UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CV-81205-RAR

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 

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

Defendants.

______________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Defendants Joseph LaForte and Lisa 

McElhone’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 1468] (“Motion”), filed on December 

23, 2022, seeking to hold Jacqueline C. Romero, in her capacity as the United States Attorney for 

the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (“U.S. Attorney”), in contempt of court for allegedly violating 

the Receivership Order in this case. Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission filed a Notice 

Opposing the Motion on December 23, 2022, [ECF No. 1472] (“Notice”). Defendants filed a reply 

brief on January 6, 2023 [ECF No. 1479] (“Reply”). The Court having reviewed the Motion, 

Notice, Reply, the record, and being otherwise fully advised, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants’ Motion for an Order to Show Cause 

[ECF No. 1468] is hereby DENIED for the reasons set forth herein. 

BACKGROUND

Defendants are seeking to bring an airplane owned by Eagle Union Quest One, LLC 

(“EUQO”) and a stock account owned by L.M.E. 2017 Family Trust (“LME Trust”) into the 

Receivership. Mot. at 1. On July 28, 2020, the FBI seized the airplane and stock account in 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1490 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2023 Page 1 of 4
Page 2 of 4

connection with a criminal investigation into Defendants Lisa McElhone and Joseph LaForte 

occurring in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. See Mot. at 1, 5; Notice at 6. Both EUQO and 

LME Trust are Receivership entities currently under the control of the Receiver. Mot. 1–2. 

Although McElhone and LaForte have requested that the U.S. Attorney transfer the airplane and 

stock account to the Receiver, the U.S. Attorney has so far declined to do so. Mot. at 3. 

Defendants concede that the airplane and stock account, valued at roughly $18 million, 

“are not needed to satisfy the judgment” issued against them on November 22, 2022 [ECF No. 

1450]. Reply at 1 n.1. Nonetheless, Defendants state that these assets should still be marshalled 

by the Receiver because, in Defendants’ opinion, “once the judgment is satisfied out of some 

combination of the Receivership Assets, all remaining Receivership Assets which are attributable 

to the Defendants must be returned to them.” Id. Defendants ask this Court to issue an Order to 

Show Cause requiring the U.S. Attorney to explain the refusal to hand over the airplane and stock 

account to the Receiver, Mot. at 5, or in the alternative, order the U.S. Attorney to deliver 

possession of the assets to the Receiver, Mot. at 7.

The Receiver states that it has not been involved in any discussions with the U.S. 

Attorney’s office concerning the substance of this Motion, but generally does not oppose the 

inclusion of assets in the Receivership Estate if those assets constitute Receivership Property, as 

defined under the Amended Order Appointing Receiver [ECF No. 141]. Mot. at 8. 

ANALYSIS

Defendants lack standing to bring this Motion. The Court has vested the Receiver with the 

sole authority “to take custody, control and possession of all Receivership Property and records 

relevant thereto from Receivership Entities. . . and to take into possession from third parties all 

Receivership Property[.]” Am. Receivership Order ¶ 7(b) [ECF No. 141]. The statute which 

endowed this Court with the power to appoint the Receiver, 28 U.S.C. § 754, provides that

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1490 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2023 Page 2 of 4
Page 3 of 4

receivers be “vested with complete jurisdiction and control of all such property with the right to 

take possession thereof.” Defendants have advanced both points in their briefing in this case. See 

Notice at 2–4. They have no power to urge this Court to second guess the Receiver’s reasonable 

and diligent efforts to manage the affairs under its purview. 

Defendants attempt to justify their Motion out of concern for the investing public, 

emphasizing that “it is of paramount importance that these assets be marshalled by the Receiver 

so that they can be used to address the enormous judgment entered against the Defendants, and 

subsequently distributed to the investors.” Mot. at 3. In one part of their Reply, Defendants stress 

that, “the U.S. Attorney is wrongfully holding over $18 Million in Receivership Assets,” which is 

“detrimental to the investors.” Reply at 2. These justifications ring hollow, however, because in 

another part of their Reply, Defendants emphasize that these assets “are not needed to satisfy the 

judgment.” Reply at 1 n.1. Defendants’ candor in this latter statement suggests their true motives 

behind this Motion are not, in fact, an altruistic attempt to safeguard the interests of the investing 

public. 

More self-serving concerns permeate Defendants’ Motion. Defendants have sprinkled

references throughout the footnotes of their filings stressing their position that post-collection 

Receivership assets must be returned to Defendants. See Mot. at 3 n.4; Reply at 1 n.1. Defendants’ 

repeated insistence that Receivership assets be used to satisfy the judgment with any remainder 

being returned to them is an issue not properly before the Court at this time, and cannot justify this 

Court’s interference into an ongoing criminal investigation. If the Receiver finds it imperative to 

seek an Order to Show Cause against the U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and 

can muster the high burden of proof and persuasion required to do so, only then would this Court 

consider such an extraordinary step. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1490 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2023 Page 3 of 4
Page 4 of 4

CONCLUSION

 For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 

1. Defendants’ Motion for an Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 1468] is DENIED. 

2. Defendants’ request for costs and attorneys’ fees is DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 15th day of January, 2023. 

 ________________________________ 

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1490 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2023 Page 4 of 4