It is a fight to level the playing field to be able to compete for jobs and careers on the basis of skills and make available apprentice training to all. In 1973 Al Percy launched a class action lawsuit to give workers like him a chance to better their lot in life. It would also ensure the availability of skilled workers to build the infrastructure of the future.
Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No. 3011 Document 1 25-6 Filed 03/17/21 Filed 06/24/21 Page 76 Page of 154 76 of PageID 154 #: 332 Peyman Younesi Mark Zaffrin Ephraim Zagelbaum Kenneth Zitter David Zohler unknown minority owner unknown unknown unknown THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST PARTY-IN-INTEREST DEFENDANTS TO RECOVER PLAN ASSETS DIVERTED BY PARTIES- IN-INTEREST IN PROHIBITED TRANSACTIONS 474. The Plaintiffs repeat and reiterate the allegations set forth above as though fully set forth herein. 475. Party[ies] in interest for purposes of this Complaint is used to describe a person who receives monies, property or assets which is not at arms-length aiding in the scheme, wittingly or unwittingly, as their names may appear herein, along with other Parties-in- Interest not yet known, are identified herein as Parties-in-Interest on the diversion of funds intended for benefits of the Class of employees. Intervention Pg 122 Par 268. Parties-in-Interest 476. Parties-in-Interest are identified as receiving and converting Plan Assets and or aiding and abetting conversion of Plan Assets. Intervention Pg. 69 Par 113. 477. Parties-in-Interest were either paid from the scheme, aided in the diversion of funds and assets intended to be held to pay for benefits for injured employees of Employers, or became principals and instrumentalities investing in enterprises owned by Parties-in- Interest, such as a real estate and capitalization, development, chartering and licensing of a private carrier with Fund assets intended for benefits for the Class. One such enterprise was S & P Insurance. Intervention Pg. 71 Par 114, Pg. 71 Par 115, Pg. 71 Par 116, Pg. 71 Par 117, Pg. 72 Par 118, Pg. 72 Par 119, Pg. 72 Par 120, Pg. 73 Par 121. Pg. 73 Par 12, Pg. 73 Par 123, 73 Par 124, Pg. 74 Par 125,, Pg. 74 Par 126, Pg. 74 Par 127, Pg. 74 Par 128, Pg. 74 Par 129, Pg. 75 Par 130, Pg. 66 Par 90, Pg. 66 Par 91, Pg. 66 Par 92, Pg. 66 Par 93, Pg. 66 Par 94, Pg. 67 Par 95, Pg. 67 Par 96, Pg. 67 Par 97, Pg. 67 Par 98, Pg. 67 Par 99, Pg. 67 Par 100, Pg. 68 Par 101, Pg. 68 Par 102, Pg. 68 Par 103, Pg. 68 Par 104, Pg. 68 Par 105, Pg. 68 Par 106, Pg. 69 Par 107, Pg. 69 Par 108. 478. Plaintiff seeks monetary and equitable relief in connection with defendants’ improper, fraudulent, and unlawful diversion, embezzlement and defalcation to an offshore fund which the parties to this Nassau County case are attempting to take beyond the reach of the Class in the following amounts: Intervention Pg 122 Par 269. 76
Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No. 3011 Document 1 25-6 Filed 03/17/21 Filed 06/24/21 Page 77 Page of 154 77 of PageID 154 #: 333 479. Prohibited transactions under ERISA so far identified for the period June 11, 2010 through May 1, 2018, but not limited to, are as follows: list Intervention Pg 123 Par 269. Berkshire ,306,850 Spencer Street Realty ,937,849 Allstate ASO ,740,128 Customer Withdrawals ,577,084 Sam Schlesinger ,020,647 Pitterman Family Trust ,891,037 Wolf Eisenbach ,479,965 National Financial Service ,415,972 Dana K. Miklos ,153,532 Israel Zeigelman 9,612 North American Mktg Spec Inc. 9,218 National Financial Service 5,099 B Kogan PLLC 1,151.31 Ira Lipsius and/or his firm of Lipsius-Benhaim Law, LLP 7,329 Christopher Buckey and/or his law firms Whiteman Osterman and Hanna, LLP and Cullen and Dykman, LLP ,101,395 These identified prohibited transactions total ,746,868, but the diversion in fact exceeds million, which includes unknown and unaccounted for of ,253,132, presumed diverted, converted, and embezzled in prohibited transactions. 480. The Owner Operator Defendants and Party-in-Interest Defendants took advantage of assets diverted to develop business enterprises as fronts to give the appearance of providing benefits, while diverting tens of millions of dollars of accrued and expensed benefits to and for the use of the Owner Operator Defendants and Party-in-Interest Defendants. 481. The Owner Operator Defendants and Party-in-Interest Defendants are responsible for and are liable for the million damages in prohibited transactions. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST IDENTIFIED OWNER OPERATOR DEFENDANTS FOR BREACH OF ERISA FIDUCIARY DUTIES IN THE DIVERSION OF MILLION IN PLAN ASSETS 482. The Plaintiffs repeat and reiterate the allegations set forth above as though fully set forth herein. 77
Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No.
Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No.
Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No.
Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No.
Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No.
Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No.
Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No.
Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No.
Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No.
Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No.
Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No.
Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No.
Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No.
Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No.
Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No.
Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No.
Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No.
Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No.
Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No.
Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No.
Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No.
Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No.
Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No.
Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No.
Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No.
Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No.
Loading...
Loading...