UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

J. LINCOLN CROCKER, Individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

 

 v. 

 

BBC EQUITIES, L.L.C.; BRAVATA FINANCIAL 

GROUP, L.L.C.; BBC CAPITAL, L.L.C.; BBC 

HOLDINGS 1-50, LLC; BBC HOLDINGS I-XI, 

LLC; FERNDALE LOFTS, LLC; PHOENIX 

VENTURES CAPITAL, LLC; JOHN J. 

BRAVATA; JAMES JOE BRAVATA; RICHARD 

J. TRABULSY; ANTONIO M. BRAVATA; 

SHARI A. BRAVATA; JOHN SELLERS; AARON 

SIMON; and EQUITY TRUST COMPANY. 

 Defendants. 

 

Case No. 09-13158 

Hon. David M. Lawson 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

Marc L. Newman (P51393) 

Christopher D. Kaye (P61918) 

950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 

Rochester, MI 48307 

(248) 841-2200 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND 

EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Case No. 09-12950 

Plaintiff, 

 Honorable David M. Lawson 

v. 

JOHN J. BRAVATA, RICHARD J. 

TRABULSY, ANTONIO M. BRAVATA, 

BBC EQUITIES, LLC, BRAVATA 

FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, and SHARI A. 

BRAVATA, 

Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 124 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 1 of 8
2

I. Introduction 

J. Lincoln Crocker, plaintiff in Case No. 09-13158, (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), is an 

individual investor in BBC Equities. He acknowledges that this Court’s July 27, 2009 Order 

(Dkt. No. 22) contained language, of which he was not aware of at the time he filed his suit, that 

arguably enjoined Plaintiff from bringing this suit. Plaintiff also acknowledges the importance 

of the Security and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) action regarding this matter. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff defers to the judgment of this Honorable Court in addressing the coordination of the 

public SEC action and any private civil complaints, if any, that investors ultimately pursue in this 

case. Nevertheless, Plaintiff believes that he is entitled to pursue such an action, and that a 

dismissal of his suit might threaten his ability to seek redress for the wrongs committed against 

him and other investors in BBC Equities. Moreover, Plaintiff believes that he can retain these 

rights without interfering with the SEC’s action or the receivership process that the SEC action 

has initiated. 

Plaintiff supports the SEC’s actions, and does not seek to do anything that would impair 

the SEC’s lawsuit. Moreover, Plaintiff and his counsel hope for the SEC and the court-appointed 

receiver to secure as much recovery as possible for BBC Equity’s investors, without the recovery 

being reduced unnecessarily by Plaintiff’s attorneys fees. Ideally, the receivership process will 

make the investors whole, and the Plaintiff’s lawsuit will become a moot point. However, 

Plaintiff is concerned that this will not be the case, and that the SEC’s action and the attendant 

receivership process will not make the investors whole. Moreover, Plaintiff believes that he is 

vested with a fundamental right of access to the Courts. See, e.g., Swekel v. City of River 

Rouge, 119 F.3d 1259, 1261-1262 (6th Cir 1997). That is why he brought this case. 

Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 124 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 2 of 8
3

II. The Applicable Limitations Periods Compelled Plaintiff to Bring This Action 

Plaintiff is most concerned about the limitations periods for his claims and those of the 

other class members. Arguably, the initial order tolled these periods. However, Plaintiff expects 

that, should the issue ever arise, then defendants would argue that the order did not toll the 

period. Without making the defendants’ potential argument for them, Plaintiff notes that many 

of the securities-related limitations periods are short, and also notes that many such limitations 

are statutes of repose, as opposed to statutes of limitation, making them more resistant to tolling. 

 Likewise, Plaintiff believes that the best opportunity for BBC Equity’s investors to be 

made whole may rest not with the defendants in the SEC action, but rather with additional 

defendants that Plaintiff has named in his lawsuit. A timely filing was required in order to avoid 

the limitations issues that Plaintiff expects that these defendants would otherwise raise. At the 

very least, Plaintiff should be allowed to maintain his suit against the parties that the SEC did not 

name in its action. 

 Notably, the order appointing a receiver provides for a stay of litigation related to the 

issues in this case, and for a stay of the statute of limitations for actions brought by the entities 

that the Court placed into receivership: 

All Ancillary Proceedings [such as Plaintiff’s case] are stayed in their entirety. All 

any applicable statutes of limitation are tolled as to a cause of action accrued or 

accruing in favor of one or more of [BBC Equities, LLC or Bravata Financial 

Group, LLC] against a third person or party during the period in which this 

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

of action. 

Order Appointing Receiver, Dkt. No. 54, p. 11 ¶ 29. However, this language does not provide 

for the tolling of a statute of limitations in actions brought by BBC Equity’s aggrieved investors. 

Moreover, it does not address statutes of repose, as opposed to limitation. Once again, Plaintiff 

Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 124 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 3 of 8
4

believes that the July 27, 2009 order as well as the Order Appointing Recevier have tolled all 

applicable limitation periods. However, Plaintiff is concerned that enough ambiguity on this 

issue exists for defendants to argue that, if Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed, then the defendants will 

be protected against any future suit by the limitations periods. 

 Finally, Plaintiff is concerned that, after the conclusion of the receivership process and 

the SEC’s case, the defendants in the SEC’s action may accumulate new assets making them 

collectible, or reveal that they had retained assets during the receivership process that they had 

successfully hidden from the receiver and, thus, the investors. Plaintiff and the class members 

should have the right to pursue their right to be made whole against these defendants. 

Dismissing their claims would, at the very least, provide these defendants with a limitationsperiod argument that they could later use to thwart the aggrieved investors’ efforts. 

III. Plaintiff Has Been Careful Not to Interfere with the SEC’s Enforcement Action 

At the time Plaintiff’s complaint was filed, Plaintiff’s counsel read the SEC’s complaint 

and was aware of the order instituting the asset freeze. Plaintiff had not been served with a copy 

of the order, or with any notice of its contents. As a result, Plaintiff’s counsel had not read the 

order in detail, and was not aware of the apparent prohibition on the filing of lawsuits that is the 

focus of the Court’s Order to Show Cause. 

 Since the time of filing, Plaintiff has been careful to minimize any impact that his case 

may have on the SEC’s action. In particular, Plaintiff has been careful to minimize the amount 

of time that his complaint imposed on counsel for the defendants in the SEC action, to avoid any 

argument that assets should be released in order for these defendants to defend themselves 

against Plaintiff’s lawsuit. 

Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 124 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 4 of 8
5

 The only major action that Plaintiff has taken since filing his initial complaint was to file 

an amended complaint. The purpose of the amended complaint was largely to add additional 

defendants and was, once again, premised on the need to comply with the limitations periods that 

might impair the ability of the Plaintiff and other class members to seek redress against these 

defendants. Since the time of the Order Appointing Receiver and its stay of proceedings, 

Plaintiff has not actively pursued his case except to file this Response and the associated Motion. 

IV. A Continuation of the Stay Would Be More Appropriate Than a Dismissal 

 Plaintiff believes that a continuation of the stay would be more appropriate than outright 

dismissal. The stay accomplishes much of the same goals of a dismissal: it allows the SEC 

action and the receivership process to proceed unhindered by a civil lawsuit. However, it also 

allows Plaintiff and the class members to retain their actions without the threat of the limitations 

periods being raised against them. Thus, it accomplishes the goals of dismissal without 

jeopardizing the investors’ opportunity to be made whole. 

V. Plaintiff Has Moved For Relief From The Stay For The Limited Purpose of Serving 

the Amended Complaint, or in the Alternative for Enlargement of the Time to Serve 

Process. 

 An immediate issue for Plaintiff is the service of his amended complaint. With one 

inadvertent exception1, Plaintiff has avoided making service of process in order to strictly 

comply with the Order Appointing Receiver. However, the summonses are due to expire on 

December 9, 2009 for the Defendants named in the initial complaint, and on December 28, 2009 

for the Defendants added in the amended complaint. Thus, Plaintiff is filing, along with this 

response, a motion for relief from the stay for this limited purpose, or, in the alternative, for 

 

1

 After the entry of the order appointing the receiver, Plaintiff’s counsel instructed the process 

servers at work on the matter to refrain from serving process on the case. One of the servers 

disregarded this instruction and did proceed to serve Equity Trust Company, which is not a 

defendant in the SEC’s action. 

Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 124 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 5 of 8
6

enlargement of the time to serve process. The filing of this motion, like the filing of the 

complaint and amended complaint themselves, is intended solely to protect the rights of Plaintiff 

and the other aggrieved investors. 

/s/ Christopher D Kaye 

The Miller Law Firm, P.C. 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Marc L. Newman (P51393) 

Christopher D. Kaye (P61918) 

 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 

 Rochester, MI 48307 

 (248) 841-2200 

Dated: October 29, 2009 

Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 124 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 6 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

J. LINCOLN CROCKER, Individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated 

 Plaintiffs, 

 

 v. 

 

BBC EQUITIES, L.L.C.; BRAVATA FINANCIAL 

GROUP, L.L.C.; BBC CAPITAL, L.L.C.; BBC 

HOLDINGS 1-50, LLC; BBC HOLDINGS I-XI, 

LLC; FERNDALE LOFTS, LLC; PHOENIX 

VENTURES CAPITAL, LLC; JOHN J. 

BRAVATA; JAMES JOE BRAVATA; RICHARD 

J. TRABULSY; ANTONIO M. BRAVATA; 

SHARI A. BRAVATA; JOHN SELLERS; AARON 

SIMON; and EQUITY TRUST COMPANY. 

 Defendants. 

 

Case No. 09-13158 

Hon. David M. Lawson 

_______________________________________________________________________/ 

Marc L. Newman (P51393) 

Christopher D. Kaye (P61918) 

950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 

Rochester, MI 48307 

(248) 841-2200 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

_______________________________________________________________________/ 

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND 

EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Case No. 09-12950 

Plaintiff, Honorable David M. Lawson 

v. 

JOHN J. BRAVATA, RICHARD J. 

TRABULSY, ANTONIO M. BRAVATA, 

BBC EQUITIES, LLC, BRAVATA 

FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, and SHARI A. 

BRAVATA, 

Defendants.

Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 124 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 7 of 8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 Julia N. Squires hereby certifies that on October 29, 2009 she caused the 

foregoing submission to be filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system

which will mail to the following recipients: 

• Gregory Bartko 

gbartko@securitieslawcounsel.com 

• Thomas P. Dillon 

tdillon@slk-law.com 

• George B. Donnini 

donnini@butzel.com,smithe@butzel.com 

• Earle I. Erman 

eerman@ermanteicher.com,gsafko@ermanteicher.com,deisenberg@ermanteicher

.com,skoss@okeefeandassociates.com 

• Patricia B. Fugee 

pfugee@ralaw.com,tburgin@ralaw.com,cbaker@ralaw.com 

• Benjamin J. Hanauer 

hanauerb@sec.gov 

• Alan N. Harris 

AHARRIS@BODMANLLP.COM,LHIGNITE@BODMANLLP.COM 

• Miles D. Hart 

mhart@saretsky.com 

• Richardo I. Kilpatrick 

rkilpatrick@kaalaw.com 

• F. Thomas Lewand 

tlewand@bodmanllp.com,ncoleman@bodmanllp.com 

• James G. Lundy 

lundyj@sec.gov 

• Jonathan S. Polish 

polishj@sec.gov,nicholsl@sec.gov 

• Jane D. Quasarano 

jquasarano@bodmanllp.com,jcox@bodmanllp.com,tvasser@bodmanllp.com 

• Joseph E. Richotte 

richotte@butzel.com,puls@butzel.com 

• Michael J. Riordan 

michael.riordan@usdoj.gov,jonathan.sonbay@usdoj.gov,debbie.walker@usdoj.gov

• Gary M. Saretsky 

gsaretsky@saretsky.com,jsterling@saretsky.com,emichaels@saretsky.com,mben

nett@saretsky.com 

• Jonathan M. Sterling 

jsterling@saretsky.com 

 /s/ Julia N. Squires

Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 124 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 8 of 8