UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------------------------------- x 

KAMMAS & COMPANY, INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. NO. 07 CV 3469 (PKL) 

 Jury Trial Demanded 

ONE WORLD CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, 

 Defendant. 

--------------------------------------------------------------- x 

DEFENDANT ONE WORLD CAPITAL LLC'S ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT

Defendant One World Capital Group LLC (“One World Capital”) answers Kammas's 

Complaint (“Complaint”) as follows. The Paragraph numbers indicated herein correspond to 

those set forth in the Complaint as filed by Kammas & Company, Inc. ("Kammas"). 

JURISDICTION 

1. One World Capital denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 

to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 1. 

2. One World Capital admits that it is a New York Limited Liability Company duly 

organized under the laws of the state of New York with offices at 590 Madison Avenue, New 

York, New York 10022 and at 525 Chestnut Street, Second Floor, Winnetka, Illinois 60093. 

3. One World Capital admits that the amount in controversy exceeds $150,000. 

4. Paragraph 4 states legal conclusions to which no response is required and to the 

extent a response is necessary One World Capital denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 

4.

Case 1:07-cv-03469-PKL Document 5 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 1 of 6
 - 2 - 

AND AS FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

ADVISORY SERVICES AGREEMENT

5. One World Capital admits that attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A is an 

Agreement that purports to be an Advisory Services Agreement executed on or about January 24, 

2006, between One World Capital and Kammas; One World Capital denies the remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 5. 

6. One World Capital denies the allegations in Paragraph 6 except that One World 

Capital admits that attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A is an Agreement that purports to be an 

Advisory Services Agreement executed on or about January 24, 2006, between One World 

Capital and Kammas. 

7. One World Capital denies the allegations in Paragraph 7. 

8. One World Capital denies the allegations in Paragraph 8. 

9. One World Capital admits that it received a letter, dated March 12, 2007 from the 

law firm of Drohan & Drohan demanding that One World Capital pay certain amounts that 

Kammas apparently contends are due to Kammas; One World Capital denies the remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 9. 

10. One World Capital denies the allegations in Paragraph 10. 

11. One World Capital denies the allegations in Paragraph 11. 

12. Paragraph 12 states legal recitations and conclusions to which no response is 

required and to the extent a response is necessary, One World Capital denies the remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 12. 

Case 1:07-cv-03469-PKL Document 5 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 2 of 6
 - 3 - 

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

INTRODUCING BROKER AGREEMENT

13. One World Capital admits that annexed to the Complaint as Exhibit B is a 

document entitled Introducing Broker Agreement ("IBA") and denies the remaining allegations 

in Paragraph 13. 

14. One World Capital denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 

to the truth of the allegations in the Paragraph 14. 

15. One World Capital admits that on November 10, 2006, One World Capital 

executed and transmitted an Introducing Broker Agreement that is attached hereto as Exhibit 1; 

One World Capital denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 15. 

16. One World Capital denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 

to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 16. 

17. Paragraph 17 states legal conclusions to which no response is required and to the 

extent a response is necessary One World Capital denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 

17. 

18. One World Capital denies the allegations in Paragraph 18. 

19. One World Capital denies the allegations in Paragraph 19. 

20. One World Capital admits that it received a letter, dated March 12, 2007 from the 

law firm of Drohan & Drohan demanding that One World Capital pay certain amounts that 

Kammas apparently contends are due to Kammas; One World Capital denies the remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 20. 

21. One World Capital denies the allegations in Paragraph 21. 

Case 1:07-cv-03469-PKL Document 5 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 3 of 6
 - 4 - 

22. Paragraph 22 states legal recitations and conclusions to which no response is 

required and to the extent a response is necessary, One World Capital denies the remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 22. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

23. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

24. Kammas's material breach of the Advisory Services Agreement and the IBA by, 

among other things, failing and refusing to abide by the terms of said agreements and breaching 

fiduciary duties and obligations arising from the agreements released and discharged One World 

Capital from any and all alleged obligations under the Agreement or any other contract. 

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

25. In the alternative, One World Capital reserved the right to terminate immediately, 

upon justifiable grounds, the Advisory Services Agreement and whatever form of IBA controlled 

the relationship between the parties; and One World Capital terminated the Advisory Service 

Agreement and that IBA upon justifiable grounds. 

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

26. The Complaint fails to allege facts, or a cause of action, sufficient to support a 

claim for attorneys fees. 

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

27. One World Capital is entitled to judgment founded on documentary evidence, and 

Kammas's claims should be dismissed on this basis. 

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

28. Kammas is barred from obtaining any relief under the doctrine of unclean hands. 

Case 1:07-cv-03469-PKL Document 5 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 4 of 6
 - 5 - 

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

29. Kammas's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of laches, 

waiver, and equitable estoppel. 

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

30. Kammas is not entitled to relief under the terms of any agreement between the 

parties. 

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

31. Kammas has failed or neglected to use reasonable care for its own protection and 

to minimize loss and damages, if any exist, and any recovery is therefore barred or 

proportionately reduced. 

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

32. Kammas will be unjustly enriched if Kammas is allowed to recover any or part of 

the damages alleged in Kammas's Complaint. 

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

33. Kammas's claims for relief are barred in whole or in part by the Statute of Frauds. 

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

34. One World Capital intends to rely upon and reserve its right to assert other and 

related defenses, as may become available.

Case 1:07-cv-03469-PKL Document 5 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 5 of 6
 - 6 - 

RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, One World Capital prays for judgment as follows: 

1. That this Court enter judgment in its favor dismissing Kammas's claims with 

prejudice, and awarding One World Capital its costs and attorneys' fees incurred in defending 

against those claims, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Dated: June 21, 2007 

New York, New York 

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 

 By: /s Edward C. Wipper 

 David E. Mollon (DM-5624) 

Edward C. Wipper (EW-6140) 

200 Park Avenue 

New York, NY 10166-4193 

(212) 294-6700 (telephone) 

(212) 294-4700 (facsimile) 

Attorneys For Defendant One World 

Capital Group LLC

NY:1116750.1 

Case 1:07-cv-03469-PKL Document 5 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 6 of 6