UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Securities & Exchange Commission, Case No.: 9:20-cv-81205-RAR

Plaintiff,

v.

Complete Business

Solutions Group, Inc., et 

al.

Defendants.

/

PARKER PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION TO RECEIVER’S MOTION

TO (1) APPROVE PROPOSED PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION

AND (2) AUTHORIZE FIRST INTERIM DISTRIBUTION

Plaintiffs in the action styled Dean Parker et al. v. John W. Pauciulo and Eckert 

Seamans, pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Case No. 0892, 

December Term 2020 (the “Parker Plaintiffs”), respectfully submit this Objection to the 

Receiver’s Motion to (1) Approve Proposed Plan of Distribution and (2) Authorize First Interim 

Distribution [Dkt. No. 2014] (the “Motion”), and in support thereof, state as follows:1

1. The Parker Plaintiffs object to the Motion to the extent that the Receiver proposes

to withhold distributions to the Parker Plaintiffs because the Parker Plaintiffs also are seeking 

1 The Parker Plaintiffs include Joseph R. Cacchione, Francis Cassidy, Yajun Chu, Brian Drake, 

Joseph Gassman, David Gollner, Kurt Hemry, Sherri Marini, Andrew McKinley, Christopher 

McMorrow, Mark Nardelli, Paul Nick, Davis Parker, Dean Parker, Daniel Reisinger, Philip 

Sharpton, Michael Tierney, Legacy Advisory Group, Merchant Factoring Income, LLC, Victory 

Income Fund, LLC, Workwell Fund I, LLC, Cape Cod Income Fund, Wellen Fund 1, LLC, 

LWM Income Fund, 2, LLC, LWM Equity Fund, L.P., LWM Income Fund Parallel, LLC, Blue 

Stream Income Fund, LLC, Jade Funding, LLC, MK One Income Fund, LLC, GR8 Income 

Fund, LLC, STFG Income Fund, LLC, RAZR MCA Fund, LLC, Mariner MCA Income Fund, 

LLC, MCA Carolina Income Fund, LLC, and Merchant Services Income Fund, LLC.

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 2032 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2024 Page 1 of 5
2

recovery from Eckert Seamans (“Eckert”). (Motion at 63.) The Court should reject the 

Receiver’s proposal because it is inappropriate and unjustified. The proposal appears to be made 

solely as retaliation for the Parker Plaintiffs’ objection to the Receiver’s proposed settlement with 

Eckert, and as such, constitutes an improper effort to obtain leverage over the Parker Plaintiffs.

2. The Parker Plaintiffs are the real parties in interest for over 150 individual 

investors in Par Funding. The Parker Plaintiffs owe fiduciary duties to those individual investors 

to take all action necessary to protect their investments and to maximize their recovery from 

those ultimately responsible for their losses. That is precisely why the Parker Plaintiffs had the 

foresight to engage legal counsel -- Eckert and John Pauciulo -- to advise and assist them in 

creating the agent management funds. Of course, unbeknownst to the Parker Plaintiffs at the 

time, the “pitch” they received from Dean Vagnozzi concerning their Par Funding investment 

contained material misrepresentations. And Pauciulo subsequently participated those material 

misrepresentations, while assuring the Parker Plaintiffs that the Par Funding investment was 

perfectly legal.

3. For three years now, the Parker Plaintiffs -- who took extra steps to protect their 

investment by retaining Eckert -- have sought to recover their losses through a malpractice action 

against Eckert. But those efforts have been thwarted by the Receiver. Thus, as the Court is 

aware, the Parker Plaintiffs recently filed an objection to the Receiver’s attempt to enhance the 

Receivership Estate with funds from Eckert’s insurance policy, which the Receiver intends to 

distribute to all claimants, regardless of whether those claimants have any legal entitlement to the 

insurance proceeds. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 2032 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2024 Page 2 of 5
3

4. Notwithstanding, the Receiver now plans to make distributions to other claimants, 

while holding back the Parker Plaintiffs’ share of the distribution. There is nothing fair or 

equitable about doing so.

5. The Receiver’s allocation and distribution plan, if it proceeds, will return far less 

than the Parker Plaintiffs’ total loss, regardless of whether the Parker Plaintiffs’ are successful in 

recovering the entire amount of Eckert’s insurance policy. Indeed, the Parker Plaintiffs’ total

claim amounts to $62 million dollars. If he does not hold back the distribution, the Receiver 

estimates a payment of $16 million dollars to the Parker Plaintiffs (from a pot of $150 million 

dollars). Thus, even if the Parker Plaintiffs were to recover the entire amount of the Eckert 

policy (approximately $40 million), they still would not be made whole. Accordingly, there is no 

basis to withhold a distribution to them now. And doing so improperly prejudges the merit of the 

Parker Plaintiffs’ argument that they are the only parties entitled to the proceeds of the Eckert 

policy.

6. The authorities cited by the Receiver to support withholding the Parker Plaintiffs’ 

distribution do not justify his proposal. Indeed, the Receiver cites SEC v. Byers, 637 F.Supp.2d 

166 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) solely for the proposition that “when funds are limited, hard choices must 

be made”. But it is difficult to understand how that quote has anything to do with the proposed

action here. The allocation to the Parker Plaintiffs already has been made. And even if the 

Parker Plaintiffs recover the entire amount of the Eckert policy, there will still be a deficiency. 

So nothing will be gained by holding back the distribution (other than some misperceived 

leverage).

7. Likewise, the holdback at issue in United States v. Petters, No. 08-cv-5348 2011 

WL 281031, at *11 (D. Minn. Jan. 25, 2011), involved direct claw back claims against the very 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 2032 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2024 Page 3 of 5
4

claimants seeking the distribution. That is simply not this case. The Receiver is not challenging 

the Parker Plaintiffs’ entitlement to the amount of the distribution (nor could he in good faith). 

To the contrary, he already has approved of the allocation, and he cannot justify delaying the 

distribution -- and treating the Parker Plaintiffs differently -- simply because they seek to make 

themselves whole from other sources.

Dated: September 9, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

HAINES & ASSOCIATES

/s/ Clifford E. Haines

Clifford E. Haines

The Widener Building, 5th Floor

1339 Chestnut Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107

Telephone: (215) 246-2200

chaines@haines-law.com

Admitted Pro Hac Vice for

Parker Plaintiffs

-andMINSKER LAW, PLLC

/s/ Jonathan E. Minsker

Jonathan E. Minsker

Florida Bar No. 38120

1100 Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 3701

Miami, Florida 33132

Telephone: (786) 988-1020

jminsker@minskerlaw.com

Local Counsel to Parker Plaintiffs

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 2032 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2024 Page 4 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on 

September 9, 2024, via the Court’s ECF Filing System, on all counsel in this matter.

/s/ Jonathan E. Minsker

Jonathan E. Minsker

Florida Bar No. 38120

MINSKER LAW, PLLC

1100 Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 3701

Miami, Florida 33132

Telephone: (786) 988-1020

jminsker@minskerlaw.com

Counsel to Parker Plaintiffs

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 2032 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2024 Page 5 of 5