally.

ASSET FREEZE AS TO DEFENDANTS RETIREMENT EVOLUTION, 

RE INCOME FUND, AND RE INCOME FUND 2

Pending determination of Plaintiff’s request for a Preliminary Injunction:

A. Defendants Retirement Evolution, RE Income Fund, and RE Income Fund 2, and 

their respective directors, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, depositories, banks, and 

those persons in active concert or participation with any one or more of them, and each of them, 

who receive notice of this Order by personal service, mail, email, facsimile transmission or 

otherwise, hereby are restrained from, directly or indirectly, transferring, setting off, receiving, 

changing, selling, pledging, assigning, liquidating or otherwise disposing of, or withdrawing any 

assets or property, including but not limited to cash, free credit balances, fully paid for securities, 

personal property, real property, and/or property pledged or hypothecated as collateral for loans, 

or charging upon or drawing from any lines of credit, owned by, controlled by, or in the possession 

of, whether jointly or singly, and wherever located: Retirement Evolution, RE Income Fund, and 

RE Income Fund 2.

B. Any financial or brokerage institution or other person or entity holding any such 

funds or other assets, in the name, for the benefit or under the control of Retirement Evolution, RE 

Income Fund, and RE Income Fund 2, directly or indirectly, held jointly or singly, and wherever 

located, and which receives actual notice of this Order by personal service, mail, email, facsimile, 

or otherwise, shall hold and retain within its control and prohibit the withdrawal, removal, transfer, 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 14 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 62 of

 154
- 15 -

disposition, pledge, encumbrance, assignment, set off, sale, liquidation, dissipation, concealment, 

or other disposal of any such funds or other assets.

C. This asset freeze is limited to the amounts Retirement Evolution, RE Income Fund, 

and RE Income Fund 2 received from the fraud, which is estimated at this time to be: $6.5 million 

as to Retirement Evolution; $5,450,000 as to RE Income Fund; and $150,000 as to RE Income 

Fund 2.

ASSET FREEZE AS TO DEFENDANT COLE

Pending determination of Plaintiff’s request for a Preliminary Injunction:

A. Defendant Cole and his respective directors, officers, agents, servants, employees, 

attorneys, depositories, banks, and those persons in active concert or participation with any one or 

more of them, and each of them, who receive notice of this Order by personal service, mail, email, 

facsimile transmission or otherwise, hereby are restrained from, directly or indirectly, transferring, 

setting off, receiving, changing, selling, pledging, assigning, liquidating or otherwise disposing of, 

or withdrawing any assets or property, including but not limited to cash, free credit balances, fully 

paid for securities, personal property, real property, and/or property pledged or hypothecated as 

collateral for loans, or charging upon or drawing from any lines of credit, owned by, controlled 

by, or in the possession of, whether jointly or singly, and wherever located: Joseph Cole Barleta, 

a/k/a Joe Cole.

B. Any financial or brokerage institution or other person or entity holding any such 

funds or other assets, in the name, for the benefit or under the control of Cole, directly or indirectly, 

held jointly or singly, and wherever located, and which receives actual notice of this Order by 

personal service, mail, email, facsimile, or otherwise, shall hold and retain within its control and 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 15 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 63 of

 154
- 16 -

prohibit the withdrawal, removal, transfer, disposition, pledge, encumbrance, assignment, set off, 

sale, liquidation, dissipation, concealment, or other disposal of any such funds or other assets.

C. This asset freeze is limited to the amount Cole received from the fraud, which is 

estimated at this time to be $16,159,000.

ASSET FREEZE AS TO L.M.E. 2017 FAMILY TRUST

Pending determination of Plaintiff’s request for a Preliminary Injunction:

A. Relief Defendant L.M.E. 2017 Family Trust and its respective directors, officers, 

agents, servants, employees, attorneys, depositories, banks, and those persons in active concert or 

participation with any one or more of them, and each of them, who receive notice of this Order by 

personal service, mail, email, facsimile transmission or otherwise, hereby are restrained from, 

directly or indirectly, transferring, setting off, receiving, changing, selling, pledging, assigning, 

liquidating or otherwise disposing of, or withdrawing any assets or property, including but not 

limited to cash, free credit balances, fully paid for securities, personal property, real property, 

and/or property pledged or hypothecated as collateral for loans, or charging upon or drawing from 

any lines of credit, owned by, controlled by, or in the possession of, whether jointly or singly, and 

wherever located: The L.M.E. 2017 Family Trust.

B. Any financial or brokerage institution or other person or entity holding any such 

funds or other assets, in the name, for the benefit or under the control of the L.M.E. 2017 Family 

Trust, directly or indirectly, held jointly or singly, and wherever located, and which receives actual 

notice of this Order by personal service, mail, email, facsimile, or otherwise, shall hold and retain 

within its control and prohibit the withdrawal, removal, transfer, disposition, pledge, encumbrance, 

assignment, set off, sale, liquidation, dissipation, concealment, or other disposal of any such funds 

or other assets.

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 16 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 64 of

 154
- 17 -

C. This asset freeze is limited to the amount the L.M.E. 2017 Family Trust received 

from the fraud, which is estimated at this time to be $14.3 million.

IV.

SWORN ACCOUNTINGS

Accounting and Identification of Accounts by Each Defendant

Within five calendar days of the issuance of this Order, each Defendant, separately, shall:

(a) make a sworn accounting to this Court and the Plaintiff of all funds, whether in the 

form of compensation, commissions, income (including payments for assets, shares or property of

any kind), and other benefits (including the provision of services of a personal or mixed business 

and personal nature) received, directly or indirectly, by the Defendant making the sworn 

accounting; 

(b) make a sworn accounting to this Court and the Plaintiff of all assets, funds, or other 

properties, whether real or personal, held by the Defendant making the sworn accounting, jointly 

or individually, or for its direct or indirect beneficial interest, or over which it maintains control, 

wherever situated, stating the location, value, and disposition of each such asset, fund, and other 

property; and

(c) provide to the Court and the Plaintiff a sworn identification of all accounts 

(including, but not limited to, bank accounts, savings accounts, securities accounts and deposits of 

any kind and wherever situated) in which the Defendant making the sworn accounting (whether 

solely or jointly), directly or indirectly (including through a corporation, partnership, relative, 

friend or nominee), either has an interest or over which he has the power or right to exercise 

control.

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 17 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 65 of

 154
- 18 -

V.

RECORDS PRESERVATION

Pending determination of the Plaintiff’s request for a Preliminary Injunction, all Defendants 

and the Relief Defendant, their directors, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, 

depositories, banks, and those persons in active concert or participation with any one or more of 

them, and each of them, hereby are restrained and enjoined from, directly or indirectly, destroying, 

mutilating, concealing, altering, disposing of, or otherwise rendering illegible in any manner, any 

of the books, records, documents, correspondence, brochures, manuals, papers, ledgers, accounts, 

statements, obligations, files and other property of or pertaining to any and all Defendants and the 

Relief Defendant, wherever located and in whatever form, electronic or otherwise, until further 

Order of this Court.

VI.

EXPEDITED DISCOVERY 

(a) Immediately upon entry of this Order, and while the Plaintiff’s request for a 

Preliminary Injunction is pending, the parties may take depositions upon oral examination of 

parties and non-parties subject to two days’ notice. Should any Defendant fail to appear for a 

properly noticed deposition, that party may be prohibited from introducing evidence at the hearing 

on the Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction;

(b) Immediately upon entry of this Order, and while the Plaintiff’s request for a 

Preliminary Injunction is pending, the parties shall be entitled to serve interrogatories, requests for 

the production of documents and requests for admissions. The parties shall respond to such 

discovery requests within two days of service;

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 18 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 66 of

 154
- 19 -

(c) Immediately upon entry of this Order, and while the Plaintiff’s request for a 

Preliminary Injunction is pending, the parties may issue subpoenas for documents, things and 

electronically stored information to non-parties pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, with responses due 

within one week of the date of service;

(d) All responses to the Plaintiff’s discovery requests shall be delivered to Amie Riggle 

Berlin, Esq. at 801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1950, Miami, Florida 33131 by the most expeditious 

means available; and

(e) Service of discovery requests shall be sufficient if made upon the parties by email, 

facsimile, or overnight courier, and depositions may be taken by telephone or other remote 

electronic means. 

VII.

RETENTION OF JURISDICTION

This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter and Defendants and Relief Defendants

in order to implement and carry out the terms of all Orders and Decrees that may be entered and/or 

to entertain any suitable application or motion for additional relief within the jurisdiction of this 

Court, and will order other relief that this Court deems appropriate under the circumstances.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 28th day of July, 2020.

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: Counsel of Record

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 19 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 67 of

 154
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO.: 9:20-cv-81205-RAR 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS GROUP, 

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

Defendants 

____________________________________________/ 

SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT DEAN VAGNOZZI'S 

RESPONSE TO SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION’S 

FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 

Specially appearing Defendant DEAN VAGNOZZI (hereinafter “Defendant”), by and 

through his undersigned counsel, hereby responds to Plaintiff SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION’S (“Plaintiff”) First Requests for Admissions (the “Admission Requests”) as 

follows: 

GENERAL STATEMENT AND OBJECTIONS 

1. Defendant objects to the Admission Requests for lack of due process under the 

United States Constitution. The Court has imposed a two-calendar day response deadline without 

having provided Defendant any notice or opportunity to contest expedited discovery. This violates 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the United States Constitution. Defendant has not had 

adequate time to investigate his responses to the Admission Requests, which violates his 

Constitutional rights. Moreover, Defendant's counsel only appeared in this action the day prior to 

service of the Admission Requests, and has not had adequate time to investigate the allegations 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 68 of

 154
2 

and the Admission Requests in order to properly advise Defendant on his responses, which further 

violates Defendant's Constitutional rights. To the extent these Admission Requests are attempted 

to be used in any criminal prosecution, the circumstances of the Admission Requests further deny 

Defendant his right to effective assistance of counsel under the United States Constitution. 

2. Defendant has not completed his investigation of the facts relating to this case. 

Therefore, this response represents Defendant’s present knowledge based upon information known 

to it as of this date, and Defendant reserves the full right to withdraw any response to the Admission 

Requests at a later time. Defendant also reserves the right to (i) supplement, amend or correct all 

or any part of the responses provided herein and (ii) object to the admissibility in evidence of all 

or any part of the responses provided herein and any information contained herein. 

3. Defendant will make reasonable efforts to respond to each Admission Request, to 

the extent that no objection is made, as Defendant understands and interprets the Admission 

Request. If Plaintiff subsequently assert any interpretation of any Admission Request or term 

included within a request that differs from Defendant’s interpretation, Defendant reserves the right 

to supplement or amend its objections and/or responses. 

4. Defendant objects to the Admission Request (including its accompanying 

definitions and instructions) to the extent it calls for admissions relating to information or 

documents which were generated, prepared, received or obtained for or in anticipation of litigation, 

constitute attorney work-product or contain attorney-client communications, or are otherwise 

privileged, confidential or immune from disclosure. Defendant further objects to the Admission 

Request to the extent it seeks admissions relating to information or documents that are confidential 

or privileged under applicable privacy rights. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 69 of

 154
3 

5. Defendant objects to the Admission Requests to the extent they seek to impose 

obligations to provide information beyond that required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

and laws governing the proper scope of discovery. 

6. Defendant objects to the Admission Requests to the extent they call for admissions 

about documents or information not limited to the time period relevant to the claims against it, are 

compound, or require Defendant to make legal conclusions. Defendant further objects to the 

Request to the extent it calls for admissions relating to documents or information that are neither 

relevant to this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

7. Personal Jurisdiction Objection: The information requested is not relevant to the 

existence of jurisdiction over Defendant 

8. Without waiver of any of the foregoing general objections, Defendant responds and 

specifically objects to Plaintiffs’ Admission Requests as follows: 

RESPONSES TO INDIVIDUAL REQUESTS 

1. Admit that you are an owner of ABFP Income Fund. 

Response: Defendant admits only that he is the sole member of the Manager of 

ABFP Income Fund. Otherwise denied. 

2. Admit that from the creation of ABFP until at least July 27, 2020, you controlled 

ABFP. 

Response: Defendant objects to the term “controlled” as being overly broad, 

vague, and undefined. Without waiving said objection, Defendant admits only that 

he serves as the sole member of ABFP. Otherwise denied. 

3. Admit that from the creation of ABFP Management until at least July 27, 2020, you 

controlled ABFP Management. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 70 of

 154
4 

Response: Defendant objects to the term “controlled” as being overly broad, 

vague, and undefined. Without waiving said objection, Defendant admits only that 

he serves as the sole member of ABFP Management. Otherwise denied. 

4. Admit that you are an owner of ABFP Income Fund. 

Response: Defendant admits only that he is the sole member of the Manager of 

ABFP Income Fund. Otherwise denied. 

5. Admit that from the creation of ABFP Income Fund until at least July 27, 2020, 

you controlled ABFP Income Fund. 

Response: Defendant objects to the term “controlled” as being overly broad, 

vague, and undefined. Without waiving said objection, Defendant admits only that he 

serves as the sole member of the Manager of ABFP Income Fund. Otherwise denied. 

6. Admit that you are an owner of ABFP Income Fund 2. 

Response: Defendant admits only that he is the sole member of the general partner 

of ABFP Income Fund 2. Otherwise denied. 

7. Admit that from the creation of ABFP Income Fund 2 until at least July 27, 2020, 

you controlled ABFP Income Fund 2. 

Response: Defendant objects to the term “controlled” as being overly broad, 

vague, and undefined. Without waiving said objection, Defendant admits only that he 

serves as the sole member of the general partner of ABFP Income Fund 2. Otherwise 

denied. 

8. Admit that you held Series 6 and 63 securities licenses. 

Response: Admitted. 

9. Admit that the Series 6 and Series 63 securities licenses you held have expired. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 71 of

 154
5 

Response: Defendant admits only that he is no longer registered with FINRA for 

securities licenses. Otherwise denied. 

10. Admit that you were associated with a FINRA-registered securities broker-dealer 

from February 2008 until February 2009. 

Response: Admitted. 

11. Admit that you solicited investors to invest in Par Funding promissory notes. 

Response: Denied. Defendant also objects to the terms “solicited” and “investors” 

as being overly broad, vague, and undefined. Further, Defendant objects to this 

Request to the extent that his request improperly asks Defendant to provide a legal 

conclusion as to the phrase “solicited.” 

12. Admit that you solicited investors to invest in Par Funding promissory notes from 

about August 2016 until December 2017. 

Response: Denied. Defendant objects to the terms “solicited” and “investors” as 

being overly broad, vague, and undefined. Further, Defendant objects to this Request 

to the extent that his request improperly asks Defendant to provide a legal conclusion 

as to the phrase “solicited.” 

13. Admit that in 2018 you recruited individuals to start Agent Funds. 

Response: Denied. Defendant objects to this request as being unduly vague and 

ambiguous because the term “recruited” is not defined, is reasonably subject to more 

than one definition or interpretation, and Defendant does not know what Plaintiff 

means by its use of the term. 

14. Admit that in 2018 you trained individuals to solicit investors in Agent Funds. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 72 of

 154
6 

Response: Denied. Defendant objects to the terms “solicit”, “trained”, and 

“investors” as being overly broad, vague, and undefined. Further, Defendant objects 

to this Request to the extent that the request improperly asks Defendant to provide a 

legal conclusion as to the phrase “solicit.” 

15. Admit that in 2019 you recruited individuals to start Agent Funds. 

Response: Denied. Defendant objects to this request as being unduly vague and 

ambiguous because the term “recruited” is not defined, is reasonably subject to more 

than one definition or interpretation, and Defendant does not know what Plaintiff 

means by its use of the term. 

16. Admit that in 2019 you trained individuals to solicit investors in Agent Funds. 

Response: Denied. Defendant objects to the terms “solicit”, “trained”, and 

“investors” as being overly broad, vague, and undefined. Further, Defendant objects 

to this Request to the extent that the request improperly asks Defendant to provide a 

legal conclusion as to the phrase “solicit.” 

17. Admit that in 2020 you recruited individuals to start Agent Funds. 

Response: Denied. Defendant objects to this request as being unduly vague and 

ambiguous because the term “recruited” is not defined, is reasonably subject to more 

than one definition or interpretation, and Defendant does not know what Plaintiff 

means by its use of the term. 

18. Admit that in 2019 you trained individuals to solicit investors in Agent Funds. 

Response: Denied. Defendant objects to the terms “solicit”, “trained”, and 

“investors” as being overly broad, vague, and undefined. Further, Defendant objects 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 73 of

 154
7 

to this Request to the extent that the request improperly asks Defendant to provide a 

legal conclusion as to the phrase “solicit.” 

19. Admit that Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the “Agent Guide.” 

Response: Defendant admits only that Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of an 

ABFP document titled "Agent Guide." Otherwise denied. 

20. Admit that you drafted the document attached as Exhibit A. 

Response: Defendant admits only that he was involved in the drafting process of 

Exhibit A. Otherwise denied. 

21. Admit that you approved the document attached as Exhibit A for distribution. 

Response: Defendant admits only that he approved the content of Exhibit A. 

Otherwise denied. 

22. Admit that you gave Exhibit A to individuals who were creating Agent Funds. 

Response: Defendant denies any recollection of ever providing Exhibit A to 

individuals who were creating Agent Funds. Otherwise denied. 

23. Admit that you learned about the Pennsylvania Order Against Par Funding by no 

later than December 2018. 

Response: Defendant admits only that he learned about the Pennsylvania Order 

when it was announced publicly, which he recalls being in December 2018. Otherwise 

denied. 

24. Admit that you learned about the New Jersey Order Against Par Funding by no 

later than January 2019. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 74 of

 154
8 

Response: Defendant admits only that he learned about the New Jersey Order 

when it was announced publicly, which he recalls being in December 2018. Otherwise 

denied. 

25. Admit that in May 2019, you agreed to the entry of the Pennsylvania Order Against 

You. 

Response: Defendant admits only that, without admitting or denying the 

allegations of the Pennsylvania Order, Defendant agreed to settle with the 

Pennsylvania state securities regulators on the terms set forth in the Pennsylvania 

Order. Otherwise denied. 

26. Admit that on July 14, 2020, the Commission instituted settled administrative 

proceedings against You for his offering and selling unregistered securities in violation of Section 

5 of the Securities Act and acting as an unregistered broker-dealer in violation of Section 15(a) of 

the Exchange Act. 

Response: Defendant admits only that the Commission instituted administrative 

proceedings as set forth in Release No. 34-89318, which speaks for itself. Otherwise 

denied. 

27. Admit that ABFP Manageemnt is engaged in the business of, among things, 

providing management services related to organizing and operating companies formed for the 

purpose of raising funds from investors and using the investor funds to invest in alternative 

investments. 

Response: Denied. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 75 of

 154
9 

28. Admit that ABFP Management provides management services for the Par Funding 

Agent Funds in exchange for a portion of the investment returns the Agent Funds receive from Par 

Funding. 

Response: Admit only that, as fully disclosed in the private placement memoranda 

for ABFP Income Fund and ABFP Income Fund 2, ABFP Management serves as the 

Manager of Income Fund and the General Partner of ABFP Income Fund 2, and in 

the case of ABFP Income Fund, retains the difference between the amount paid to the 

fund from the merchant cash promissory notes and the amounts payable on the fund 

notes, and, in the case of ABFP Income Fund 2, received partnership interests. 

Otherwise denied. 

29. Admit that ABFP has been soliciting investors for Par Funding since no later than 

April 4, 2017. 

Response: Denied. Defendant also objects to the terms “soliciting” and 

“investors” as being overly broad, vague, and undefined. Further, Defendant objects 

to this Request to the extent that his request improperly asks Defendant to provide a 

legal conclusion as to the phrase “soliciting.” 

30. Admit that in February 2020 the Texas Securities Board issued an Emergency 

Cease-And-Desist Order against ABFP based on alleged Texas state securities violations in 

connection with the offer and sale of Par Funding promissory notes. 

Response: Defendant admits only that the Texas Securities Board issued an 

Emergency Cease-And-Desist Order, which speaks for itself. Otherwise denied. 

31. Admit that in the February 2020 Texas Case, ABFP claimed that it only sells 

insurance and not securities. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 76 of

 154
10 

Response: Defendant admits only that ABFP is an entity that operates an 

insurance agency and does not issue securities. Otherwise denied.

32. Admit that on July 14, 2020, the Commission instituted settled administrative 

proceedings with ABFP for its violations of Section 5 of the Securities Act and Section 15(a) of 

the Exchange Act in connection with the sale of securities. 

Response: Defendant admits only that the Commission instituted administrative 

proceedings as set forth in Release No. 34-89318, which speaks for itself. Otherwise 

denied. 

33. Admit that ABFP Income Fund began selling promissory notes to investors by no 

later than February 2019. 

Response: Defendant admits only that ABFP Income Fund issued promissory 

notes to noteholders starting no later than February 2019 but stopped issuing 

promissory notes long ago. Otherwise denied. Defendant objects to this request as 

being unduly vague and ambiguous because the term “investors” is not defined, is 

reasonably subject to more than one definition or interpretation, and Defendant does 

not know what Plaintiff means by its use of the term. 

34. Admit that beginning no later than March 2019 ABFP Income Fund sold 

promissory notes to investors and sent the investor money to Par Funding. 

Response: Defendant admits only that ABFP Income Fund issued promissory 

notes to noteholders stating no later than March 2019 but stopped issuing promissory 

notes long ago, and that, as fully disclosed in the private placement memorandum, 

ABFP purchase promissory notes issued by merchant cash advance companies. 

Otherwise denied. Defendant objects to this request as being unduly vague and 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 77 of

 154
11 

ambiguous because the term “investors” is not defined, is reasonably subject to more 

than one definition or interpretation, and Defendant does not know what Plaintiff 

means by its use of the term. 

35. Admit that beginning no later than February 2019, ABFP has now raised at least 

$22 million from investors through the offer and sale of promissory notes. 

Response: Defendant admits only that ABFP is an insurance agency and does not 

issue securities. Otherwise denied. Defendant objects to this request as being unduly 

vague and ambiguous because the terms “investors” and "raised" are not defined, 

are reasonably subject to more than one definition or interpretation, and Defendant 

does not know what Plaintiff means by its use of the terms. 

36. Admit that ABFP advertises its investment offerings to the general public. 

Response: Denied. Defendant objects to this request as being unduly vague and 

ambiguous because the terms "investment offerings" are not defined, are reasonably 

subject to more than one definition or interpretation, and Defendant does not know 

what Plaintiff means by its use of the terms. 

37. Admit that ABFP advertises its investment offerings through the radio. 

Response: Denied. Defendant objects to this request as being unduly vague and 

ambiguous because the terms "investment offerings" and “through the radio” are not 

defined, are reasonably subject to more than one definition or interpretation, and 

Defendant does not know what Plaintiff means by its use of the terms. 

38. Admit that ABFP advertises its investment offerings through television 

advertisements. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 78 of

 154
12 

Response: Denied. Defendant objects to this request as being unduly vague and 

ambiguous because the terms "investment offerings" and “through television” are 

not defined, are reasonably subject to more than one definition or interpretation, and 

Defendant does not know what Plaintiff means by its use of the terms. 

39. Admit that ABFP only sells promissory notes to raise funds for one merchant cash 

advance company, Par Funding. 

Response: Denied. 

40. Admit that ABFP Income Fund has only sold promissory notes to raise funds in 

connection with one company, Par Funding. 

Response: Defendant admits only that ABFP Income Fund has purchased 

promissory notes only from PAR Funding. Otherwise denied. 

41. Admit that ABFP Income Fund 2 has only sold promissory notes to raise funds in 

connection with one company, Par Funding. 

Response: Denied. 

42. Admit that you did not tell all potential investors who invested in ABFP Income 

Fund about the Pennsylvania Order Against You. 

Response: Denied. Further Defendant objects to this request as being unduly 

vague and ambiguous because the term “potential investors” is not defined, is 

reasonably subject to more than one definition or interpretation, and Defendant does 

not know what Plaintiff means by its use of the term. 

43. Admit that you did not tell all potential investors who invested in ABFP Income 

Fund 2 about the Pennsylvania Order Against You. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 79 of

 154
13 

Response: Denied. Further Defendant objects to this request as being unduly 

vague and ambiguous because the term “potential investors” is not defined, is 

reasonably subject to more than one definition or interpretation, and Defendant does 

not know what Plaintiff means by its use of the term. 

44. Admit that you did not tell all potential investors who invested in ABFP Income 

Fund about the Texas Order against ABFP. 

Response: Denied. Further Defendant objects to this request as being unduly 

vague and ambiguous because the term “potential investors” is not defined, is 

reasonably subject to more than one definition or interpretation, and Defendant does 

not know what Plaintiff means by its use of the term. 

45. Admit that you did not tell all potential investors who invested in ABFP Income 

Fund 2 about the Texas Order against ABFP. 

Response: Denied. Further Defendant objects to this request as being unduly 

vague and ambiguous because the term “potential investors” is not defined, is 

reasonably subject to more than one definition or interpretation, and Defendant does 

not know what Plaintiff means by its use of the term. 

46. Admit that you did not tell all potential investors in ABFP about the Pennsylvania 

Order Against CBSG. 

Response: Defendant denies that ABFP has any "potential investors." Otherwise 

denied. Further Defendant objects to this request as being unduly vague and 

ambiguous because the term “potential investors” is not defined, is reasonably subject 

to more than one definition or interpretation, and Defendant does not know what 

Plaintiff means by its use of the term. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 80 of

 154
14 

47. Admit that you did not tell all potential investors in ABFP Income Fund about the 

Pennsylvania Order Against CBSG. 

Response: Denied. Further Defendant objects to this request as being unduly 

vague and ambiguous because the term “potential investors” is not defined, is 

reasonably subject to more than one definition or interpretation, and Defendant does 

not know what Plaintiff means by its use of the term. 

48. Admit that you did not tell all potential investors in ABFP about the Pennsylvania 

Order Against CBSG. 

Response: Defendant denies that ABFP has any "potential investors." Otherwise 

denied. Further Defendant objects to this request as being unduly vague and 

ambiguous because the term “potential investors” is not defined, is reasonably subject 

to more than one definition or interpretation, and Defendant does not know what 

Plaintiff means by its use of the term. 

49. Admit that you asked Joseph LaForte to pay half of the legal fees for individuals to 

create the Agent Funds. 

Response: Denied. 

50. Admit that ABFP Management receives a percentage of the profits some Agent 

Funds earn from the offer and sale of promissory notes. 

Response: Defendant admits only that ABFP Management is paid a contractual 

administrative fee from certain other funds and does not issue securities. Otherwise 

denied. 

51. Admit that ABFP Management receives 25 percent of the profits some Agent Funds 

earn from the offer and sale of promissory notes. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 81 of

 154
15 

Response: Defendant admits only that ABFP Management is paid a contractual 

administrative fee from certain other funds and does not issue securities. Otherwise 

denied. 

52. Admit that ABFP Income Fund was created to raise money for Par Funding through 

the offer and sale of promissory notes. 

Response: Denied. 

53. Admit that ABFP Income Fund 2 was created to raise money for Par Funding 

through the offer and sale of promissory notes. 

Response: Denied. 

54. Admit that until at least December 2019 you told potential investors to open an 

account at CamaPlan in order to invest in Par Funding. 

Response: Defendant admits only that he told some individuals who expressed an 

interest in opening a self-directed IRA to hold promissory notes related to the 

merchant cash advance business that they could open such an account at CamaPlan. 

Otherwise denied. Defendant objects to this request as being unduly vague and 

ambiguous because the term “potential investors” is not defined, is reasonably subject 

to more than one definition or interpretation, and Defendant does not know what 

Plaintiff means by its use of the term. 

55. Admit that when an investor contributes funds Par Funding through their selfdirected IRA account at CamaPlan, you receive a commission. 

Response: Denied. Defendant objects to this request as being unduly vague and 

ambiguous because the term “investor” is not defined, is reasonably subject to more 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 82 of

 154
16 

than one definition or interpretation, and Defendant does not know what Plaintiff 

means by its use of the term. 

56. Admit that when an investor contributes funds Par Funding through their selfdirected IRA account at CamaPlan, you receive a commission from Par Funding. 

Response: Denied. Defendant objects to this request as being unduly vague and 

ambiguous because the term “investors” is not defined, is reasonably subject to more 

than one definition or interpretation, and Defendant does not know what Plaintiff 

means by its use of the term. 

57. Admit that you and your attorney John Pauciulo have solicited investors together. 

Response: Denied. Defendant also objects to this request as being unduly vague 

and ambiguous because the terms “investors” and “solicited” is not defined, is 

reasonably subject to more than one definition or interpretation, and Defendant does 

not know what Plaintiff means by its use of the term. Further, Defendant objects to 

this Request to the extent that his request improperly asks Defendant to provide a 

legal conclusion as to the phrase “solicited.” 

58. Admit that you and your attorney John Pauciulo have solicited investors together 

to invest in promissory notes. 

Response: Denied. Defendant also objects to this request as being unduly vague 

and ambiguous because the terms “investors” and “solicited” is not defined, is 

reasonably subject to more than one definition or interpretation, and Defendant does 

not know what Plaintiff means by its use of the term. Further, Defendant objects to 

this Request to the extent that his request improperly asks Defendant to provide a 

legal conclusion as to the phrase “solicited.” 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 83 of

 154
17 

59. Admit that you planned with Joseph LaForte to purchase a bank in Texas. 

Response: Denied. Defendant also objects to this request as irrelevant to the 

allegations in the Plaintiff's' complaint. 

60. Admit that Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of an email you sent to ABFP 

investors in July 2020. 

Response: Defendant admits only that Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of an 

email that he sent to certain clients of ABFP in July 2020. Otherwise denied. 

61. Admit that Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of an email you sent to ABFP 

Income Fund investors in July 2020. 

Response: Defendant admits only that Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of an 

email that he sent to certain noteholders of ABFP Income Fund in July 2020. 

Otherwise denied. 

62. Admit that Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of an email you sent to ABFP 

Income Fund 2 investors in July 2020. 

Response: Defendant admits only that Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of an 

email that he sent to certain holders of units in ABFP Income Fund 2 in July 2020. 

Otherwise denied. 

63. Admit that you approved the press release in Exhibit B. 

Response: Defendant admits only that he reviewed Exhibit B before it was issued. 

Otherwise denied. 

64. Admit that the Securities and Exchange Commission did not make a finding that 

no investor funds were mishandled or misused by you or any of your companies. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 84 of

 154
18 

Response: Defendant admits only that, to the best of his knowledge, the Securities 

and Exchange Commission has never found that Defendant or his companies ever 

mishandled or misused any investor funds. Otherwise denied. Defendant also objects 

to this request as being unduly vague and ambiguous because Plaintiff does not give 

any detail as to any specific findings it alludes to, and Defendant lacks knowledge 

regarding what information the Securities and Exchange Commission may or may 

not have found. 

65. Admit that the Securities and Exchange Commission did not make a finding that 

all investments offered by ABFP were carried out in a manner consistent with the information 

provided to investors. 

Response: Defendant admits only that, to the best of his knowledge, the Securities 

and Exchange Commission has never found that Defendant or his companies ever 

mishandled or misused any investor funds. Otherwise denied. Defendant also objects 

to this request as being unduly vague and ambiguous because Plaintiff does not give 

any detail as to any specific findings it alludes to, and Defendant lacks knowledge 

regarding what information the Securities and Exchange Commission may or may 

not have found.

Dated: August 3, 2020 

AKERMAN LLP 

Three Brickell City Centre, Suite 1100 

98 Southeast Seventh Street 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone: (305) 374-5600 

Facsimile: (305) 374-5095 

By: /s/ Brian P. Miller

Brian P. Miller, Esq. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 85 of

 154
19 

Florida Bar No. 980633 

E-mail: brian.miller@akerman.com

E-mail: Kelly.connolly@akerman.com

Alejandro J. Paz, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 1011728 

E-mail: Alejandro.paz@akerman.com

Secondary: marylin.herrera@akerman.com

Attorneys for Dean Vagnozzi 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Specially Appearing 

Defendant Dean Vagnozzi's Response to Securities and Exchange Commission’s First Request for 

Admissions was served electronically this 3rd day of August, 2020 to: 

Amie Riggle Berlin 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1800 

Miami, FL 33131 

Direct: 305-982-6322 

Tel: 305-982-6300 

Fax: 305-536-4154 

Email: berlina@sec.gov

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Daniel Fridman 

Fridman Fels & Soto, PLLC 

2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 750 

Coral Gables, FL 33134 

Tel: 305-569-7720 

Fax: 786-627-4145 

Email: dfridman@ffslawfirm.com

Secondary: ypantin@ffslawfirm.com

James R. Froccaro, Jr. 

20 Vanderventer Avenue, Suite 103W 

Port Washington, NY 11050 

Tel: 516-944-5062 

Email: jrfresq61@aol.com

Attorneys for Defendant Joseph W. LaForte 

Joseph A. DeMaria 

Robert F. Elgidely 

Fox Rothschild LLP 

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2750 

2 South Biscayne Blvd. 

Miami, FL 33131 

Tel: 305-442-6547 

Email: JDeMaria@FoxRothschild.com

Email: Relgidely@FoxRothschild.com

Ryan K. Stumphauzer 

Timothy A. Kolaya 

Adam M. Foslid 

Stumphauzer Foslid Sloman Ross & Kolaya, 

PLLC 

Two South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1600 

Miami, FL 33131 

Tel: 305-614-1400 

Fax: 305-614-1425

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 86 of

 154
20 

Secondary: mmillerhayle@foxrothschild.com

Alex L. Braunstein 

Fox Rothschild LLP 

777 S. Flagler Drive, Suite 1700 West Tower 

West Palm Beach, FL 33401 

Tel: 561-804-4497 

Email: ABraunstein@FoxRothschild.com

Attorneys for Complete Business Solutions 

Group, Inc., d/b/a Par Funding, Full 

Spectrum Processing, Inc., Lisa McElhone, 

Joseph Cole Barleta and Joseph W. LaForte 

and relief defendant L.M.E. 2017 Family 

Trust 

Email: afoslid@sfslaw.com 

Email: tkolaya@sfslaw.com

Email: afoslid@sfslaw.com

Attorneys for Receiver, Ryan K. Stumphauzer, 

court-appointed receiver over Defendants 

Complete Business Solutions Group, Inc. d/b/a 

Par Funding; Full Spectrum Processing, Inc.; 

ABetterFinancialPlan.com LLC d/b/a A Better 

Financial Plan; ABFP Management Company, 

LLC f/k/a Pillar Life Settlement Management 

Company, LLC; ABFP Income Fund LLC; 

ABFP Income Fund 2, L.P.; United Fidelis 

Group Corp.,; Fidelis Financial Planning 

LLC; Retirement Evolution Group, LLC; RE 

Income Fund LLC; and RE Income Fund 2 

LLC 

Joel Hirschhorn 

GrayRobinson, P.A. 

333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 3200 

Miami, FL 33131 

Tel: 305-416-6880 

Fax: 305-416-6887 

Email: joel.hirschhorn@gray-robinson.com

Attorneys for Relief Defendant L.M.E. 2017 

Family Trust 

Gaetan J. Alfano 

Doulgas K. Rosenblum 

Pietragallo Godon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, 

LLP 

1818 Market Street, Suite 3402 

Phaladelphia, PA 19103 

Tel: 215-320-6200 

Email: GJA@pietragallo.com

Email: DKR@pietragallo.com

Attorney for Receiver, Ryan K. Stumphauzer 

Daniel I. Small 

Allison Kernisky 

Holland & Knight LLP 

701 Bickell Avenue, Suite 3300 

Miami, FL 33131 

Tel: 305-374-8500 

Fax: 305-789-7799 

Email: Daniel.Small@hklaw.com

Email: Allison.Kernisky@hklaw.com

Attorneys for John Gissas, Retirement 

Evolution Group, LLC, Retirement Evolution 

Income Fund, LLC f/k/a RE Income Fund 

LLC and RE Income Fund 2, LLC 

Jeff Marcus 

Daniel L. Rashbaum 

Jason L. Mays 

Marcus Neiman Rashbaum & Pineiro LLP 

2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1750 

Miami, FL 33131 

Tel: 305-400-4260 

Email: jmarcus@mnrlawfirm.com

Email: drashbaum@mnrlawfirm.com

Email: jmays@mnrlawfirm.com

Attorneys for Defendant Perry S. Abbonizio 

Jeffrey L. Cox

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 87 of

 154
21 

Sallah Astarita & Cox, LLC 

3100 N. Military Trail, Suite 210 

Boca Raton, FL 33431 

Tel: 561-989-9080 

Fax: 561-989-9020 

Email: jcox@sallahlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant Michael C. Furman 

/s/ Brian P. Miller 

Attorney

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 88 of

 154
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO.: 9:20-cv-81205-RAR 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS GROUP, 

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

Defendants 

____________________________________________/ 

SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT DEAN VAGNOZZI'S 

RESPONSE TO SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION’S 

 SECOND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 

Specially appearing Defendant DEAN VAGNOZZI (hereinafter “Defendant”), by and 

through his undersigned counsel, hereby responds to Plaintiff SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION’S (“Plaintiff”) Second Requests for Admissions (the “Admission Requests”) as 

follows: 

GENERAL STATEMENT AND OBJECTIONS 

1. Defendant objects to the Admission Requests for lack of due process under the 

United States Constitution. The Court has imposed a two-calendar day response deadline without 

having provided Defendant any notice or opportunity to contest expedited discovery. This violates 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the United States Constitution. Defendant has not had 

adequate time to investigate his responses to the Admission Requests, which violates his 

Constitutional rights. Moreover, Defendant's counsel only appeared in this action the day prior to 

service of the Admission Requests, and has not had adequate time to investigate the allegations 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 89 of

 154
2 

and the Admission Requests in order to properly advise Defendant on his responses, which further 

violates Defendant's Constitutional rights. To the extent these Admission Requests are attempted 

to be used in any criminal prosecution, the circumstances of the Admission Requests further deny 

Defendant his right to effective assistance of counsel under the United States Constitution. 

2. Defendant has not completed his investigation of the facts relating to this case. 

Therefore, this response represents Defendant’s present knowledge based upon information known 

to it as of this date, and Defendant reserves the full right to withdraw any response to the Admission 

Requests at a later time. Defendant also reserves the right to (i) supplement, amend or correct all 

or any part of the responses provided herein and (ii) object to the admissibility in evidence of all 

or any part of the responses provided herein and any information contained herein. 

3. Defendant will make reasonable efforts to respond to each Admission Request, to 

the extent that no objection is made, as Defendant understands and interprets the Admission 

Request. If Plaintiff subsequently asserts any interpretation of any Admission Request or term 

included within a request that differs from Defendant’s interpretation, Defendant reserves the right 

to supplement or amend its objections and/or responses. 

4. Defendant objects to the Admission Request (including its accompanying 

definitions and instructions) to the extent it calls for admissions relating to information or 

documents which were generated, prepared, received or obtained for or in anticipation of litigation, 

constitute attorney work-product or contain attorney-client communications, or are otherwise 

privileged, confidential or immune from disclosure. Defendant further objects to the Admission 

Request to the extent it seeks admissions relating to information or documents that are confidential 

or privileged under applicable privacy rights. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 90 of

 154
3 

5. Defendant objects to the Admission Requests to the extent they seek to impose 

obligations to provide information beyond that required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

and laws governing the proper scope of discovery. 

6. Defendant objects to the Admission Requests to the extent they call for admissions 

about documents or information not limited to the time period relevant to the claims against it, are 

compound, or require Defendant to make legal conclusions. Defendant further objects to the 

Request to the extent it calls for admissions relating to documents or information that are neither 

relevant to this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

7. Personal Jurisdiction Objection: The information requested is not relevant to the 

existence of jurisdiction over Defendant 

8. Without waiver of any of the foregoing general objections, Defendant responds and 

specifically objects to Plaintiffs’ Admission Requests as follows: 

RESPONSES TO INDIVIDUAL REQUESTS 

1. 1Admit that you controlled ABFP Income Fund 3 at all times it is or was active. 

Response: Defendant admits only that he is the sole member of ABFP Income 

Fund 3. Otherwise denied. Defendant also objects to this Request as the requested 

admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, the Motion 

for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the Preliminary 

Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. Further, Defendant objects to the 

term “controlled” as being overly broad, vague, and undefined. 

2. Admit that ABFP Income Fund 3 offered and sold promissory notes to investors. 

1

 Plaintiff mis-numbers its Requests in the Second Request for Admissions, therefore, for clarity, we re-number the 

requests staring at “1.” 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 91 of

 154
4 

Response: Defendant admits only that ABFP Income Fund 3 offered and sold 

promissory notes to people who purchased such notes. Otherwise denied. 

Defendant also objects to this Request as the requested admission has absolutely 

no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, the Motion for Temporary 

Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the Preliminary Injunction Hearing on 

Tuesday August 4, 2020. Further, Defendant objects to the term “investors” as 

being overly broad, vague, and undefined. 

3. Admit that ABFP Income Fund 3 sent, or caused to be sent, investor funds to Par 

Funding. 

Response: Defendant admits only that ABFP Income Fund 3 used the proceeds 

of its promissory note issuances to purchase promissory notes from PAR Funding. 

Otherwise denied. Defendant also objects to this Request as the requested 

admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, the Motion 

for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the Preliminary 

Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. Further, Defendant objects to the 

term “investor” as being overly broad, vague, and undefined. 

4. Admit that the proceeds from the sale of the ABFP Income Fund 3 promissory notes 

were used to purchase promissory notes offered and sold by Complete Business Solutions Group, 

Inc. d/b/a PAR Funding. 

Response: Admitted. Defendant also objects to this Request as the requested 

admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, the Motion 

for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the Preliminary 

Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 92 of

 154
5 

5. Admit that ABFP Income Fund 3 and Par Funding received a promissory note from 

Par Funding in exchange for the investor funds ABFP Income Fund 3 sent, or directed to be sent, 

to Par Funding. 

Response: Denied. Defendant also objects to this Request as the requested 

admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, the Motion 

for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the Preliminary 

Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. Further, Defendant objects to the 

term “investor” as being overly broad, vague, and undefined. 

6. Admit that you controlled ABFP Income Fund 4 at all times it is or was active. 

Response: Defendant admits only that he is the sole member of the Manager of 

ABFP Income Fund 3. Otherwise denied. Defendant also objects to this Request 

as the requested admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the 

Complaint, the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor 

the Preliminary Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. Further, 

Defendant objects to the term “controlled” as being overly broad, vague, and 

undefined. 

7. Admit that ABFP Income Fund 4 offered and sold promissory notes to investors. 

Response: Defendant admits only that ABFP Income Fund 4 offered and sold 

promissory notes to people who purchased such notes. Otherwise denied. 

Defendant also objects to this Request as the requested admission has absolutely 

no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, the Motion for Temporary 

Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the Preliminary Injunction Hearing on 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 93 of

 154
6 

Tuesday August 4, 2020. Further, Defendant objects to the term “investors” as 

being overly broad, vague, and undefined. 

8. Admit that ABFP Income Fund 4 sent, or caused to be sent, investor funds to Par 

Funding. 

Response: Defendant admits only that ABFP Income Fund 4 used the proceeds 

of its promissory note issuances to purchase promissory notes from PAR Funding. 

Otherwise denied. Defendant objects to this Request as the requested admission 

has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, the Motion for 

Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the Preliminary Injunction 

Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. Further, Defendant objects to the term 

“investor” as being overly broad, vague, and undefined. 

9. Admit that the proceeds from the sale of the ABFP Income Fund 4 promissory notes 

were used to purchase promissory notes offered and sold by Complete Business Solutions Group, 

Inc. d/b/a PAR Funding (“CBSG”). 

Response: Admitted. Defendant also objects to this Request as the requested 

admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, the Motion 

for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the Preliminary 

Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. 

10. Admit that ABFP Income Fund 4 and Par Funding received a promissory note from 

Par Funding in exchange for the investor funds ABFP Income Fund 3 sent, or directed to be sent, 

to Par Funding. 

Response: Denied. Defendant also objects to this Request as the requested 

admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, the Motion 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 94 of

 154
7 

for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the Preliminary 

Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. Further, Defendant objects to the 

term “investor” as being overly broad, vague, and undefined. 

11. Admit that you controlled ABFP Income Fund 5 at all times it is or was active. 

Response: Plaintiff admits only that he was the sole member of the Manager of 

ABFP Income Fund 5, which was never active. Otherwise denied. Defendant also 

objects to this Request as the requested admission has absolutely no bearing on 

the matters in the Complaint, the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and 

Other Relief, nor the Preliminary Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. 

Further, Defendant objects to the term “controlled” as being overly broad, vague, 

and undefined. 

12. Admit that ABFP Income Fund 5 offered and sold promissory notes to investors. 

Response: Denied. Defendant also objects to this Request as the requested 

admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, the Motion 

for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the Preliminary 

Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. Further, Defendant objects to the 

term “investors” as being overly broad, vague, and undefined. 

13. Admit that ABFP Income Fund 5 sent, or caused to be sent, investor funds to Par 

Funding. 

Response: Denied. Defendant also objects to this Request as the requested 

admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, the Motion 

for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the Preliminary 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 95 of

 154
8 

Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. Further, Defendant objects to the 

term “investor” as being overly broad, vague, and undefined. 

14. Admit that the proceeds from the sale of the ABFP Income Fund 5 promissory notes 

were used to purchase promissory notes offered and sold by Complete Business Solutions Group, 

Inc. d/b/a PAR Funding (“CBSG”). 

Response: Denied. Defendant also objects to this Request as the requested 

admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, the Motion 

for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the Preliminary 

Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. 

15. Admit that ABFP Income Fund 5 and Par Funding received a promissory note from 

Par Funding in exchange for the investor funds ABFP Income Fund 3 sent, or directed to be sent, 

to Par Funding. 

Response: Denied. Defendant also objects to this Request as the requested 

admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, the Motion 

for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the Preliminary 

Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. Further, Defendant objects to the 

term “investor” as being overly broad, vague, and undefined. 

16. Admit that you controlled ABFP Income Fund 6 at all times it is or was active. 

Response: Defendant admits only that he is the sole member of the Manager of 

ABFP Income Fund 6. Otherwise denied. Defendant also objects to this Request 

as the requested admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the 

Complaint, the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor 

the Preliminary Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. Further, 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 96 of

 154
9 

Defendant objects to the term “controlled” as being overly broad, vague, and 

undefined. 

17. Admit that ABFP Income Fund 6 offered and sold promissory notes to investors. 

Response: Defendant admits only that ABFP Income Fund 4 offered and sold 

promissory notes to people who purchased such notes. Otherwise denied. 

Defendant also objects to this Request as the requested admission has absolutely 

no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, the Motion for Temporary 

Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the Preliminary Injunction Hearing on 

Tuesday August 4, 2020. Further, Defendant objects to the term “investors” as 

being overly broad, vague, and undefined. 

18. Admit that ABFP Income Fund 6 sent, or caused to be sent, investor funds to Par 

Funding. 

Response: Defendant admits only that ABFP Income Fund 4 used the proceeds 

of its promissory note issuances to purchase promissory notes from PAR Funding. 

Otherwise denied. Defendant also objects to this Request as the requested 

admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, the Motion 

for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the Preliminary 

Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. Further, Defendant objects to the 

term “investor” as being overly broad, vague, and undefined. 

19. Admit that the proceeds from the sale of the ABFP Income Fund 6 promissory notes 

were used to purchase promissory notes offered and sold by Complete Business Solutions Group, 

Inc. d/b/a PAR Funding (“CBSG”). 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 97 of

 154
10 

Response: Admitted. Defendant also objects to this Request as the requested 

admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, the Motion 

for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the Preliminary 

Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. 

20. Admit that ABFP Income Fund 6 and Par Funding received a promissory note from 

Par Funding in exchange for the investor funds ABFP Income Fund 3 sent, or directed to be sent, 

to Par Funding. 

Response: Denied. Defendant also objects to this Request as the requested 

admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, the Motion 

for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the Preliminary 

Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. Further, Defendant objects to the 

term “investor” as being overly broad, vague, and undefined. 

21. Admit that you controlled ABFP Income Fund 7 at all times it is or was active. 

Response: Plaintiff admits only that he was the sole member of the Manager of 

ABFP Income Fund 7, which was never active. Otherwise denied. Defendant also 

objects to this Request as the requested admission has absolutely no bearing on 

the matters in the Complaint, the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and 

Other Relief, nor the Preliminary Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. 

Further, Defendant objects to the term “controlled” as being overly broad, vague, 

and undefined. 

22. Admit that ABFP Income Fund 7 offered and sold promissory notes to investors. 

Response: Denied. Defendant objects to this Request as the requested admission 

has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, the Motion for 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 98 of

 154
11 

Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the Preliminary Injunction 

Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. Further, Defendant objects to the term 

“investors” as being overly broad, vague, and undefined. 

23. Admit that ABFP Income Fund 7 sent, or caused to be sent, investor funds to Par 

Funding. 

Response: Denied. Defendant also objects to this Request as the requested 

admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, the Motion 

for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the Preliminary 

Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. Further, Defendant objects to the 

term “investor” as being overly broad, vague, and undefined. 

24. Admit that the proceeds from the sale of the ABFP Income Fund 7 promissory notes 

were used to purchase promissory notes offered and sold by Complete Business Solutions Group, 

Inc. d/b/a PAR Funding (“CBSG”). 

Response: Denied. Defendant also objects to this Request as the requested 

admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, the Motion 

for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the Preliminary 

Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. 

25. Admit that ABFP Income Fund 7 and Par Funding received a promissory note from 

Par Funding in exchange for the investor funds ABFP Income Fund 7 sent, or directed to be sent, 

to Par Funding. 

Response: Denied. Defendant also objects to this Request as the requested 

admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, the Motion 

for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the Preliminary 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 99 of

 154
12 

Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. Further, Defendant objects to the 

term “investor” as being overly broad, vague, and undefined. 

26. Admit that Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the “Supplement to Confidential 

Private Placement Memorandum for the Exchange of Outstanding Promissory Notes for Amended 

and Restated Promissory Notes.” 

Response: Admitted. 

27. Admit that in April 2020 you emailed, or caused to be sent, Exhibit C to investors 

in ABFP Income Fund. 

Response: Defendant admits only that, in his capacity as sole member of the 

Manager of ABFP Income Fund, he caused Exhibit C to be sent to then-existing 

noteholders in ABFP Income Fund. Otherwise denied. Further, Defendant 

objects to the term “investors” as being overly broad, vague, and undefined. 

28. Admit that you created, or caused to be created, ABFP Income Fund Parallel, LLC. 

Response: Denied. Defendant also objects to this Request as the requested 

admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, the Motion 

for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the Preliminary 

Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. 

29. Admit that ABFP Income Fund Parallel, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company. 

Response: Admitted. Defendant also objects to this Request as the requested 

admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, the Motion 

for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the Preliminary 

Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 100 of

 154
13 

30. Admit that ABFP Income Fund Parallel, LLC was organized by ABFP for the 

purposes of completing the exchange of ABFP Income Fund investors’ promissory notes for 

“Restated Notes.” 

Response: Defendant admits only that ABFP Income Fund Parallel was 

organized for the purpose of completing the exchange offer of Restated Notes 

referenced in Exhibit C. Otherwise denied. Defendant also objects to this Request 

as the requested admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the 

Complaint, the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor 

the Preliminary Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. Further, 

Defendant objects to the term “investors” as being overly broad, vague, and 

undefined. 

31. Admit that ABFP Income Fund Parallel, LLC was organized by ABFP for the 

purposes of completing the exchange of ABFP Income Fund investors’ promissory notes for 

“Restated Notes.” 

Response: Defendant admits only that ABFP Income Fund Parallel was 

organized for the purpose of completing the exchange offer of Restated Notes 

referenced in Exhibit C. Otherwise denied. Defendant also objects to this Request 

as the requested admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the 

Complaint, the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor 

the Preliminary Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. Further, 

Defendant objects to the term “investors” as being overly broad, vague, and 

undefined. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 101 of

 154
14 

32. Admit that ABFP Income Fund and ABFP Income Fund Parallel, LLC entered into 

an “Exchange Agreement” that you executed on behalf of ABFP Income Fund as the “Original 

Issuer” and also executed on behalf of ABFP Income Fund Parallel, LLC as the “Successor Issuer.” 

Response: Defendant admits only that he executed copies of the Exchange 

Agreement attached to Exhibit C, on page A-6 of the same, in the corporate 

capacities so indicated, and the Exchange Agreement also was required to be 

executed by the respective purchaser of the Restated Notes in order for such 

agreement to be effective and binding. Otherwise denied. Defendant also objects 

to this Request as the requested admission has absolutely no bearing on the 

matters in the Complaint, the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and 

Other Relief, nor the Preliminary Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. 

33. Admit that you agreed on behalf of both ABFP Income Fund and ABFP Income 

Fund Parallel, LLC that ABFP Income Fund would exchange the promissory notes it issued to 

investors for new notes offered and sold by ABFP Income Fund Parallel, LLC., with different rates 

of interest and maturity dates. 

Response: Defendant admits only that he executed copies of the Exchange 

Agreement attached to Exhibit C, on page A-6 of the same, in the corporate 

capacities so indicated, and the Exchange Agreement also was required to be 

executed by the respective purchaser of the Restated Notes in order for such 

agreement to be effective and binding, and that the Restated Notes had different 

interest rates and maturity dates compared to the Outstanding Notes. Otherwise 

denied. Defendant also objects to this Request as the requested admission has 

absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, the Motion for Temporary 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 102 of

 154
15 

Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the Preliminary Injunction Hearing on 

Tuesday August 4, 2020. Further, Defendant objects to the term “investors” as 

being overly broad, vague, and undefined. 

34. Admit that you caused ABFP Income Fund to assign and transfer a portion of the 

Par Funding Notes issued to ABFP Income Fund, as amended, to ABFP Income Fund Parallel, 

LLC. 

Response: Defendant admits only that he executed copies of the Exchange 

Agreement attached to Exhibit C, on page A-6 of the same, in the corporate 

capacities so indicated, and the Exchange Agreement also was required to be 

executed by the respective purchaser of the Restated Notes in order for such 

agreement to be effective and binding, and in connection with those 

circumstances, ABFP Income Fund assigned and transferred a portion of the 

Restated CBSG Notes to ABFP Income Fund Parallel. Otherwise denied. 

Defendant also objects to this Request as the requested admission has absolutely 

no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, the Motion for Temporary 

Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the Preliminary Injunction Hearing on 

Tuesday August 4, 2020. 

35. Admit that the transfer of Par Funding Notes set forth in Paragraph 762 above was 

for purposes of funding the repayment of the “Restated Notes” ABFP Income Fund Parallel, LLC 

issued to investors. 

Response: Defendant admits only that the amended and reorganized Restated 

CBSG Notes referenced in his response to the previous request for admission, 

2

 Plaintiff refers to “paragraph 76 above” however because Plaintiff has mis numbered her requests, there are 

multiple paragraphs 76. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 103 of

 154
16 

which bore a lower interest rate than the original CBSG Notes prior to such 

amendment, were intended to fund the repayment of the Restated Notes, and that 

they did so up until the SEC filed this lawsuit. Otherwise denied. Defendant also 

objects to this Request as the requested admission has absolutely no bearing on 

the matters in the Complaint, the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and 

Other Relief, nor the Preliminary Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. 

Further, Defendant objects to the term “investors” as being overly broad, vague, 

and undefined. 

36. Admit that the transfer of Par Funding Notes set forth in Paragraph 76 above was 

for purposes of relieving ABFP Income Fund 3 of its obligations to investors under the promissory 

notes ABFP Income Fund issued to investors. 

Response: Denied. Defendant also objects to this Request as the requested 

admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, the Motion 

for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the Preliminary 

Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. Further, Defendant objects to the 

term “investors” as being overly broad, vague, and undefined. 

37. Admit that on behalf of ABFP Income Fund Parallel, LLC, you agreed for ABFP 

Income Fund Parallel, LLC to assume a portion of ABFP Income Fund’s liabilities. 

Response: Denied. Defendant also objects to this Request as the requested 

admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, the Motion 

for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the Preliminary 

Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. 

38. Admit that ABFP Income Fund Parallel, LLC has a bank account. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 104 of

 154
17 

Response: Admitted. Defendant also objects to this Request as the requested 

admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, the Motion 

for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the Preliminary 

Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. 

39. Admit that you opened the ABFP Income Fund Parallel, LLC bank account. 

Response: Denied. Defendant also objects to this Request as the requested 

admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, the Motion 

for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the Preliminary 

Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. 

40. Admit that you are a signatory on the ABFP Income Fund Parallel, LLC bank account. 

Response: Admitted. Defendant also objects to this Request as the requested 

admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, the Motion 

for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the Preliminary 

Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. 

41. Admit that you control the ABFP Income Fund Parallel, LLC bank account. 

Response: Denied. Defendant objects to this Request as the requested admission 

has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, the Motion for 

Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the Preliminary Injunction 

Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. 

42. Admit that ABFP Income Fund Parallel, LLC now holds the Par Funding 

promissory notes, as amended, that were purchased with ABFP Income Fund investor money. 

Response: Defendant admits only that, with respect to such noteholders of ABFP 

Income Fund who executed the Exchange Agreement, ABFP holds the CBSG 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 105 of

 154
18 

Notes, as amended and reorganized at a lower interest rate than the original 

CBSG Notes, in the same principal amount as such noteholder held prior to the 

exchange. Otherwise denied. Defendant also objects to this Request as the 

requested admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, 

the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the 

Preliminary Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. Further, Defendant 

objects to the term “investor” as being overly broad, vague, and undefined. 

43. Admit that you understand from the Motion seeking emergency relief in this case, 

including a Temporary Restraining Order and Asset Freeze, as well as the Complaint and Motion 

appointing a Receiver, that the Securities and Exchange Commission is seeking this emergency 

relief based in part on allegations concerning the “Exchange Offering”. 

Response: Denied. 

44. Admit that you have been aware of the Court’s Order appointing a Receiver over 

ABFP Management, ABFP, ABFP Income Fund, and ABFP Income Fund 2 by no later than July 

28, 2020. 

Response: Defendant admits only that he became aware of the Court's Order 

appointing a Receiver over ABFP Management, ABFP, ABFP Income Fund, and 

ABFP Income Fund 2 when the Receiver's counsel arrived at his office late in the 

afternoon of July 28, 2020. Otherwise denied. 

45. Admit that you have been aware since no later than July 30, 2020 that the Court in 

this case entered an asset freeze over ABFP, ABFP Income Fund, ABFP Income Fund 2, and 

ABFP Management. 

Response: Admitted. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 106 of

 154
19 

46. Admit that you are aware that the Court issued the Asset Freeze set forth in 

paragraph 873 above in order to protect investor proceeds and to ensure the return of investor 

money. 

Response: Defendant lacks firsthand knowledge of the Court's mindset in 

entering this ex parte order that Defendant was not provided an opportunity to 

address, and therefore denies. 

47. Admit that you are aware on at least July 31 2020, that the Asset Freeze did not 

effectuate a freeze on the bank account for ABFP Income Fund Parallel, LLC. 

Response: Denied. 

48. Admit that you did not tell the Receiver the Asset Freeze did not freeze the ABFP 

Income Fund Parallel, LLC bank account which held investor funds and/or investment returns. 

Admit that you did not tell the S.E.C. the Asset Freeze did not freeze the ABFP Income Fund 

Parallel, LLC bank account which held investor funds and/or investment returns. 

Response: Denied. Also denied that any such questions were asked of me. 

49. Admit up to at least July 31, 2020, you intended to use the ABFP Income Fund 

Parallel, LLC bank account to distribute funds in early August 2020. 

Response: Defendant admits only that, prior to the SEC filing its complaint in 

this action, he expected that the ABFP Income Fund Parallel bank account would 

receive its contractually entitled interest payment on the CBSG Notes in early 

August 2020 and that he intended that ABFP Income Fund Parallel would then 

promptly remit, in turn, contractually required interest payments to noteholders 

in ABFP Income Fund Parallel, and that the payment on the CBSG Notes would 

3

 Plaintiff refers to “paragraph 87 above” however because Plaintiff has mis numbered her requests, there are 

multiple paragraphs 87. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 107 of

 154
20 

be the sole source available to make interest payments to noteholders in ABFP 

Income Fund Parallel. Defendant also admits only that, immediately prior to the 

SEC filing its complaint in this action, the ABFP Income Fund Parallel did not 

have sufficient funds in its bank account or otherwise to make the August 2020 

interest payment to its noteholders because the source of such payment would be 

the expected contractually entitled interest payments on the CBSG Notes, and that 

the ABFP Income Fund Parallel's cash balance in late July 2020 was minimal. 

Otherwise denied. 

50. Admit that the Receiver advised you, through your counsel, that the S.E.C. and 

Receiver viewed the movement of funds set forth in paragraph 85 above as a violation of the Asset 

Freeze Order. 

Response: Denied. Also denied that there could possibly be any movement of 

funds as described in my response to the preceding request for admission unless 

ABFP Income Fund Parallel were to receive its contractually entitled August 2020 

interest payment on the CBSG Notes, which of course would have benefitted the 

noteholders rather than harming them. 

51. Admit that the facts set forth above for the Exchange Offering concerning ABFP 

Income Fund, paragraph 68-864, are true as to ABFP Income Fund 2 and the ABFP Income Parallel 

Fund created for the ABFP Income Fund 2 Exchange Offering. 

Response: Denied. Defendant also objects to this Request as vague. Further, the 

requested admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, 

4

 Because of the mis-numbering of the Requests, it is difficult to ascertain which paragraphs Plaintiff is referring to. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 108 of

 154
21 

the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the 

Preliminary Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. 

52. Admit that the facts set forth above for the Exchange Offering concerning ABFP 

Income Fund, paragraph 68-865, are true as to ABFP Income Fund 3 and the ABFP Income Parallel 

Fund that was created for the ABFP Income Fund 2 Exchange Offering. 

Response: Denied. Defendant also objects to this Request as vague. Further, the 

requested admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, 

the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the 

Preliminary Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. 

53. Admit that the facts set forth above for the Exchange Offering concerning ABFP 

Income Fund, paragraph 68-866, are true as to ABFP Income Fund 4 and the ABFP Income Parallel 

Fund created for the ABFP Income Fund 2 Exchange Offering. 

Response: Denied. Defendant also objects to this Request as vague. Further, the 

requested admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, 

the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the 

Preliminary Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. 

54. Admit that the facts set forth above for the Exchange Offering concerning ABFP 

Income Fund, paragraph 68-867, are true as to ABFP Income Fund 5 and the ABFP Income Parallel 

Fund created for the ABFP Income Fund 2 Exchange Offering. 

5

 Because of the mis-numbering of the Requests, it is difficult to ascertain which paragraphs Plaintiff is referring 

to. 

6

 Because of the mis-numbering of the Requests, it is difficult to ascertain which paragraphs Plaintiff is referring 

to. 

7

 Because of the mis-numbering of the Requests, it is difficult to ascertain which paragraphs Plaintiff is referring 

to. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 109 of

 154
22 

Response: Denied. Defendant also objects to this Request as vague. Further, the 

requested admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, 

the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the 

Preliminary Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. 

55. Admit that the facts set forth above for the Exchange Offering concerning ABFP 

Income Fund, paragraph 68-868, are true as to ABFP Income Fund 6 and the ABFP Income Parallel 

Fund created for the ABFP Income Fund 2 Exchange Offering. 

Response: Denied. Defendant also objects to this Request as vague. Further, the 

requested admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, 

the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the 

Preliminary Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. 

56. Admit that the facts set forth above for the Exchange Offering concerning ABFP 

Income Fund, paragraph 68-86, are true as to ABFP Income Fund 7 and the ABFP Income Parallel 

Fund created for the ABFP Income Fund 2 Exchange Offering. 

Response: Denied. Defendant also objects to this Request as vague. Further, the 

requested admission has absolutely no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, 

the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the 

Preliminary Injunction Hearing on Tuesday August 4, 2020. 

57. Admit that as of July 31, 2020, you continue to control the ABFP Income Parallel 

Fund associated with each of the ABFP Income Fund entities. 

Response: Defendant admits only that he is the sole member of the Manager of 

ABFP Income Fund Parallel, ABFP Income Fund 3 Parallel, ABFP Income Fund 

8

 Because of the mis-numbering of the Requests, it is difficult to ascertain which paragraphs Plaintiff is referring 

to. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 110 of

 154
23 

4 Parallel, and ABFP Income Fund 6 Parallel. Otherwise denied. Defendant also 

objects to this Request as vague. Further, the requested admission has absolutely 

no bearing on the matters in the Complaint, the Motion for Temporary 

Restraining Order and Other Relief, nor the Preliminary Injunction Hearing on 

Tuesday August 4, 2020. Further, Defendant objects to the term “control” as being 

overly broad, vague, and undefined. 

Dated: August 3, 2020 

AKERMAN LLP 

Three Brickell City Centre, Suite 1100 

98 Southeast Seventh Street 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone: (305) 374-5600 

Facsimile: (305) 374-5095 

By: /s/ Brian P. Miller

Brian P. Miller, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 980633 

E-mail: brian.miller@akerman.com

E-mail: Kelly.connolly@akerman.com

Alejandro J. Paz, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 1011728 

E-mail: Alejandro.paz@akerman.com

Secondary: marylin.herrera@akerman.com

Attorneys for Dean Vagnozzi 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 111 of

 154
24 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Specially Appearing 

Defendant Dean Vagnozzi's Response to Securities and Exchange Commission’s Second Request 

for Admissions was served electronically this 3rd day of August, 2020 to: 

Amie Riggle Berlin 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1800 

Miami, FL 33131 

Direct: 305-982-6322 

Tel: 305-982-6300 

Fax: 305-536-4154 

Email: berlina@sec.gov

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Daniel Fridman 

Fridman Fels & Soto, PLLC 

2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 750 

Coral Gables, FL 33134 

Tel: 305-569-7720 

Fax: 786-627-4145 

Email: dfridman@ffslawfirm.com

Secondary: ypantin@ffslawfirm.com

James R. Froccaro, Jr. 

20 Vanderventer Avenue, Suite 103W 

Port Washington, NY 11050 

Tel: 516-944-5062 

Email: jrfresq61@aol.com

Attorneys for Defendant Joseph W. LaForte 

Joseph A. DeMaria 

Robert F. Elgidely 

Fox Rothschild LLP 

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2750 

2 South Biscayne Blvd. 

Miami, FL 33131 

Tel: 305-442-6547 

Email: JDeMaria@FoxRothschild.com

Email: Relgidely@FoxRothschild.com

Secondary: mmillerhayle@foxrothschild.com

Alex L. Braunstein 

Fox Rothschild LLP 

777 S. Flagler Drive, Suite 1700 West Tower 

West Palm Beach, FL 33401 

Tel: 561-804-4497 

Email: ABraunstein@FoxRothschild.com

Attorneys for Complete Business Solutions 

Group, Inc., d/b/a Par Funding, Full 

Ryan K. Stumphauzer 

Timothy A. Kolaya 

Adam M. Foslid 

Stumphauzer Foslid Sloman Ross & Kolaya, 

PLLC 

Two South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1600 

Miami, FL 33131 

Tel: 305-614-1400 

Fax: 305-614-1425 

Email: afoslid@sfslaw.com 

Email: tkolaya@sfslaw.com

Email: afoslid@sfslaw.com

Attorneys for Receiver, Ryan K. Stumphauzer, 

court-appointed receiver over Defendants 

Complete Business Solutions Group, Inc. d/b/a 

Par Funding; Full Spectrum Processing, Inc.; 

ABetterFinancialPlan.com LLC d/b/a Better 

Financial Plan; ABFP Management Company, 

LLC f/k/a Pillar Life Settlement Management 

Company, LLC; ABFP Income Fund LLC; 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 112 of

 154
25 

Spectrum Processing, Inc., Lisa McElhone, 

Joseph Cole Barleta and Joseph W. LaForte 

and relief defendant L.M.E. 2017 Family 

Trust 

ABFP Income Fund 2, L.P.; United Fidelis 

Group Corp.,; Fidelis Financial Planning 

LLC; Retirement Evolution Group, LLC; RE 

Income Fund LLC; and RE Income Fund 2 

LLC 

Joel Hirschhorn 

GrayRobinson, P.A. 

333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 3200 

Miami, FL 33131 

Tel: 305-416-6880 

Fax: 305-416-6887 

Email: joel.hirschhorn@gray-robinson.com

Attorneys for Relief Defendant L.M.E. 2017 

Family Trust 

Gaetan J. Alfano 

Douglas K. Rosenblum 

Pietragallo Godon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, 

LLP 

1818 Market Street, Suite 3402 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Tel: 215-320-6200 

Email: GJA@pietragallo.com

Email: DKR@pietragallo.com

Attorney for Receiver, Ryan K. Stumphauzer 

Daniel I. Small 

Allison Kernisky 

Holland & Knight LLP 

701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300 

Miami, FL 33131 

Tel: 305-374-8500 

Fax: 305-789-7799 

Email: Daniel.Small@hklaw.com

Email: Allison.Kernisky@hklaw.com

Attorneys for John Gissas, Retirement 

Evolution Group, LLC, Retirement Evolution 

Income Fund, LLC f/k/a RE Income Fund 

LLC and RE Income Fund 2, LLC 

Jeff Marcus 

Daniel L. Rashbaum 

Jason L. Mays 

Marcus Neiman Rashbaum & Pineiro LLP 

2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1750 

Miami, FL 33131 

Tel: 305-400-4260 

Email: jmarcus@mnrlawfirm.com

Email: drashbaum@mnrlawfirm.com

Email: jmays@mnrlawfirm.com

Attorneys for Defendant Perry S. Abbonizio 

Jeffrey L. Cox 

Sallah Astarita & Cox, LLC 

3100 N. Military Trail, Suite 210 

Boca Raton, FL 33431 

Tel: 561-989-9080 

Fax: 561-989-9020 

Email: jcox@sallahlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant Michael C. Furman 

/s/ Brian P. Miller 

Attorney

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 113 of

 154
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO.: 9:20-cv-81205-RAR 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS GROUP, 

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

Defendants. 

____________________________________________/ 

SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT DEAN VAGNOZZI'S 

RESPONSE TO SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION’S 

SECOND REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES 

Specially appearing Defendant DEAN VAGNOZZI (hereinafter “Defendant”), by and 

through his undersigned counsel, hereby responds to Plaintiff SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION’S (“Plaintiff”) Second Request for Interrogatories (the “Request”) as follows: 

GENERAL STATEMENT AND OBJECTIONS 

1. Defendant objects to the Request for lack of due process under the United States 

Constitution. The Court has imposed a two-calendar day response deadline without having 

provided Defendant any notice or opportunity to contest expedited discovery. This violates the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the United States Constitution. Defendant has not had 

adequate time to investigate his responses to the Request, which violates his Constitutional rights. 

Moreover, Defendant's counsel only appeared in this action the day prior to service of the Request, 

and has not had adequate time to investigate the allegations and the Interrogatory in order to 

properly advise Defendant on his responses, which further violates Defendant's Constitutional 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 114 of

 154
2 

rights. To the extent this Request is attempted to be used in any criminal prosecution, the 

circumstances of the Request further deny Defendant his right to effective assistance of counsel 

under the United States Constitution. 

2. In responding to this Request, Defendant does not concede the information 

requested is relevant to the subject matter of this litigation or reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. Any response, in whole or in part, to the Request is not intended 

to be, and should not be construed as, a waiver by Defendant of all or any part of any objection. 

Defendant reserves the right to object, and hereby gives notice of its intent to object, to the 

admissibility into any information disclosed herein. 

3. Defendant objects to the Request to the extent that it seeks to impose obligations 

that exceed, or are different from, those imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the 

Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 

4. Defendant objects to the Request to the extent it calls for the disclosure of 

information that is not in Defendant's possession, custody, or control, or that is not ascertainable 

after a reasonably diligent search. 

5. Defendant reserves the right to supplement its responses as more information is 

available. 

6. Defendant objects to the Request to the extent it seeks information that is not 

relevant to the issues in the pending action or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence supporting the claims in this proceeding. 

7. Defendant objects to the Request to the extent it is, in whole or part, vague or 

ambiguous, duplicative, harassing, overbroad, or unduly burdensome, not restricted by time or 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 115 of

 154
3 

subject matter, in that the burdens imposed by responding to the Request clearly outweighs any 

potential value to Plaintiff of the response. 

8. Defendant objects to the Request to the extent it seeks information that is subject 

to the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product immunity doctrine, or any other 

applicable privilege or doctrine. Any inadvertent disclosure of such information shall not be 

deemed a waiver of the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product immunity doctrine, or 

any other applicable privilege or doctrine. 

9. Defendant objects to the Request to the extent it seeks information constituting 

trade secrets or other financial, strategic, confidential, proprietary, or otherwise highly sensitive 

commercial or personal information without protective measures necessary to prevent disclosure. 

10. No incidental or implied admissions are intended by the, or shall be inferred from, 

response to the Request. That Defendant has responded to any Request is not intended to be, and 

shall not be construed as, a waiver by Defendant of any part of any General or specific objection. 

Nor shall such a response be construed as a waiver of any argument, whether or not as of yet 

asserted, in support of judgment in favor of Defendant. 

11. Defendant objects to the Request insofar as it contains misstatements of fact and 

inaccurate assumptions. Nothing in the response shall be construed as constituting or implying an 

admission of any allegation or agreement with any assertion or characterization in the Request. 

12. Defendant objects to the Request to the extent it seek information that would require 

the production of information that include private consumer, banking, and financial information 

protected by various state and federal privacy laws. 

13. Defendant incorporates each of these General Objections into the specific responses 

below as if fully set forth therein. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 116 of

 154
4 

14. Without waiver of any of the foregoing general objections, Defendant responds and 

specifically objects to Plaintiff’s Request as follows: 

RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO INDIVIDUAL INTERROGATORIES 

For each of ABFP Income Fund 1, ABFP Income Fund 2, ABFP Income Fund 3, ABFP Income 

Fund 4, ABFP Income Fund 5, ABFP Income Fund 6, and ABFP Income Fund 7, state: 

• 2(a) Whether or not the promissory notes (or, for ABFP Income Fund 2, limited 

partnership interests) offered and sold to investors was exchanged for a replacement note offering 

a lower interest rate. 

Response: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the 

interrogatory is overbroad in scope, ambiguous, and not limited to the timeframe of 

the Complaint nor Securities and Exchange Commission’s Emergency Ex Parte

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief. Particularly, this 

interrogatory is irrelevant and disproportionate for purposes of the August 4, 2020 

Preliminary Injunction Hearing. This interrogatory also seeks information, which is 

irrelevant and disproportionate to the claims or defenses of this action. Defendant 

further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is not 

in the Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. Currently, information that would 

be necessary to respond to this interrogatory are subject to the Court's receivership. 

Defendant has no access to his office in order to retrieve the information as a result 

of the Court's receivership. Specifically, the Receiver’s letter to Defendant, attached 

hereto as “Exhibit A”, directs Defendant to: (1)“[r]efrain from attempting to access 

the premises of ABetterFinancialPlan.com”; (2) “Immediately turn over to me any 

and all objects, assets or documents, including, but not limited to, any devices, 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 117 of

 154
5 

writings, client or investor files and documents, ESI, invoices, and bank records 

pertaining to ABetterFinancialPlan.com d/b/a A Better Financial Plan, or any other 

Receivership Entities that are within your possession”; (3) refrain from accessing 

“bank accounts, email accounts, or other electronic media pertaining to 

ABetterFinancialPlan.com d/b/a A Better Financial Plan, or any other Receivership 

Entities”; and (4) refrain from “directly or indirectly taking any action, or causing 

any action to be taken, without the express written agreement of the Receiver that 

interferes with or hinders the Receiver’s efforts to take control, possession, or 

management of any accounts belonging to the Receivership Entities.” Further, 

Defendant objects to the term “investors” as being overly broad, vague, and 

undefined. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states 

that ABFP Income Fund 1, ABFP Income Fund 3, ABFP Income Fund 4, and ABFP 

Income Fund 6 conducted an exchange offer in or about April 2020, which is now 

completed. ABFP Income Fund 2, ABFP Income Fund 5 (which never had 

operations), and ABFP Income Fund 7 (which never had operations) did not conduct 

such an exchange offer. 

• 2(b) The name of the entity offering the replacement note to investors (for 

example, for ABFP Income Fund: ABFP Income Fund Parallel. 

Response: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the 

interrogatory is overbroad in scope, ambiguous, and not limited to the timeframe of the 

Complaint nor Securities and Exchange Commission’s Emergency Ex Parte Motion for 

Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief. Particularly, this interrogatory is irrelevant 

and disproportionate for purposes of the August 4, 2020 Preliminary Injunction Hearing. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 118 of

 154
6 

This interrogatory also seeks information, which is irrelevant and disproportionate to the 

claims or defenses of this action. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent 

that it seeks information that is not in the Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. 

Currently, information that would be necessary to respond to this interrogatory are subject 

to the Court's receivership. Defendant has no access to his office in order to retrieve the 

information as a result of the Court's receivership. Specifically, the Receiver’s letter to 

Defendant, attached hereto as “Exhibit A”, directs Defendant to: (1)“[r]efrain from 

attempting to access the premises of ABetterFinancialPlan.com”; (2) “Immediately turn over 

to me any and all objects, assets or documents, including, but not limited to, any devices, 

writings, client or investor files and documents, ESI, invoices, and bank records pertaining 

to ABetterFinancialPlan.com d/b/a A Better Financial Plan, or any other Receivership 

Entities that are within your possession”; (3) refrain from accessing “bank accounts, email 

accounts, or other electronic media pertaining to ABetterFinancialPlan.com d/b/a A Better 

Financial Plan, or any other Receivership Entities”; and (4) refrain from “directly or 

indirectly taking any action, or causing any action to be taken, without the express written 

agreement of the Receiver that interferes with or hinders the Receiver’s efforts to take 

control, possession, or management of any accounts belonging to the Receivership Entities.” 

Further, Defendant objects to the term “investors” as being overly broad, vague, and 

undefined. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states that 

ABFP Income Fund 1 conducted an exchange offer into ABFP Income Fund 1 Parallel, 

ABFP Income Fund 3 conducted an exchange offer into ABFP Income Fund 3 Parallel, 

ABFP Income Fund 4 conducted an exchange offer into ABFP Income Fund 4 Parallel, and 

ABFP Income Fund 6 conducted an exchange offer into ABFP Income Fund 6 Parallel.

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 119 of

 154
7 

• 2(c) The name of the person who runs or controls the entity that offered the 

replacement note. 

Response: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the 

interrogatory is overbroad in scope, ambiguous, and not limited to the timeframe of the 

Complaint nor Securities and Exchange Commission’s Emergency Ex Parte Motion for 

Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief. Particularly, this interrogatory is irrelevant 

and disproportionate for purposes of the August 4, 2020 Preliminary Injunction Hearing. 

This interrogatory also seeks information, which is irrelevant and disproportionate to the 

claims or defenses of this action. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent 

that it seeks information that is not in the Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. 

Currently, information that would be necessary to respond to this interrogatory are subject 

to the Court's receivership. Defendant has no access to his office in order to retrieve the 

information as a result of the Court's receivership. Specifically, the Receiver’s letter to 

Defendant, attached hereto as “Exhibit A”, directs Defendant to: (1)“[r]efrain from 

attempting to access the premises of ABetterFinancialPlan.com”; (2) “Immediately turn over 

to me any and all objects, assets or documents, including, but not limited to, any devices, 

writings, client or investor files and documents, ESI, invoices, and bank records pertaining 

to ABetterFinancialPlan.com d/b/a A Better Financial Plan, or any other Receivership 

Entities that are within your possession”; (3) refrain from accessing “bank accounts, email 

accounts, or other electronic media pertaining to ABetterFinancialPlan.com d/b/a A Better 

Financial Plan, or any other Receivership Entities”; and (4) refrain from “directly or 

indirectly taking any action, or causing any action to be taken, without the express written 

agreement of the Receiver that interferes with or hinders the Receiver’s efforts to take 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 120 of

 154
8 

control, possession, or management of any accounts belonging to the Receivership Entities.” 

Further, Defendant objects to the term “controls” as being overly broad, vague, and 

undefined. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states that 

all of the entities referenced above in the response to No. 2(b) that conducted an exchange 

offer in or about April 2020 are LLC's whose Manager is ABFP Management Company 

LLC.

• 2(d) The name of each bank where the entity that offered the replacement note 

has a bank account. 

Response: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the 

interrogatory is overbroad in scope, ambiguous, and not limited to the timeframe of the 

Complaint nor Securities and Exchange Commission’s Emergency Ex Parte Motion for 

Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief. Particularly, this Interrogatory is 

irrelevant and disproportionate for purposes of the August 4, 2020 Preliminary Injunction 

Hearing. This interrogatory also seeks information, which is irrelevant and 

disproportionate to the claims or defenses of this action. Defendant further objects to this 

interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is not in the Defendant’s possession, 

custody, or control. Currently, bank records that would be necessary to respond to this 

interrogatory are subject to the Court's receivership. Defendant has no access to his office 

in order to retrieve the information as a result of the Court's receivership. Specifically, the 

Receiver’s letter to Defendant, attached hereto as “Exhibit A”, directs Defendant to: 

(1)“[r]efrain from attempting to access the premises of ABetterFinancialPlan.com”; (2) 

“Immediately turn over to me any and all objects, assets or documents, including, but not 

limited to, any devices, writings, client or investor files and documents, ESI, invoices, and 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 121 of

 154
9 

bank records pertaining to ABetterFinancialPlan.com d/b/a A Better Financial Plan, or any 

other Receivership Entities that are within your possession”; (3) refrain from accessing 

“bank accounts, email accounts, or other electronic media pertaining to 

ABetterFinancialPlan.com d/b/a A Better Financial Plan, or any other Receivership 

Entities”; and (4) refrain from “directly or indirectly taking any action, or causing any action 

to be taken, without the express written agreement of the Receiver that interferes with or 

hinders the Receiver’s efforts to take control, possession, or management of any accounts 

belonging to the Receivership Entities.” Subject to and without waiving the foregoing 

objections, Defendant states that all of the entities referenced above in the response to No. 

2(b) that conducted an exchange offer in or about April 2020 have separate bank accounts 

at Citizens Bank.

• 2(e) The amount of interest and principal owed to investors by the entity that 

offered the replacement note. 

Response: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the 

interrogatory is overbroad in scope, ambiguous, and not limited to the timeframe of the 

Complaint nor Securities and Exchange Commission’s Emergency Ex Parte Motion for 

Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief. Particularly, this interrogatory is irrelevant 

and disproportionate for purposes of the August 4, 2020 Preliminary Injunction Hearing. 

This interrogatory also seeks information, which is irrelevant and disproportionate to the 

claims or defenses of this action. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent 

that it seeks information that is not in the Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. 

Currently, information that would be necessary to respond to this Request are subject to the 

Court's receivership. Defendant has no access to his office in order to retrieve the 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 122 of

 154
10 

information as a result of the Court's receivership. Specifically, the Receiver’s letter to 

Defendant, attached hereto as “Exhibit A”, directs Defendant to: (1)“[r]efrain from 

attempting to access the premises of ABetterFinancialPlan.com”; (2) “Immediately turn over 

to me any and all objects, assets or documents, including, but not limited to, any devices, 

writings, client or investor files and documents, ESI, invoices, and bank records pertaining 

to ABetterFinancialPlan.com d/b/a A Better Financial Plan, or any other Receivership 

Entities that are within your possession”; (3) refrain from accessing “bank accounts, email 

accounts, or other electronic media pertaining to ABetterFinancialPlan.com d/b/a A Better 

Financial Plan, or any other Receivership Entities”; and (4) refrain from “directly or 

indirectly taking any action, or causing any action to be taken, without the express written 

agreement of the Receiver that interferes with or hinders the Receiver’s efforts to take 

control, possession, or management of any accounts belonging to the Receivership Entities.” 

Further, Defendant objects to the term “investors” as being overly broad, vague, and 

undefined. Lastly, Defendant generally objects to this Request for the reason it imposes a 

burden and expense on Defendant which outweighs any potential benefit. Subject to and 

without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states that the principal amounts of 

notes issued by the entities referenced above in the response to No. 2(b) that conducted an 

exchange offer in or about April 2020 varies, but that the interest rate on the notes issued by 

such entities in the exchange offer is 4%.

• 2(f) Expenditures the entity offering the replacement note has made 

since March 1, 2020. 

Response: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the 

interrogatory is overbroad in scope, ambiguous, and not limited to the timeframe of the 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 123 of

 154
11 

Complaint nor Securities and Exchange Commission’s Emergency Ex Parte Motion for 

Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief. Particularly, this interrogatory is irrelevant 

and disproportionate for purposes of the August 4, 2020 Preliminary Injunction Hearing. 

This interrogatory also seeks information, which is irrelevant and disproportionate to the 

claims or defenses of this action. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent 

that it seeks information that is not in the Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. 

Currently, bank records that would be necessary to respond to this interrogatory are subject 

to the Court's receivership. Defendant has no access to his office in order to retrieve the 

information as a result of the Court's receivership. Specifically, the Receiver’s letter to 

Defendant, attached hereto as “Exhibit A”, directs Defendant to: (1)“[r]efrain from 

attempting to access the premises of ABetterFinancialPlan.com”; (2) “Immediately turn over 

to me any and all objects, assets or documents, including, but not limited to, any devices, 

writings, client or investor files and documents, ESI, invoices, and bank records pertaining 

to ABetterFinancialPlan.com d/b/a A Better Financial Plan, or any other Receivership 

Entities that are within your possession”; (3) refrain from accessing “bank accounts, email 

accounts, or other electronic media pertaining to ABetterFinancialPlan.com d/b/a A Better 

Financial Plan, or any other Receivership Entities”; and (4) refrain from “directly or 

indirectly taking any action, or causing any action to be taken, without the express written 

agreement of the Receiver that interferes with or hinders the Receiver’s efforts to take 

control, possession, or management of any accounts belonging to the Receivership Entities.” 

Lastly, Defendant generally objects to this interrogatory for the reason it imposes a burden 

and expense on Defendant which outweighs any potential benefit. Subject to and without 

waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states he does not have details on amounts 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 124 of

 154
Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 125 of

 154
13 

Dated: August 3, 2020 

AKERMAN LLP 

Three Brickell City Centre, Suite 1100 

98 Southeast Seventh Street 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone: (305) 374-5600 

Facsimile: (305) 374-5095 

By: /s/ Brian P. Miller

Brian P. Miller, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 980633 

E-mail: brian.miller@akerman.com

E-mail: Kelly.connolly@akerman.com

Alejandro J. Paz, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 1011728 

E-mail: Alejandro.paz@akerman.com

Secondary: marylin.herrera@akerman.com

Attorneys for Dean Vagnozzi 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Specially Appearing 

Defendant Dean Vagnozzi's Response to Securities and Exchange Commission’s Second Request 

for Interrogatories was served electronically this 3rd day of August, 2020 to: 

Amie Riggle Berlin 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1800 

Miami, FL 33131 

Direct: 305-982-6322 

Tel: 305-982-6300 

Fax: 305-536-4154 

Email: berlina@sec.gov

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Daniel Fridman 

Fridman Fels & Soto, PLLC 

2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 750 

Coral Gables, FL 33134 

Tel: 305-569-7720 

Fax: 786-627-4145 

Email: dfridman@ffslawfirm.com

Secondary: ypantin@ffslawfirm.com

James R. Froccaro, Jr. 

20 Vanderventer Avenue, Suite 103W 

Port Washington, NY 11050 

Tel: 516-944-5062 

Email: jrfresq61@aol.com

Attorneys for Defendant Joseph W. LaForte

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 126 of

 154
14 

Joseph A. DeMaria 

Robert F. Elgidely 

Fox Rothschild LLP 

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2750 

2 South Biscayne Blvd. 

Miami, FL 33131 

Tel: 305-442-6547 

Email: JDeMaria@FoxRothschild.com

Email: Relgidely@FoxRothschild.com

Secondary: mmillerhayle@foxrothschild.com

Alex L. Braunstein 

Fox Rothschild LLP 

777 S. Flagler Drive, Suite 1700 West Tower 

West Palm Beach, FL 33401 

Tel: 561-804-4497 

Email: ABraunstein@FoxRothschild.com

Attorneys for Complete Business Solutions 

Group, Inc., d/b/a Par Funding, Full 

Spectrum Processing, Inc., Lisa McElhone, 

Joseph Cole Barleta and Joseph W. LaForte 

and relief defendant L.M.E. 2017 Family 

Trust 

Ryan K. Stumphauzer 

Timothy A. Kolaya 

Adam M. Foslid 

Stumphauzer Foslid Sloman Ross & Kolaya, 

PLLC 

Two South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1600 

Miami, FL 33131 

Tel: 305-614-1400 

Fax: 305-614-1425 

Email: afoslid@sfslaw.com 

Email: tkolaya@sfslaw.com

Email: afoslid@sfslaw.com

Attorneys for Receiver, Ryan K. Stumphauzer, 

court-appointed receiver over Defendants 

Complete Business Solutions Group, Inc. d/b/a 

Par Funding; Full Spectrum Processing, Inc.; 

ABetterFinancialPlan.com LLC d/b/a A Better 

Financial Plan; ABFP Management Company, 

LLC f/k/a Pillar Life Settlement Management 

Company, LLC; ABFP Income Fund LLC; 

ABFP Income Fund 2, L.P.; United Fidelis 

Group Corp.,; Fidelis Financial Planning 

LLC; Retirement Evolution Group, LLC; RE 

Income Fund LLC; and RE Income Fund 2 

LLC 

Joel Hirschhorn 

GrayRobinson, P.A. 

333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 3200 

Miami, FL 33131 

Tel: 305-416-6880 

Fax: 305-416-6887 

Email: joel.hirschhorn@gray-robinson.com

Attorneys for Relief Defendant L.M.E. 2017 

Family Trust 

Gaetan J. Alfano 

Doulgas K. Rosenblum 

Pietragallo Godon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, 

LLP 

1818 Market Street, Suite 3402 

Phaladelphia, PA 19103 

Tel: 215-320-6200 

Email: GJA@pietragallo.com

Email: DKR@pietragallo.com

Attorney for Receiver, Ryan K. Stumphauzer 

Daniel I. Small 

Allison Kernisky 

Holland & Knight LLP 

701 Bickell Avenue, Suite 3300 

Miami, FL 33131 

Tel: 305-374-8500

Jeff Marcus 

Daniel L. Rashbaum 

Jason L. Mays 

Marcus Neiman Rashbaum & Pineiro LLP 

2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1750 

Miami, FL 33131

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 127 of

 154
15 

Fax: 305-789-7799 

Email: Daniel.Small@hklaw.com

Email: Allison.Kernisky@hklaw.com

Attorneys for John Gissas, Retirement 

Evolution Group, LLC, Retirement Evolution 

Income Fund, LLC f/k/a RE Income Fund 

LLC and RE Income Fund 2, LLC 

Tel: 305-400-4260 

Email: jmarcus@mnrlawfirm.com

Email: drashbaum@mnrlawfirm.com

Email: jmays@mnrlawfirm.com

Attorneys for Defendant Perry S. Abbonizio 

Jeffrey L. Cox 

Sallah Astarita & Cox, LLC 

3100 N. Military Trail, Suite 210 

Boca Raton, FL 33431 

Tel: 561-989-9080 

Fax: 561-989-9020 

Email: jcox@sallahlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant Michael C. Furman 

/s/ Brian P. Miller 

Attorney

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 128 of

 154
Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 129 of

 154
Ryan K. Stumphauzer

Telephone: 305. 614. 1400

rstumphauzer@sfslaw.com

TWO S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, SUITE 2550 | MIAMI, FL 33131 | T + 1 305. 614. 1400 | F + 1 305. 614. 1425

July 31, 2020

VIA EMAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS

Dean J. Vagnozzi

c/o Brian Miller, Esq.

Akerman LLP 

Three Brickell City Centre

98 Southeast Seventh Street

Suite 1100

Miami, FL 33131

brian.miller@akerman.com

Re: SEC v. CBSG., et al, No. 20-CIV-81205 (S.D. Fla.)

Dear Mr. Vagnozzi,

In light of a preliminary injunction entered on July 28, 2020 by the Honorable Rodolfo A. 

Ruiz in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, I am writing this letter 

to direct you to preserve all documents, assets and electronically-stored information (ESI) relating 

to ABetterFinancialPlan.com d/b/a A Better Financial Plan.

On July 27, 2020, Judge Ruiz appointed me as Receiver in the above-referenced case. I 

am enclosing with this letter a copy of the Order Granting Plaintiff Securities and Exchange 

Commission’s Motion for Appointment of Receiver (“the Receivership Order”), along with a copy 

of the Order Granting Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Other 

Relief (the “Order Granting TRO”), which was entered on July 28, 2020.

The Receiver appointment relates to the following entities: Complete Business Solutions 

Group, Inc. d/b/a Par Funding, Full Spectrum Processing, Inc., ABetterFinancialPlan.com LLC 

d/b/a A Better Financial Plan, ABFP Management Company, LLC f/k/a Pillar Life Settlement 

Management Company, LLC, ABFP Income Fund, LLC, ABFP Income Fund 2, L.P., United 

Fidelis Group Corp., Fidelis Financial Planning LLC, Retirement Evolution Group, LLC, RE 

Income Fund LLC, and RE Income Fund 2 LLC (the “Receivership Entities”). 

Pursuant to the Receivership Order, the Receiver has been directed by the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of Florida to take possession of and safeguard all property 

and assets of the Receivership entities, including all ESI and accounts, immediately upon the Court 

granting a temporary restraining order. 

I understand that you are affiliated with ABetterFinancialPlan.com d/b/a A Better Financial 

Plan. Accordingly, I am writing to direct you to:

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 130 of

 154
Dean Vagnozzi/ SEC v. CBSG., et al, No. 20-CIV-81205 (S.D. Fla.)

July 31, 2020

Page 2 of 2

_______________________________________

• Refrain from attempting to access the premises of ABetterFinancialPlan.com d/b/a 

A Better Financial Plan, located at 234 Mall Blvd, Suite 270 King of Prussia, PA 

19406-2940;

• Immediately turn over to me any and all objects, assets or documents, including, 

but not limited to, any devices, writings, client or investor files and documents, ESI, 

invoices, and bank records pertaining to ABetterFinancialPlan.com d/b/a A Better

Financial Plan, or any other Receivership Entities that are within your possession;

• Do not destroy or tamper with any objects, assets or documents, including, but not 

limited to, any devices, writings, client or investor files and documents, ESI, 

invoices or bank records relating to ABetterFinancialPlan.com d/b/a A Better

Financial Plan, or any other Receivership Entities; and

• Do not access any bank accounts, email accounts, or other electronic media 

pertaining to ABetterFinancialPlan.com d/b/a A Better Financial Plan, or any other 

Receivership Entities. 

Please be advised that pursuant to the Receivership Order you are hereby restrained and 

enjoined from directly or indirectly taking any action, or causing any action to be taken, without 

the express written agreement of the Receiver that interferes with or hinders the Receiver’s efforts 

to take control, possession, or management of any accounts belonging to the Receivership Entities. 

Please contact me at rstumphauzer@sfslaw.com if you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

___________________________

Ryan K. Stumphauzer, Esq.

Enclosures: Receivership Order, Order Granting TRO

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 131 of

 154
Page 1 of 4

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.

_______________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S URGENT MOTION TO AMEND ORDER 

APPOINTING RECEIVER TO INCLUDE LITIGATION INJUNCTION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Securities and Exchange 

Commission’s (“Commission”) Urgent Motion to Amend Order Appointing Receiver to Include 

Litigation Injunction [ECF No. 48] (“Motion”), filed on July 31, 2020. In the Motion, Plaintiff 

seeks to amend the Court’s Order Granting Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission’s 

Motion for Appointment of Receiver [ECF No. 36] (“Order Appointing Receiver”), entered on 

July 27, 2020. 

Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to amend the Order Appointing Receiver to include a litigation 

injunction in all cases and proceedings to which the following entities are a party: Complete 

Business Solutions Group, Inc. d/b/a Par Funding (“Par Funding”), Full Spectrum Processing, Inc., 

ABetterFinancialPlan.com LLC d/b/a A Better Financial Plan (“ABFP”), ABFP Management 

Company, LLC f/k/a Pillar Life Settlement Management Company, LLC (“ABFP Management”), 

ABFP Income Fund, LLC, ABFP Income Fund 2, L.P., United Fidelis Group Corp., Fidelis 

Financial Planning LLC, Retirement Evolution Group, LLC, RE Income Fund LLC, and RE 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 132 of Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 1 of 4

 154
Page 2 of 4

Income Fund 2 LLC (collectively, the “Receivership Entities”). The Receiver agrees with and 

joins in the request for this relief. For the reasons set forth in the Motion, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission’s 

Motion to Amend Order Appointing Receiver to Include Litigation Injunction [ECF No. 48] is 

GRANTED.

The Receiver, Ryan Stumphauzer, is authorized, empowered, and directed as follows 

until further Order of the Court: 

1. To take custody, control, and possession of all Receivership Entity records, 

documents, and materials, and to safeguard these items until further Order of the Court; 

2. To secure and safeguard the Receivership Entities’ information technology, data, 

documents, storage systems, and documents, including by making contact with any third-party 

vendors, such as movers and information technology personnel, to assist in this process; 

3. To engage and employ persons in his discretion to assist him in carrying out his 

duties and responsibilities hereunder, including, but not limited to, accountants, lawyers, and 

paralegals (“Retained Personnel”); 

4. To take any other action as necessary and appropriate for the preservation of the 

Receivership Entities’ property interests or to prevent the dissipation or concealment of such 

property interests; and 

5. To take such other action as may be approved by this Court. 

6. Additionally, the Receiver shall promptly give notice of his appointment to all 

known officers, directors, agents, employees, shareholders, creditors, debtors, managers, and 

general and limited partners of each Receivership Entity, as the Receiver deems necessary or 

advisable to effectuate the operation of the receivership. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 133 of Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 2 of 4

 154
Page 3 of 4

7. In furtherance of his responsibilities in this matter, the Receiver is authorized to 

communicate with, and/or serve this Order upon, any person, entity or government office that he 

deems appropriate to inform them of the status of this matter and the Receiver’s appointment. 

8. The Receiver and Retained Personnel are entitled to reasonable compensation and 

expense reimbursement from the Receivership Entities’ estates. The Receiver shall seek the 

Court’s approval by filing a Motion for the reimbursement of expenses and compensation for 

time spent on the matters set forth herein. 

9. The Receivership Entities and all persons receiving notice of this Order shall not 

hinder or interfere with the Receiver’s efforts to take control or possession of the Receivership 

Entities’ property interests identified above or hinder his efforts to preserve them. 

STAY OF LITIGATION

“[W]hile it should be sparsely exercised, district courts possess the authority and 

discretion to enter anti-litigation orders” in the context of a Securities and Exchange Commission 

receivership. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Byers, 609 F.3d 87, 89 (2d Cir. 2010); see also Sec. & 

Exch. Comm’n v. Onix Capital, LLC, No. 16-24678-CIV, 2017 WL 6728814, at *4 (S.D. Fla. 

Jul. 24, 2017) (“That the receivership is not ‘substantially underway’ is not a compelling factor 

to lift a stay against litigation when balanced against the Receiver’s interest in preventing 

ancillary litigation during the early stages of the receivership.”); Liberte Capital Grp., LLC v. 

Capwill, 462 F.3d 543, 551 (6th Cir. 2006) (“[T]he receivership court may issue a blanket 

injunction, staying litigation against the named receiver and the entities under his control unless 

leave of that court is first obtained.”). 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 134 of Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 3 of 4

 154
Page 4 of 4

As set forth below, the following proceedings—excluding the instant proceeding—and 

all law enforcement, police, or regulatory actions and actions of the Commission related to the

above-captioned enforcement action, are hereby stayed until further Order of this Court:

All civil legal proceedings of any nature, including, but not limited to, bankruptcy 

proceedings, arbitration proceedings, foreclosure actions, default proceedings, or any 

other actions of any nature involving: (a) the Receiver, in his capacity as Receiver; (b) 

any of the Receivership Entities’ property interests, wherever located; (c) any of the 

Receivership Entities, including subsidiaries and partnerships; or, (d) any of a 

Receivership Entity’s past or present officers, directors, managers, agents, or general or 

limited partners sued for, or in connection with, any action taken by them while acting 

in such capacity of any nature, whether as plaintiff, defendant, third-party plaintiff, thirdparty defendant, or otherwise (such proceedings are hereinafter referred to as “Ancillary 

Proceedings”).

The parties to any and all Ancillary Proceedings are enjoined from commencing or 

continuing any such legal proceeding, or from taking any action, in connection with any such 

proceeding, including, but not limited to, the issuance or employment of process.

All Ancillary Proceedings are stayed in their entirety, and all Courts having any jurisdiction 

thereof are enjoined from taking or permitting any action until further Order of this Court. Further, 

as to a cause of action accrued or accruing in favor of one or more of the Receivership Entities 

against a third person or party, any applicable statute of limitation is tolled during the period in

which this injunction against commencement of legal proceedings is in effect as to that cause of

action.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 31st day of July, 2020.

_____________________________

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Copies to: Counsel of Record

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 135 of Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 4 of 4

 154
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CIV-81205-RAR

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE UNDER SEAL

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 

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

Defendants.

_______________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING EMERGENCY EX PARTE MOTION 

FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND OTHER RELIEF

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Emergency Ex Parte Motion for 

Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief [ECF No. 14] (“Motion”), filed on July 27, 2020. 

The Motion seeks the following relief with respect to Defendants Complete Business Solutions 

Group, Inc. d/b/a PAR Funding (“Par Funding”), Full Spectrum Processing, Inc. (“Full 

Spectrum”), ABetterFinancialPlan.com LLC d/b/a A Better Financial Plan (“ABFP”), ABFP 

Management Company, LLC f/k/a Pillar Life Settlement Management Company, LLC (“ABFP 

Management”), ABFP Income Fund, LLC (“ABFP Income Fund”), ABFP Income Fund 2, L.P.

(“ABFP Income Fund 2”), United Fidelis Group Corp. (“United Fidelis”), Fidelis Financial 

Planning LLC (“Fidelis Financial”), Retirement Evolution Group, LLC (“Retirement Evolution”), 

Retirement Evolution Income Fund LLC, a/k/a RE Income Fund (“RE Income Fund”), RE Income 

Fund 2 LLC (“RE Income Fund 2”), Lisa McElhone (“McElhone”), Joseph Cole Barleta, a/k/a Joe 

Cole (“Cole”), Joseph W. LaForte, a/k/a Joe Mack, a/k/a Joe Macki, a/k/a Joe McElhone

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 1 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 136 of

 154
- 2 -

(“LaForte”), Perry S. Abbonizio, Dean J. Vagnozzi, Michael C. Furman, and John Gissas, and 

Relief Defendant L.M.E. 2017 Family Trust (“L.M.E. Trust”):

1. a Temporary Restraining Order;

2. an Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not be Granted;

3. an Order Freezing the Assets of Defendants and Relief Defendant;

4. an Order Requiring Sworn Accountings;

5. an Order Prohibiting Destruction of Documents; and

6. an Order Expediting Discovery. 

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Motion, Plaintiff’s exhibits filed in 

support of the Motion, and the Response to Plaintiff’s Ex-Parte Motions for Appointment of a 

Receiver and for an Asset Freeze, submitted on July 28, 2020 by Defendants Par Funding, Full 

Spectrum, McElhone, Cole, LaForte, and L.M.E. Trust. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has made a sufficient and proper showing in support of the 

relief granted herein by: (i) presenting a prima facie case of securities laws violations by 

Defendants; and (ii) showing a reasonable likelihood the Defendants will harm the investing public 

by continuing to violate the federal securities laws unless they are immediately restrained. The 

Court also finds good cause to believe that unless immediately enjoined by Order of this Court, 

the Defendants may dissipate, conceal or transfer from the jurisdiction of this Court assets which 

could be subject to an Order of Disgorgement. Accordingly, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion [ECF No. 14] is GRANTED as 

follows:

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 2 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 137 of

 154
- 3 -

I.

SHOW CAUSE HEARING AND TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE

The Defendants shall show cause, if any, before the Court via a Zoom hearing on 

Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 3:30 P.M., or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard, why a 

Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should not be 

granted against Defendants, as requested by Plaintiff. In advance of the hearing, the Court will 

provide the parties with information on how to join via Zoom. 

Additionally, the Court will hold a telephonic status conference on Monday, August 3, 

2020 at 4:15 P.M. The parties are instructed to call 1-877-402-9753 by no later than 4:10 P.M. 

The access code is 9372453 and the password is 0918. The Court requires that the parties appear 

via a landline (i.e., not a cellular phone or a speaker phone) for clarity.

II.

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

A. Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act

Pending further Order of the Court, Defendants Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP 

Management, ABFP Income Fund, ABFP Income Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, 

McElhone, LaForte, Cole, Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, and Furman are preliminarily restrained and 

enjoined from violating Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), 15 

U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1), in the offer or sale of any security by the use of any means or instruments of 

transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails, directly or 

indirectly: to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, by, directly or indirectly (i) 

creating a false appearance or otherwise deceiving any person, or (ii) disseminating false or 

misleading documents, materials, or information or making, either orally or in writing, any false 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 3 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 138 of

 154
- 4 -

or misleading statement in any communication with any investor or prospective investor, about: 

(A) any investment in securities; (B) the prospects for success of any product or company; (C) the

use of investor funds; (D) the safety of any securities investment; (E) the use of investor funds or 

investment proceeds; (F) Orders issued against the Defendants by state or federal enforcement 

agencies; (G) the financial status of Par Funding; or (H) the management of Par Funding.

As provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), the foregoing paragraph also 

binds the following who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise: (a) 

any of Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP Management, ABFP Income Fund, ABFP Income 

Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, McElhone, LaForte, Cole, Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, or

Furman’s officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and (b) other persons in 

active concert or participation with Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP Management, ABFP 

Income Fund, ABFP Income Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, McElhone, LaForte, Cole, 

Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, or Furman.

B. Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act

Pending further Order of the Court, all Defendants are preliminarily restrained and enjoined 

from violating Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(2), in the offer or sale of 

any security by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in 

interstate commerce or by use of the mails, directly or indirectly: to obtain money or property by 

means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any omission to state a material fact necessary 

in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, 

not misleading, by, directly or indirectly (i) creating a false appearance or otherwise deceiving any 

person, or (ii) disseminating false or misleading documents, materials, or information or making, 

either orally or in writing, any false or misleading statement in any communication with any 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 4 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 139 of

 154
- 5 -

investor or prospective investor, about: (A) any investment in securities; (B) the prospects for 

success of any product or company; (C) the use of investor funds; (D) the safety of any securities 

investment; (E) the use of investor funds or investment proceeds; (F) Orders issued against the 

Defendants by state or federal enforcement agencies; (G) the financial status of Par Funding; or 

(H) the management of Par Funding.

As provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), the foregoing paragraph also 

binds the following who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise: (a) 

any of the Defendants’ officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and (b) other 

persons in active concert or participation with any Defendant.

C. Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act

Pending further Order of the Court, all Defendants are preliminarily restrained and enjoined 

from violating Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(3), in the offer or sale of 

any security by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in 

interstate commerce or by use of the mails, directly or indirectly: to engage in any transaction, 

practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the 

purchaser, by, directly or indirectly (i) creating a false appearance or otherwise deceiving any 

person, or (ii) disseminating false or misleading documents, materials, or information or making, 

either orally or in writing, any false or misleading statement in any communication with any 

investor or prospective investor, about: (A) any investment in securities; (B) the prospects for 

success of any product or company; (C) the use of investor funds; (D) the safety of any securities 

investment; (E) the use of investor funds or investment proceeds; (F) Orders issued against the 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 5 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 140 of

 154
- 6 -

Defendants by state or federal enforcement agencies; (G) the financial status of Par Funding; or

(H) the management of Par Funding.

As provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), the foregoing paragraph also 

binds the following who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise: (a) 

any of the Defendants’ officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and (b) other 

persons in active concert or participation with any Defendant.

D. Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) of the Exchange Act

Pending further Order of the Court, Defendants Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP 

Management, ABFP Income Fund, ABFP Income Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, 

McElhone, LaForte, Cole, Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, and Furman, and their respective directors, 

officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, representatives and those persons in active concert 

or participation with them, and each of them, are hereby restrained and enjoined from violating 

Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 15 

U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a), by using any means or instrumentality of interstate 

commerce, or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange, in connection 

with the purchase or sale of any security, to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, by, 

directly or indirectly (i) creating a false appearance or otherwise deceiving any person, or (ii) 

disseminating false or misleading documents, materials, or information or making, either orally or 

in writing, any false or misleading statement in any communication with any investor or 

prospective investor, about: (A) any investment in securities; (B) the prospects for success of any 

product or company; (C) the use of investor funds; (D) the safety of any securities investment; (E) 

the use of investor funds or investment proceeds; (F) Orders issued against the Defendants by state 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 6 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 141 of

 154
- 7 -

or federal enforcement agencies; (G) the financial status of Par Funding; or (H) the management 

of Par Funding.

As provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), the foregoing paragraph also 

binds the following who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise: (a) 

any of Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP Management, ABFP Income Fund, ABFP Income 

Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, McElhone, LaForte, Cole, Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, or 

Furman’s officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and (b) other persons in 

active concert or participation with Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP Management, ABFP 

Income Fund, ABFP Income Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, McElhone, LaForte, Cole, 

Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, or Furman.

E. Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) of the Exchange Act

Pending further Order of the Court, Defendants Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP 

Management, ABFP Income Fund, ABFP Income Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, 

McElhone, LaForte, Cole, Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, and Furman, and their respective directors, 

officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, representatives and those persons in active concert 

or participation with them, and each of them, are hereby restrained and enjoined from violating: 

Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5(b), 17 C.F.R. 

§ 240.10b-5(b), by using any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails, or 

of any facility of any national securities exchange, in connection with the purchase or sale of any 

security, to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, by, directly or indirectly (i) creating 

a false appearance or otherwise deceiving any person, or (ii) disseminating false or misleading 

documents, materials, or information or making, either orally or in writing, any false or misleading 

statement in any communication with any investor or prospective investor, about: (A) any 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 7 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 142 of

 154
- 8 -

investment in securities; (B) the prospects for success of any product or company; (C) the use of 

investor funds; (D) the safety of any securities investment; (E) the use of investor funds or 

investment proceeds; (F) Orders issued against the Defendants by state or federal enforcement 

agencies; (G) the financial status of Par Funding; or (H) the management of Par Funding.

As provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), the foregoing paragraph also 

binds the following who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise: (a) 

any of Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP Management, ABFP Income Fund, ABFP Income 

Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, McElhone, LaForte, Cole, Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, or 

Furman’s officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and (b) other persons in 

active concert or participation with Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP Management, ABFP 

Income Fund, ABFP Income Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, McElhone, LaForte, Cole, 

Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, or Furman.

F. Section 10(b) and Ruleb-5(c) of the Exchange Act

Pending further Order of the Court, Defendants Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP 

Management, ABFP Income Fund, ABFP Income Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, 

McElhone, LaForte, Cole, Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, and Furman and their respective directors, officers, 

agents, servants, employees, attorneys, representatives and those persons in active concert or 

participation with them, and each of them, are hereby restrained and enjoined from violating 

Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5(c), 17 C.F.R. 

§ 240.10b-5(c), by using any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails, or 

of any facility of any national securities exchange, in connection with the purchase or sale of any 

security, to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, by, directly or indirectly (i) creating 

a false appearance or otherwise deceiving any person, or (ii) disseminating false or misleading 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 8 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 143 of

 154
- 9 -

documents, materials, or information or making, either orally or in writing, any false or misleading 

statement in any communication with any investor or prospective investor, about: (A) any 

investment in securities; (B) the prospects for success of any product or company; (C) the use of 

investor funds; (D) the safety of any securities investment; (E) the use of investor funds or 

investment proceeds; (F) Orders issued against the Defendants by state of federal enforcement 

agencies; (G) the financial status of Par Funding; or (H) the management of Par Funding.

As provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), the foregoing paragraph also 

binds the following who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise: (a) 

any of Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP Management, ABFP Income Fund, ABFP Income 

Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, McElhone, LaForte, Cole, Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, or 

Furman’s officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and (b) other persons in 

active concert or participation with Par Funding, Full Spectrum, ABFP, ABFP Management, ABFP 

Income Fund, ABFP Income Fund 2, United Fidelis, Fidelis Planning, McElhone, LaForte, Cole, 

Abbonizio, Vagnozzi, or Furman. 

G. Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act

Pending further Order of the Court, that all Defendants and their respective directors, 

officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, representatives and those persons in active concert 

or participation with them, and each of them, are hereby enjoined from violating Sections 5(a) and 

5(c) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77e, by directly or indirectly, in the absence of any 

applicable exemption:

(a) Unless a registration statement is in effect as to a security, making use of any means 

or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 9 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 144 of

 154
- 10 -

mails to sell such security through the use or medium of any prospectus or 

otherwise;

(b) Unless a registration statement is in effect as to a security, carrying or causing to 

be carried through the mails or in interstate commerce, by any means or instruments 

of transportation, any such security for the purpose of sale or for delivery after sale; 

or

(c) Making use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in 

interstate commerce or of the mails to offer to sell or offer to buy through the use 

or medium of any prospectus or otherwise any security, unless a registration 

statement has been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as to such 

security, or while the registration statement is the subject of a refusal order or stop 

order or (prior to the effective date of the registration statement) any public 

proceeding or examination under Section 8 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77h.

As provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), the foregoing paragraph also 

binds the following who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise: (a) 

any of Defendants’ officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and (b) other 

persons in active concert or participation with any Defendant.

III.

ASSET FREEZE AS TO PAR FUNDING, MCELHONE, AND LAFORTE 

Pending determination of Plaintiff’s request for a Preliminary Injunction:

A. Defendants Par Funding, McElhone, and LaForte and their respective directors, 

officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, depositories, banks, and those persons in active 

concert or participation with any one or more of them, and each of them, who receive notice of 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 10 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 145 of

 154
- 11 -

this Order by personal service, mail, email, facsimile transmission or otherwise, hereby are 

restrained from, directly or indirectly, transferring, setting off, receiving, changing, selling, 

pledging, assigning, liquidating or otherwise disposing of, or withdrawing any assets or property, 

including but not limited to cash, free credit balances, fully paid for securities, personal property, 

real property, and/or property pledged or hypothecated as collateral for loans, or charging upon or 

drawing from any lines of credit, owned by, controlled by, or in the possession of, whether jointly 

or singly, and wherever located, Par Funding, Lisa McElhone, and Joseph LaForte, a/k/a Joe Mack, 

a/k/a Joe Macki, a/k/a Joe McElhone.

B. Any financial or brokerage institution or other person or entity holding any such 

funds or other assets, in the name, for the benefit or under the control of Defendants Par Funding,

McElhone, or LaForte, directly or indirectly, held jointly or singly, and wherever located, and 

which receives actual notice of this Order by personal service, mail, email, facsimile, or otherwise, 

shall hold and retain within its control and prohibit the withdrawal, removal, transfer, disposition, 

pledge, encumbrance, assignment, set off, sale, liquidation, dissipation, concealment, or other 

disposal of any such funds or other assets.

This asset freeze is limited to the amount received from the securities fraud, which is 

estimated at this time to be $482,000,000.

ASSET FREEZE AS TO FULL SPECTRUM

Pending determination of Plaintiff’s request for a Preliminary Injunction:

Defendant Full Spectrum and its respective directors, officers, agents, servants, employees, 

attorneys, depositories, banks, and those persons in active concert or participation with any one or 

more of them, and each of them, who receive notice of this Order by personal service, mail, email, 

facsimile transmission or otherwise, hereby are restrained from, directly or indirectly, transferring, 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 11 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 146 of

 154
- 12 -

setting off, receiving, changing, selling, pledging, assigning, liquidating or otherwise disposing of, 

or withdrawing any assets or property of Par Funding, Full Spectrum, McElhone, or LaForte.

This asset freeze is limited to the amount received from the securities fraud, which is 

estimated at this time to be $4,398,535.

ASSET FREEZE AS TO DEFENDANT ABFP, 

ABFP INCOME FUND, AND ABFP INCOME FUND 2 

Pending determination of Plaintiff’s request for a Preliminary Injunction:

A. Defendants ABFP, ABFP Income Fund, and ABFP Income Fund 2, and their

respective directors, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, depositories, banks, and those 

persons in active concert or participation with any one or more of them, and each of them, who 

receive notice of this Order by personal service, mail, email, facsimile transmission or otherwise, 

hereby are restrained from, directly or indirectly, transferring, setting off, receiving, changing, 

selling, pledging, assigning, liquidating or otherwise disposing of, or withdrawing any assets or 

property, including but not limited to cash, free credit balances, fully paid for securities, personal 

property, real property, and/or property pledged or hypothecated as collateral for loans, or charging 

upon or drawing from any lines of credit, owned by, controlled by, or in the possession of, whether 

jointly or singly, and wherever located: ABFP, ABFP Income Fund, and ABFP Income Fund 2.

B. Any financial or brokerage institution or other person or entity holding any such 

funds or other assets, in the name, for the benefit or under the control of Defendants ABFP, ABFP 

Income Fund, and ABFP Income 2, directly or indirectly, held jointly or singly, and wherever 

located, and which receives actual notice of this Order by personal service, mail, email, facsimile, 

or otherwise, shall hold and retain within its control and prohibit the withdrawal, removal, transfer, 

disposition, pledge, encumbrance, assignment, set off, sale, liquidation, dissipation, concealment, 

or other disposal of any such funds or other assets.

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 12 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 147 of

 154
- 13 -

C. This asset freeze is limited to the amounts ABFP, ABFP Income Fund, and ABFP 

Income Fund 2 received from the securities fraud, which is estimated at this time to be:

$25,487,690 as to ABFP Income Fund and ABFP, jointly and severally; $13,252,600 as to ABFP 

Income Fund 2 and ABFP, jointly and severally; and $1,914,045 as to ABFP independent of ABFP 

Income Fund and ABFP Income Fund 2.

ASSET FREEZE AS TO DEFENDANTS UNITED FIDELIS AND FIDELIS FINANCIAL

Pending determination of Plaintiff’s request for a Preliminary Injunction:

A. Defendants United Fidelis and Fidelis Financial, and their respective directors, 

officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, depositories, banks, and those persons in active 

concert or participation with any one or more of them, and each of them, who receive notice of 

this Order by personal service, mail, email, facsimile transmission or otherwise hereby are, 

restrained from, directly or indirectly, transferring, setting off, receiving, changing, selling, 

pledging, assigning, liquidating or otherwise disposing of, or withdrawing any assets or property, 

including but not limited to cash, free credit balances, fully paid for securities, personal property, 

real property, and/or property pledged or hypothecated as collateral for loans, or charging upon or 

drawing from any lines of credit, owned by, controlled by, or in the possession of, whether jointly 

or singly, and wherever located: United Fidelis and Fidelis Financial.

B. Any financial or brokerage institution or other person or entity holding any such 

funds or other assets, in the name, for the benefit or under the control of United Fidelis and Fidelis 

Financial, directly or indirectly, held jointly or singly, and wherever located, and which receives 

actual notice of this Order by personal service, mail, email, facsimile, or otherwise, shall hold and 

retain within its control and prohibit the withdrawal, removal, transfer, disposition, pledge, 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 13 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 148 of

 154
- 14 -

encumbrance, assignment, set off, sale, liquidation, dissipation, concealment, or other disposal of 

any such funds or other assets.

C. This asset freeze is limited to the amounts United Fidelis and Fidelis Financial 

received from the fraud, which is estimated at this time to be: $11,603,000, jointly and severally.

ASSET FREEZE AS TO DEFENDANTS RETIREMENT EVOLUTION, 

RE INCOME FUND, AND RE INCOME FUND 2

Pending determination of Plaintiff’s request for a Preliminary Injunction:

A. Defendants Retirement Evolution, RE Income Fund, and RE Income Fund 2, and 

their respective directors, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, depositories, banks, and 

those persons in active concert or participation with any one or more of them, and each of them, 

who receive notice of this Order by personal service, mail, email, facsimile transmission or 

otherwise, hereby are restrained from, directly or indirectly, transferring, setting off, receiving, 

changing, selling, pledging, assigning, liquidating or otherwise disposing of, or withdrawing any 

assets or property, including but not limited to cash, free credit balances, fully paid for securities, 

personal property, real property, and/or property pledged or hypothecated as collateral for loans, 

or charging upon or drawing from any lines of credit, owned by, controlled by, or in the possession 

of, whether jointly or singly, and wherever located: Retirement Evolution, RE Income Fund, and 

RE Income Fund 2.

B. Any financial or brokerage institution or other person or entity holding any such 

funds or other assets, in the name, for the benefit or under the control of Retirement Evolution, RE 

Income Fund, and RE Income Fund 2, directly or indirectly, held jointly or singly, and wherever 

located, and which receives actual notice of this Order by personal service, mail, email, facsimile, 

or otherwise, shall hold and retain within its control and prohibit the withdrawal, removal, transfer, 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 14 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 149 of

 154
- 15 -

disposition, pledge, encumbrance, assignment, set off, sale, liquidation, dissipation, concealment, 

or other disposal of any such funds or other assets.

C. This asset freeze is limited to the amounts Retirement Evolution, RE Income Fund, 

and RE Income Fund 2 received from the fraud, which is estimated at this time to be: $6.5 million 

as to Retirement Evolution; $5,450,000 as to RE Income Fund; and $150,000 as to RE Income 

Fund 2.

ASSET FREEZE AS TO DEFENDANT COLE

Pending determination of Plaintiff’s request for a Preliminary Injunction:

A. Defendant Cole and his respective directors, officers, agents, servants, employees, 

attorneys, depositories, banks, and those persons in active concert or participation with any one or 

more of them, and each of them, who receive notice of this Order by personal service, mail, email, 

facsimile transmission or otherwise, hereby are restrained from, directly or indirectly, transferring, 

setting off, receiving, changing, selling, pledging, assigning, liquidating or otherwise disposing of, 

or withdrawing any assets or property, including but not limited to cash, free credit balances, fully 

paid for securities, personal property, real property, and/or property pledged or hypothecated as 

collateral for loans, or charging upon or drawing from any lines of credit, owned by, controlled 

by, or in the possession of, whether jointly or singly, and wherever located: Joseph Cole Barleta, 

a/k/a Joe Cole.

B. Any financial or brokerage institution or other person or entity holding any such 

funds or other assets, in the name, for the benefit or under the control of Cole, directly or indirectly, 

held jointly or singly, and wherever located, and which receives actual notice of this Order by 

personal service, mail, email, facsimile, or otherwise, shall hold and retain within its control and 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 15 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 150 of

 154
- 16 -

prohibit the withdrawal, removal, transfer, disposition, pledge, encumbrance, assignment, set off, 

sale, liquidation, dissipation, concealment, or other disposal of any such funds or other assets.

C. This asset freeze is limited to the amount Cole received from the fraud, which is 

estimated at this time to be $16,159,000.

ASSET FREEZE AS TO L.M.E. 2017 FAMILY TRUST

Pending determination of Plaintiff’s request for a Preliminary Injunction:

A. Relief Defendant L.M.E. 2017 Family Trust and its respective directors, officers, 

agents, servants, employees, attorneys, depositories, banks, and those persons in active concert or 

participation with any one or more of them, and each of them, who receive notice of this Order by 

personal service, mail, email, facsimile transmission or otherwise, hereby are restrained from, 

directly or indirectly, transferring, setting off, receiving, changing, selling, pledging, assigning, 

liquidating or otherwise disposing of, or withdrawing any assets or property, including but not 

limited to cash, free credit balances, fully paid for securities, personal property, real property, 

and/or property pledged or hypothecated as collateral for loans, or charging upon or drawing from 

any lines of credit, owned by, controlled by, or in the possession of, whether jointly or singly, and 

wherever located: The L.M.E. 2017 Family Trust.

B. Any financial or brokerage institution or other person or entity holding any such 

funds or other assets, in the name, for the benefit or under the control of the L.M.E. 2017 Family 

Trust, directly or indirectly, held jointly or singly, and wherever located, and which receives actual 

notice of this Order by personal service, mail, email, facsimile, or otherwise, shall hold and retain 

within its control and prohibit the withdrawal, removal, transfer, disposition, pledge, encumbrance, 

assignment, set off, sale, liquidation, dissipation, concealment, or other disposal of any such funds 

or other assets.

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 16 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 151 of

 154
- 17 -

C. This asset freeze is limited to the amount the L.M.E. 2017 Family Trust received 

from the fraud, which is estimated at this time to be $14.3 million.

IV.

SWORN ACCOUNTINGS

Accounting and Identification of Accounts by Each Defendant

Within five calendar days of the issuance of this Order, each Defendant, separately, shall:

(a) make a sworn accounting to this Court and the Plaintiff of all funds, whether in the 

form of compensation, commissions, income (including payments for assets, shares or property of

any kind), and other benefits (including the provision of services of a personal or mixed business 

and personal nature) received, directly or indirectly, by the Defendant making the sworn 

accounting; 

(b) make a sworn accounting to this Court and the Plaintiff of all assets, funds, or other 

properties, whether real or personal, held by the Defendant making the sworn accounting, jointly 

or individually, or for its direct or indirect beneficial interest, or over which it maintains control, 

wherever situated, stating the location, value, and disposition of each such asset, fund, and other 

property; and

(c) provide to the Court and the Plaintiff a sworn identification of all accounts 

(including, but not limited to, bank accounts, savings accounts, securities accounts and deposits of 

any kind and wherever situated) in which the Defendant making the sworn accounting (whether 

solely or jointly), directly or indirectly (including through a corporation, partnership, relative, 

friend or nominee), either has an interest or over which he has the power or right to exercise 

control.

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 17 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 152 of

 154
- 18 -

V.

RECORDS PRESERVATION

Pending determination of the Plaintiff’s request for a Preliminary Injunction, all Defendants 

and the Relief Defendant, their directors, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, 

depositories, banks, and those persons in active concert or participation with any one or more of 

them, and each of them, hereby are restrained and enjoined from, directly or indirectly, destroying, 

mutilating, concealing, altering, disposing of, or otherwise rendering illegible in any manner, any 

of the books, records, documents, correspondence, brochures, manuals, papers, ledgers, accounts, 

statements, obligations, files and other property of or pertaining to any and all Defendants and the 

Relief Defendant, wherever located and in whatever form, electronic or otherwise, until further 

Order of this Court.

VI.

EXPEDITED DISCOVERY 

(a) Immediately upon entry of this Order, and while the Plaintiff’s request for a 

Preliminary Injunction is pending, the parties may take depositions upon oral examination of 

parties and non-parties subject to two days’ notice. Should any Defendant fail to appear for a 

properly noticed deposition, that party may be prohibited from introducing evidence at the hearing 

on the Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction;

(b) Immediately upon entry of this Order, and while the Plaintiff’s request for a 

Preliminary Injunction is pending, the parties shall be entitled to serve interrogatories, requests for 

the production of documents and requests for admissions. The parties shall respond to such 

discovery requests within two days of service;

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 18 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 153 of

 154
- 19 -

(c) Immediately upon entry of this Order, and while the Plaintiff’s request for a 

Preliminary Injunction is pending, the parties may issue subpoenas for documents, things and 

electronically stored information to non-parties pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, with responses due 

within one week of the date of service;

(d) All responses to the Plaintiff’s discovery requests shall be delivered to Amie Riggle 

Berlin, Esq. at 801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1950, Miami, Florida 33131 by the most expeditious 

means available; and

(e) Service of discovery requests shall be sufficient if made upon the parties by email, 

facsimile, or overnight courier, and depositions may be taken by telephone or other remote 

electronic means. 

VII.

RETENTION OF JURISDICTION

This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter and Defendants and Relief Defendants

in order to implement and carry out the terms of all Orders and Decrees that may be entered and/or 

to entertain any suitable application or motion for additional relief within the jurisdiction of this 

Court, and will order other relief that this Court deems appropriate under the circumstances.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 28th day of July, 2020.

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: Counsel of Record

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR *SEALED* Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page

 19 of 19

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 89-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 154 of

 154