You are on page 1of 21

EXHIBIT "B"

Filed and Attested by the


Office of Judicial Records
30 AUG 2017 11:05 am
IN THE PHILADELPHIA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS P. DIVON

:
Complete Business Solutions Group,
:
Inc. (d/b/a Par Funding)
:
Plaintiff :
:
v. : Civil Action
: November Term 2015
Capital Stack, LLC :
:
Defendants : Docket No.: 00166
:

Preliminary Report
Of
Colleen S. Vallen, CPA, CFF

August 25, 2017

Case ID: 151100166


TABLE OF CONTENTS
_____________________________________________________________________________

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1
A. Overview of Engagement.................................................................................................................. 1
B. Qualifications .................................................................................................................................... 1
C. Data and Information Considered in Forming My Opinions ............................................................ 2
II. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................. 2
A. Parties................................................................................................................................................ 2
B. Complaint .......................................................................................................................................... 3
C. Master Participation Agreement ....................................................................................................... 4
D. The Order of Accounting .................................................................................................................. 4
III. MEETINGS AND ANALYSIS PERFORMED TO DATE ............................................................. 4
IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 12
I. INTRODUCTION

A. OVERVIEW OF ENGAGEMENT

1. Citrin Cooperman & Company, LLP (Citrin Cooperman) was retained by Norman M. Valz &
Associates, P.C. (Counsel) on behalf of the Plaintiff in the above-referenced matter, currently
pending before the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.

2. Specifically, Citrin Cooperman was retained by Counsel to perform an accounting of the Defendants
financial records, accounts, bookkeeping and other relevant records pursuant to a Court Order dated
May 2, 2017.

3. My preliminary analysis was conducted for this purpose only. No other purpose is intended or should
be inferred.

4. All of the opinions stated herein are offered to a reasonable degree of accounting certainty.

B. QUALIFICATIONS

5. I am a Partner in Citrin Coopermans Valuation and Forensic Services Department. I am a Certified


Public Accountant and Certified in Financial Forensics. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in
Accounting. I have been qualified and have presented testimony in court and at deposition.

6. My curriculum vita is attached as Exhibit A. It includes a list of publications I have authored in the
previous ten years as well as a listing of cases in which I have testified as an expert at trial or by
deposition.

7. The preliminary analysis and opinions in this report are based upon the information and documentation
identified to date, my education, and my experience in performing similar financial analyses and
economic damage calculations.

8. I have no present or contemplated financial interest in any of the parties to this litigation. My fees for
this engagement are based upon my normal hourly billing rates and those of the staff members who
assisted me. Our fees are not contingent on the outcome of this matter. My hourly billing rate is $390.

1
C. DATA AND INFORMATION CONSIDERED IN FORMING MY OPINIONS

9. I, and other Citrin Cooperman personnel working under my direction, performed the preliminary
analysis discussed herein based on the documentation and information available to date. The
documents I considered in my preliminary analysis are listed in Exhibit B.

10. The documents provided to date and listed in Exhibit B are limited as we have made multiple requests
for documentation which has not yet been provided. To date we made 100 selections based on the two
different Excel Reports, both of which are discussed in further detail in the sections below, which were
provided by the Defendant. We requested numerous supporting documentation and explanations for
each of our selections, also discussed in further detail in the sections below, which have not been
provided as of the date of this report.

11. I reserve the right to amend my analysis and this report should additional or updated information
become available. In addition, I reserve the right to prepare additional supplemental materials such as
summaries, graphical exhibits or charts for trial, as well as to provide opinions and other materials in
response to any expert opinions provided on behalf of the Defendant.

II. BACKGROUND

A. PARTIES

12. Plaintiff, Complete Business Solutions Group, Inc. d/b/a Par Funding (CBSG or Plaintiff), is a
corporation formed under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1 CBSG is a funding company specializing in working with small and
medium sized businesses in various industries including restaurants, retail stores and salons.2

13. Defendant, Capital Stack, LLC (Capital Stack or Defendant) is a limited liability company formed
under the laws of the States of New York and Nevada with its primary place of business in New York,
NY. 3 The sole member of the Defendant is David Rubin, a New York resident.4 It appears that

1
Complaint 1.
2
http://www.parfunding.com/index.html
3
Complaint 2-3.
4
Complaint 5.

2
Defendant purchases future credit card receivables and sells participation interests in these credit card
receivables to various participants.5

14. Defendant sought participation from third parties to invest in a portfolio of purchased merchants cash
receivables and on or about December 12, 2013, CBSG became a passive investor in a portfolio of
merchants cash receivables that were formed and managed by Capital Stack.6

B. COMPLAINT

15. On April 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed a claim against Defendant alleging that the Plaintiffs Right to Returns
of its investment in a portfolio of merchants cash receivables (the Portfolio) have not been paid by
the Defendant due to an allegedly high rate of defaults and that the Defendant: (a) breached its fiduciary
duty; (b) breached the Master Participation Agreement; (c) converted assets for its benefit and was
involved in self-dealing; (d) made misrepresentations to investors and (e) mismanaged the investment
syndicate and did not properly distribute payments to investors.7

16. CBSG invested $4,095,474.57 in this Portfolio and has not received $808,262.99 on its promised Rights
to Return (RTR) based on the Portfolio.8 Over 75.9% of the RTR in the Portfolio has not been paid
allegedly due to defaults.9

17. Capital Stack was to provide CBSG access to its Syndicate Portal (the Portal), an online web portal
which included the performance of each merchant account; however, the access to the Portal was not
provided until the filing of the Writ of Summons in this matter. In addition, CBSG alleges that the
information in the Portal was incomplete, contradictory and failed to provide any meaningful
information.10

18. Most of the reports provided to CBSG by the Defendant simply lists the allegedly non-performing
assets and states that they have been sent to Legal with no further information. It is believed that
Legal is referring to files sent not to an independent law firm, but to Rubin Law which is managed
and owned by David Rubins wife, Anna Rubin.11

5
Master Participation Agreement between Capital Stack and CBSG dated December 12, 2013.
6
Complaint 7-8; Master Participation Agreement between Capital Stack and CBSG dated December 12, 2013.
7
Complaint.
8
Complaint 9.
9
Complaint 10.
10
Complaint 11-14.
11
Complaint 15-16. I understand that Rubin Law also worked with Defendant on third-party collections.
3
C. MASTER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT

19. On or around December 12, 2013, a Master Participation Agreement was entered into between Capital
Stack and CBSG where Capital Stack may purchase future credit card receivables from various clients
pursuant to Merchant Agreements and CBSG may purchase a participation interest in the receivables.

D. THE ORDER OF ACCOUNTING

20. On May 2, 2017, the Court Ordered that Plaintiff, with the services of Citrin Cooperman, was to perform
an accounting. The scope of the accounting as an outlined in the Order stated the following:

a. Defendant was to provide Plaintiff with access to all of Defendants records, processes and
systems related to the disbursement of money to Merchants; its determination of the Merchants
outstanding obligations and all record keeping of ACH or other payments from Merchant.

b. Defendant was to provide Plaintiff with access to all of Defendants records, processes and
systems related to its receipts of money from investors related to participations in the Merchant
Agreements; disbursement of money to investors; determination of the Defendants
outstanding obligations under its Syndication Agreements and all record keeping of ACH or
other payments from Defendant to investors.

c. Defendant was to provide bookkeeping and internal accounting practices related to the cash
flow from and to Merchants related to the Merchant Agreements and cash flow from and to
investors. This was to include access to internal ledgers as well as bank statements.

III. MEETINGS AND ANALYSIS PERFORMED TO DATE

21. Defendant provided the name of Rey Contreras (Mr. Contreras) as the person we should contact and
speak to regarding the Defendants records.

22. The earliest date that we could schedule to meet with Mr. Contreras at Defendants office was July 28,
2017. We arrived at Defendants offices on Wednesday July 28, 2017 at 10 am as planned.12 However,
we were not able to get in touch with Mr. Contreras for almost an hour after our arrival and waited in
the lobby until he, or someone at his direction, returned my calls and allowed security to let us come
up to the Defendants office.

12
I, along with another member from my team, met with Mr. Contreras.
4
23. Prior to our meeting, Mr. Contreras provided a CBSG (Par Funding) Lender Profitability Report in
Excel (Profitability Report). This Profitability Report listed the following information for each
contract:

a. Contract Number;

b. Merchant Name;

c. Status (e.g., Bankruptcy, Legal, Satisfied, etc.);

d. Participant Amount;

e. Upfront Fee;

f. Participant Principle Amount (Participant Amount less Upfront Fee);

g. Released RTR;

h. Received RTR (Release RTR less the Management Fee);

i. Received Principal Amount;

j. Released Factor;

k. Management Fee;

l. Residual Fee;

m. Total Fee; and

n. Balance.

24. The Profitability Report showed that only approximately 6% of the contracts were satisfied while the
remaining approximately 94% of the contracts were in bankruptcy, legal, written-off, etc. See the table
below for a break out of the contracts by status in the Profitably Report:

5
Table 1 Profitability Report Contracts by Status
Contract Percentage
Contract Status Balance of Total
Bankruptcy $ 166,073.33 31.3%
Dead 2,874.39 0.5%
Legal 142,843.34 26.9%
Non-Performing 5,319.96 1.0%
Satisfied 31,526.18 5.9%
Suspended 2,033.66 0.4%
Write-Off 179,714.80 33.9%
$ 530,385.66

25. We asked Mr. Contreras to begin with an explanation of the systems, the accounting software, how
cash is managed, and to walk us through the Profitability Report starting with walking us through one
contract from beginning to end or from the Merchant Agreement to how the funds are disbursed.

26. Mr. Contreras explained the two platforms that the Defendant uses which are the Workforce platform,
a web based portal which tracks the contracts, and an ACH Banking platform which processes daily
debits and credits.

27. As Mr. Contreras started to explain how each contract is set up in the Workforce platform he realized
that another report the Par Syndicate Report - would be helpful for our review. At our request, this
report was provided to us in Excel. This report included, among other items, the following:

a. Contract Status;

b. Funding Date;

c. Total Funding;

d. Factor Rate;

e. Released RTR;

f. Lender Funding (CBSGs Amount);

g. Lender Released RTR (CBSGs RTR);

h. Management Fees; and

6
i. Paid RTR.

28. Before Mr. Contreras was able to explain all of the details of the Par Syndicate Report and continue
explaining the Defendants systems as well as walking us through an example, Mr. Contreras abruptly
ended our meeting less than two hours after we began as he stated that he forgot he had to pick up his
child early from school.

29. We left the meeting stating that we would review the Par Syndicate Report and schedule a time to finish
our review.

30. As we started our review of the Profitability Report and Par Syndicate Report (collectively, the
Reports) we noted that the Reports had to be combined to get a complete picture of each contract.
We also found that there were discrepancies between the two Reports, specifically regarding the
contract statuses.

31. Due to scheduling, we were not able to speak to Mr. Contreras regarding our initial questions until July
17, 2017. At this point, via telephone, he quickly walked us through the Reports and explained that the
contract status in the Par Syndicate Report was system generated while the contract status in the
Profitability Report was manually reviewed to ensure the statuses were accurate before providing us
with the file. As such, he stated that the statuses on the Profitability Report were more reliable and
should be used in our review. This raised a concern that the Portal was not complete and that additional
information would be needed to analyze the contract status. This concern has not been resolved based
on our limited review as discussed in the paragraphs below.

32. After our conversation, we discussed with Mr. Contreras that we will make some sample selections and
then we can review each selection including reviewing each of the following: (a) Merchant Agreement;
(b) each Addendum to the Master Participation Agreement; (c) each contract status; (d) all the money
coming in and out regarding each contract including bank statements and (e) confirming that the RTR
and Funding Balances are accurate.

33. It was determined based on these Reports by Plaintiff and Counsel that we should sample 100 contracts
ensuring that we have a selection of contracts that are in each status (i.e., Bankruptcy, Satisfied, etc.).
We called Mr. Contreras on Friday, July 21, 2017 as well as Monday, July 24,, 2017 to discuss our
selections and what information we needed to review. Mr. Contreras voicemail is consistently full and
we are typically unable to leave him voicemails. We also followed up with Mr. Contreras via email on
Monday, July 24, 2017.

7
34. We were able to reach Mr. Contreras on Tuesday, July 25, 2017 and we discussed that we were sending
him 100 selections and the documents we would need to review in order to analyze those selections.
These documents are discussed above and include Merchant Agreements and bank statements. He
stated that much of this information is electronic and it would likely be easier to show us the
documentation on his computer. It was agreed that he would review the selections and get back to us
shortly to discuss when we could begin our review.

35. Mr. Contreras asked if we could meet on Thursday, August 3, 2017 in Citrin Coopermans office as he
shared an office and the Wi-Fi in his office is slow. We were happy to accommodate and reserved a
conference room with large screens and Wi-Fi access for Thursday, August 3, 2017. It was our
understanding that Mr. Contreras would bring the supporting documentation for at least a sample of
our selections as well as his laptop where we would be able to review any items necessary via the
Portal.13

36. We followed up with Mr. Contreras on Wednesday, August 2, 2017 to confirm that he would be coming
to our office the following day as scheduled. However, Mr. Contreras responded that he was unable to
make it and that he would have to reschedule for the following week.

37. We emailed Mr. Contreras on Wednesday, August 2, 2017 and asked if we could meet the following
Wednesday, August 9, 2017 and/or Thursday, August 10, 2017. We sent follow up emails to Mr.
Contreras on Thursday, August 3, 2017 and Monday, August 7, 2017 as we did not hear back from Mr.
Contreras regarding rescheduling our meeting. Mr. Contreras replied in the afternoon of Monday,
August 7, 2017 that Thursday, August 10, 2017 would work best for him. Again, we reserved a
conference room with large screens and Wi-Fi.

38. After sending a confirmation email on Wednesday, August 9, 2017, Mr. Contreras stated that he would
come to our office on Thursday, August 10, 2017 in the afternoon. While we were concerned that this
would not be sufficient time to review our selections, Mr. Contreras appeared to think that this time
would be sufficient.

39. Mr. Contreras arrived at our offices around 1 pm on Thursday, August 10, 2017 without a laptop or any
files. The only document he brought with him was a print out of our selections. He did not bring any
supporting documentation as requested or even his own laptop so that he could access the Defendants

13
As we had selected 100 contracts to review and analyze in detail, it was agreed that initially Mr. Contreras could
send us or bring supporting documentation for a sample of the 100 contracts to ensure that he was providing all the
necessary information.
8
systems. Instead, Mr. Contreras had to use one of our laptops and accessing the systems proved to be
very slow.

40. Mr. Contreras was unprepared for our meeting and did not have answers to many of our questions.
Numerous times he was simply unresponsive when asked questions. He stated multiple times that he
would have to look into it and get back to us.

41. We currently have many open questions and concerns regarding the information that was provided to
us. First, we still do not have any supporting documentation for any of our 100 selections. We again
reiterated what documentation and information we required to proceed with our review which included
the following: (a) Merchant Agreements; (b) Addendums to the Master Participation Agreement; (c)
explanations and verification of contract statuses; (d) bank statements and schedules supporting and
showing all the money coming in and out for each contract and (e) the ability to confirm that the RTR
and Funding Balances are accurate. Second, even the minimal review we were able to conduct on
Thursday, August 10, 2017 simply led to more questions and inconsistencies. Several examples are
discussed below.

42. Of our 10 selections of contracts labeled as Satisfied, six have balances remaining. See the table
below. We asked Mr. Contreras to explain how and why this occurred and how each status was
determined. Mr. Contreras was unable to explain why a contract labeled as satisfied would still have
a balance remaining. We asked Mr. Contreras if he could identify where in the system we could find
an explanation as to why the selection is Satisfied. As Mr. Contreras was reviewing the Workforce
system he showed us the comments and noted that the contract we have marked as Satisfied is actually
marked as Written Off in the system. When asked why or how this could be, Mr. Contreras was not
sure and said he would have to look into it further.

Table 2 Contract Selections Satisfied Status

Contract Total Funding


Contract Status Per Funding Factor Expected Total RTR Lender Balance per
Id DBA Name Profit Report Date Total Funding Rate RTR Balance Funding Profit Report
3034 FED USA RETAIL, INC. Satisfied 8/25/2014 $ 250,000 1.50 $ 374,750 $ 199,534 $ 37,500 $ 19,966.64
2188 GRAINGECO, LLC Satisfied 2/19/2014 50,000 1.46 73,000 37,831 5,000 2,591.07
2946 JAY TRUCKS SERVICE, INC. Satisfied 8/1/2014 125,000 1.50 187,375 12,400 18,750 1,240.90
3709 BULOVA TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C. Satisfied 1/12/2015 135,000 1.42 191,532 23,159 13,500 1,632.41
2435 FAIRFIELD FOOD SERVICES, LLC Satisfied 4/21/2014 50,000 1.50 74,950 18,158 10,000 2,422.61
3709 BULOVA TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C. Satisfied 1/12/2015 135,000 1.42 191,532 23,159 13,500 1,632.41

9
43. When asked what Capital Stack does to review these contracts or follow-up on the statuses, Mr.
Contreras sated that he does not believe the Defendant has the legal responsibility to do follow up on
the contracts. Instead Mr. Contreras said that he believes it is the responsibility of a company called
Cap Call to follow-up and review such contracts. Mr. Contreras was not sure how Cap Call receives
any necessary documents nor how or where Cap Call would document any of their follow-ups and how
such information would be entered or found in the Defendants systems. Again, this appears to indicate
all information needed to analyze the contract is not maintained in the Defendants Portal system.

44. We then reviewed several other contracts. One of the contracts was in legal per our Reports. Per the
comments in the Workforce system, this particular contract (contract number 2331) was in legal since
2014. Another contract, contract number 2345, was noted as suspended in April and May of 2014
and then in legal as of September 2, 2014. For the limited contracts we reviewed with legal status,
the Portal did not contain any further detail once the contract was in legal. Again, when asked if and
how the systems would be updated with any information, Mr. Contreras was unsure and said that he
would look into it.

45. Contract number 3224 which has a status of bankruptcy per the Reports has a status of legal in the
Workforce system. Mr. Contreras believed he manually updated this contract to bankruptcy in the
Reports provided to us but was unsure why he did so and said he would have to look through his records.

46. Contract number 2835 which has a status of suspended per the Repots was still being pursued per the
details in Workforce as there was a payment on April 11, 2017.

47. Overall, we had many questions regarding the statuses of the contracts and how Defendant determines
what the status is and how the Defendant actually pursues any monies owed. Mr. Contreras understood
our concerns as the majority of the contracts we were able to review had discrepancies in status. We
asked Mr. Contreras to provide us with clarification and he stated that he would review this issue and
provide us with a clear explanation of what each status means and what actions are taken or required
by the Defendant for each status.

48. When asked if we could also review a detail of the payments that were received and the payments
being made to the investors by contract, Mr. Contreras was not sure if such detail was available but
stated that he would look to see how such information could be provided. The only information Mr.
Contreras currently provided was a listing of ACH amounts by Merchant and by day for the years 2014
and 2015. However, it was unclear how these payments related to each Participant or how each

10
payment was distributed to each Participant. In addition, we had further questions regarding this ACH
detail as discussed below.

49. The ACH detail Mr. Contreras provided was a system generated report by contract for the years of 2014
and 2015. We noted while we were reviewing the ACH details that there were instances of money
being returned. In response to our questions on this issue, Mr. Contreras initially stated that this was
likely due to the Defendant automatically taking the money from the merchants account but there being
insufficient funds in the account to cover the payment. However, based on our review, this did not
seem to be an explanation for all occurrences. For example, the outflow of money was not on the same
day or within a day or two of the initial transaction and was not always for the same amount as the
initial transaction. Mr. Contreras was unable to provide an explanation for these occurrences. Mr.
Contreras agreed that this seemed irregular and stated that he would look into this and get back to us.

50. Based on the limited information we were able to review to date, it appears that the Defendants system
is not complete.

51. As Mr. Contreras was unable to answer the majority of our questions and was not prepared for our
meeting, we explained in detail what we needed to review in order to analyze the Excel data provided
and requested Mr. Contreras obtain that information.

52. We reiterated that we needed the following information to start our review: copies of contracts;
payment details by contract; bank statements; payment data for the years 2016 through 2017;
explanations of statuses a description of how and where manually received payments are posted; and
an explanation of how participants are informed of the various contracts and statuses.

53. As Mr. Contreras was leaving he said that he would provide us with current payment data from 2016
and 2017, copies of contracts and some payment information by Friday, August 11, 2017.

54. As of the date of this report, we still have not heard back from Mr. Contreras or received any further
information despite reaching out to him numerous times. We sent emails to Mr. Contreras on Tuesday,
August 15, 2017 and Wednesday, August 16, 2017. We also called his office on numerous occasions
but have been unable to leave him a voicemail as his inbox is full.

11
IV. CONCLUSION

55. In summary, we have not been provided with sufficient documentation and information to complete
our accounting. The two spreadsheets provided have contradictory information. Access to the online
systems was limited and the information contained therein appeared incomplete and/or inconsistent.

56. Further, Mr. Contreras, the contact provided by the Defendant, has been inconsistent in responding to
us or providing information despite us discussing the information requested and necessary for our
review several times. Mr. Contreras has also been unable to provide any meaningful information or
responses to our questions to date. At this time, our preliminary analysis shows inconsistencies in the
data provided and in the Portals used by the Defendant.

57. Based on our preliminary analysis to date, it appears that the contract statuses (i.e., bankruptcy, written-
off, legal, satisfied, etc.) are not followed up on by Defendant or accurately addressed. It is unclear
how contract statuses are determined and what procedures, if any, are required by the Defendant.

58. We have not been provided with any of our initial requests, most of which are included in the Court
Order, such as access to the Defendants records and systems and information such as Merchant
Agreements and bank statements.

59. We have not been provided with access to Defendants offices or records for a period of time as ordered
in the Court Order. To date, we have had limited access to the Defendants offices and records and the
Defendants contact, Mr. Contreras, has been unresponsive, untimely and not all together
knowledgeable or able to answer most of our questions.

60. We have requested significant additional information including the following: (a) Merchant
Agreements; (b) Addendums to the Master Participation Agreement; (c) explanations and verification
of contract statuses; (d) bank statements and schedules supporting and showing all the money coming
in and out for each contract through the current period and (e) the ability to confirm that the RTR and
Funding Balances are accurate. In addition, as of the date of this report, we have only had an
opportunity to review approximately 5% of our selections and even our review of the 5% is not
complete as we have many open and unanswered questions related to each of these selections as
discussed above.

12
61. The procedures performed were limited to those described herein based on the documents provided to
date and other information obtained. Information obtained subsequent to the date of this report may
affect this analysis and this effect may be material. If requested, I will update my analysis. My
procedures were performed solely with respect to the above referenced litigation. This report is not to
be reproduced, distributed, disclosed or used for any other purpose.


Respectfully submitted,

Citrin Cooperman & Company, LLP

Colleen S. Vallen, CPA, CFF


Partner

13
EXHIBIT A

Curriculum Vitae of
Colleen S. Vallen CPA/CFF

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND AND CREDENTIALS

Certified Public Accountant in Pennsylvania (CPA)

Certified in Financial Forensics (CFF)

Bachelor of Science Rutgers University (Accounting) 1992

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Has prepared numerous financial damage analyses and financial models.

Has extensive experience in forensic and financial investigations. Works with


clients to resolve questions related to its financial performance and financial
functions.

Has extensive experience in the analysis, investigation and review of financial


documents.

Has prepared and submitted reports measuring damages associated with


commercial breaches of contract, insurance matters, wrongful termination of
employment, wrongful death, personal injury, and other lost profits matters.

Representative clients include insurance companies, financial institutions and


leasing companies, attorneys, and public and private entities. Typical
assignments for these clients have involved the following industries: Insurance,
Hospitality, Manufacturing, Utilities, Financial Services, Horse Racing, Retail,
Construction and Medical.

Has been engaged by law firms, bank, legal and utility associations, insurance
companies and other associations to speak on topics including business
interruption, fraud, forensic investigations and financial analysis.

Served as an adjunct professor at Villanova Law School teaching accounting for


lawyers.

Serves as an adjunct professor at Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of


law teaching accounting for lawyers.


EXHIBIT A

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)

Pennsylvania Institute of Certified Public Accountants (PICPA)

Forum of Executive Women

PUBLICATIONS
Financial Experts: Finding the Right Fit, The Legal Intelligencer, March 2017.

The Talent Challenge: How to Connect with A Players on your Needs and their
Motivations, SmartCEO, July 2016.

Dealing with Natural Disasters 101, The Legal Intelligencer, May 2016.

Historic Year for Federal Wage-and-Hour Lawsuits, The Legal Intelligencer,


December 2015.

The Effects of Natural Disasters on Business Operations, The Legal


Intelligencer, October 2015.

Assessing Financial Damages in Wage-and-Hour Litigation Not that Simple,


New York Law Journal, August 2015
Evaluating and Managing Business Fraud Risk, The Legal Intelligencer,
February 2015

Red Flags in Employee Theft in Retail, The Legal Intelligencer, June 2014

How to Prevent Summertime Employee Theft, Philadelphia Business Journal,


June 2014

The Challenge of a Fraud Investigation, The Legal Intelligencer, May 2014

When Your Business Faces and Allegation of Fraud, New Jersey Law Journal,
August 2013

Red Flags in Financial Analysis: A Case Study, National Litigation


Consultants Review, 2013
Red Flags in the Analysis of Balance Sheets Inventory, The Legal
Intelligencer, May 2013

The Role of Financial Information in Fraud Investigations, Financial Fraud Law


Review, January 2013

Filing Your Business Insurance Claim in the Wake of Sandy, The Legal
Intelligencer, November 2012

Page 2

EXHIBIT A
Red Flags in the Analysis of Income Statements, The Legal Intelligencer, 2012

Rotten from the Core, Financial Statement Fraud Casebook, Baking the Ledgers
and Cooking the Book (ACFE), Chapter 4, pgs. 35 43 (Co-author, 2011)

Preparing to Be a Financial Expert Witness, New Jersey CPA, July - August


2010

Tips and tactics for developing professional skepticism, The RMA Journal,
2003

TESTIMONY

2017 Deposition
Superior Court of the State of Delaware
Axalta Coating Systems, LLC v. FCS Software Solutions, Ltd.

2017 Deposition
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division
Tommy L. Fenley, et. al. v. Wood Group Mustang, Inc.

2017 Trial
Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County, Pennsylvania
Heart Care Consultants, LLC and Haytham Albizem v. Mohammad Albataineh,
M.D.

2016 Deposition
Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County
CNH Industrial America, LLC v. American Casualty Company of Reading,
Pennsylvania, et al.

2016 Trial
Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division: Passaic County
518 East 36th Street, LLC, Professional Stone, Stucco & Siding Applicators, Inc.
and Baylil Construction and Property Management, Inc. v. The Pep Boys
Manny, Moe & Jack of Delaware, Inc. and C&H Agency, Inc.

2016 Deposition
Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division: Passaic County
518 East 36th Street, LLC, Professional Stone, Stucco & Siding Applicators, Inc.
and Baylil Construction and Property Management, Inc. v. The Pep Boys
Manny, Moe & Jack of Delaware, Inc. and C&H Agency, Inc.

2015 Deposition
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Talbot (Todd) Smith v. Unilife Corporation, Unilife Medical Solutions, Inc.,
Alan Shortall and Ramin Mojdeh

Page 3

EXHIBIT A
2014 Arbitration
American Arbitration Association, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Advanced Surgical Services, Inc. v. Arteriocyte Medical Systems, Inc.

2014 Trial
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Daniel E. Terry v. Douglas P. Terry and Linda deCharms

2014 Deposition
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Certiphi Screening, Inc. v. Castle Branch, Inc.

2014 Deposition
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division of Hudson County
Dune, Inc. vs. Hartz Mountain Industries, Inc., Harrison Riverside Limited
Partnership, and 700-760 First Street, LLC

2014 Trial
Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County, Pennsylvania
Peter Ciampa vs. Conversion Sciences, Inc., Annance Consulting, Inc. Mary K.
Hamm and Vincent Ciliberti

2013 Trial
United States District Court for the Easter District of Pennsylvania
Robert C. Long Sr. & Janet V. Long. V. Bristol Township, et al.

2012 Arbitration
International Centre for Dispute Resolution
ADT Security Services, Inc. v. Codisa Software Corporation S.A.

2010 Deposition
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Suffolk, SS Superior Court Department of the
Trial Court Business Litigation Session
General Electric Company v. David E. W. Lines, et al and One Beacon America
Insurance Company

2008 Trial
Court of Common Pleas Lehigh County, Pennsylvania Civil Division
Julabo USA, Inc., Julabo East, Inc. v. Joseph Lenzi, Peter Huber
Kaeltemaschinenbau GmbH, Huber-USA, Chemical Transfer Partnership
Corporation, Felix Hafen and Amy Kindland

2008 Deposition
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County, Ohio
Echlin Inc., et al. v. National Union Fire Insurance of PA, et al.

Page 4

EXHIBIT A
2007 Deposition
United States District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania
Chanel, Inc. v. The Jupiter Group, Inc., d/b/a Triple A Security Patrol and now
d/b/a Vector Security Patrol; and Vector Security Inc., d/b/a Triple A Security
Patrol, and Does 1-10 v. GENCO, I, Inc., GENCO Distribution System, Inc., and
Richard A. Lima v. Michael J. Moffitt (04-CV-1540 ARC)

2003 Arbitration
Chester County
Chamption Recycling, Inc. et al. v. Stratus Enterprise, Inc.

Page 5

EXHIBIT B

Documents and Information Considered

1. Complaint.

2. Accounting Court Order dated May 2, 2017.

3. Master Participation Agreement between Capital Stack, LLC and Complete Business
Solutions Group dated December 12, 2013.

4. CBSG (Par Funding) Lender Profitability Report 20170527 (Excel file).

5. Par Syndicate Report 6-28-1 (Excel file).

6. Limited access to Defendants systems.