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, 

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, 

RETIREMENT EVOLUTION INCOME 

 FUND, LLC , f/k/a RE INCOME FUND, LLC, UNDER SEAL 

RE INCOME FUND 2, LLC, 

LISA MCELHONE, 

JOSEPH COLE BARLETA a/k/a/ JOE COLE, 

JOSEPH W. LAFORTE a/k/a JOE MACK 

 a/k/a/ JOE MACKI a/k/a JOE MCELHONE, 

PERRY S. ABBONIZIO, 

DEAN J. VAGNOZZI, 

MICHAEL C. FURMAN, 

and JOHN GISSAS 

 Defendants, and 

L.M.E. 2017 FAMILY TRUST, 

 Relief Defendant. 

___________________________________________/ 

PLAINTIFF SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION'S 

URGENT MOTION TO AMEND ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER 

TO INCLUDE LITIGATION INJUCTION 

CBR Jul 31, 2020

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 1 of 4
 The Securities and Exchange Commission, joined by the Receiver in the relief sought 

herein, hereby move this Court for a modified Order of appointment of the Receiver to clarify the 

powers and rights of the Receiver in regard to stays of litigation against the Receiver and the 

Receiver Entities. This clarification is sought in order to avoid the possible expenditure of 

Receivership assets and the possible default on deadlines in lawsuits to which the Receivership 

Entities are parties. The Receiver and Commission seek the same language that is included in 

other Receivership Orders entered in this District, and nationwide, as shown in the attached 

proposed Amended Order. 

On July 27, the Court entered an Order appointing Ryan K. Stumphauzer as the Receiver 

over the corporate Defendants [D.E. 36]. 

 As set forth in the Commission’s Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, 

Par Funding is a party to thousands of lawsuits. The Receiver, who was appointed July 27, 2020, 

is reviewing these as well as other lawsuits to which the Receivership Entities are parties. 

Complicating this is the fact that Par Funding is represented in all, or nearly all, of the its lawsuits 

by the same law firm and, in many cases, the same lawyer defending Par Funding and other 

Defendants in this case. Defense Counsel for Par Funding is contacting the Receiver seeking 

direction on lawsuits in which Defense Counsel represented Par Funding prior to the Commission 

filing this case. (Exhibits A and B). The Receiver has not retained Par Funding’s Defense Counsel 

in this case as his counsel in any matter. 

 We are seeking this change on an urgent basis because there are Court deadlines and 

discovery deadlines in the Receivership Entities’ lawsuits, some of which we learned today will 

occur tomorrow. (Exhibits A and B hereto). 

We respectfully request that this Court impose a stay on all matters to which a Receivership 

Entity is a party. A purpose of the federal receivership is to safeguard the Receivership Entities’ 

assets for the benefit of investors. Given that the Receiver is only beginning his investigation into 

the affairs of the Receivership Entities, a litigation injunction serves to guard the assets of the 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 2 of 4
Receivership Entities by preventing ancillary litigation. “The Court should lift the stay if there is 

good reason to do so, but part of the purpose of the stay against litigation is to preserve the assets 

for the benefit of creditors and investors while the Receiver investigates claims; requiring 

the Receiver to monitor and engage in litigation early on in the receivership would deplete the 

assets of [the Receivership Entities]. SEC v. Onix Capital, LLC, Case No. 16-cv-24678, 2017 WL 

6728814 (S.D. Fla. July 24, 2017) (adoped by District Court Judge Cooke, 2017 WL 6728773 and 

denying motion to lift stay and file bankruptcy petitions). See SEC v. Stanford Int'l. Bank Ltd., 

424 Fed.Appx. 338, 341-42 (S.D.N.Y. 2008), aff’d, 609 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2010) (holding that the 

receivership was still in its early stages and thus maintaining the stay against litigation was 

appropriate where Receiver had been in place for one year and was tasked with investigating the 

fraudulent scheme at issue); U.S. v. Acorn Tech. Fund, L.P., 429 F.3d 428, 443 (3d Cir. 2005) 

(“[T]he purpose of imposing a stay of litigation is clear. A receiver must be given a chance to do 

the important job of marshaling and untangling a company's assets without being forced into court 

by every investor or claimant.”). 

It is well-recognized that “[a] district court may impose a litigation stay on a non-party to 

a receivership as part of its inherent power as a court of equity to fashion effective relief.” SEC v. 

Byers, 609 F.3d 87, 91 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing SEC v. Wencke, 622 F.2d 1363, 1369 (9th Cir. 1980)). 

Indeed, Courts in this District routinely impose the same injunction stay sought in this case. It is, 

in fact, part of the Model SEC Receivership Order the Commission filed with its Motion for the 

Appointment of a Receiver in this case. 

We are requesting this relief on an expedited basis because the Receivership Entities are 

parties to cases in which there are litigation deadlines of tomorrow, July 31, 2020. 

 

 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 3 of 4
July 30, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

 By: s/Amie Riggle Berlin

 Amie Riggle Berlin, Esq. 

Senior Trial Counsel 

Florida Bar No. 630020 

Direct Dial: (305) 982-6322 

Direct email: berlina@sec.gov 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

 801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1800 

 Miami, Florida 33131 

 Telephone: (305) 982-6300 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Undersigned counsel conferred with the Receiver, Ryan Stumphauzer, who agrees and joins in this 

motion for the Relief requested herein. Undersigned counsel emailed defense counsel but they 

have not had an opportunity to respond. Due to the urgent nature of the relief sought herein, 

undersigned counsel felt it necessary to file this motion without further delay and will file a Notice 

of the defendants’ positions if and when that is received from them. 

 

 s/Amie Riggle Berlin

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