Complaint Review: Multiut Corporation - Skokie Illinois

Dynegy vs Multiut, Nachshon Draiman, Future Associates et al - 02 C 7446 (A $22 million dollar lawsuit for fraud and insolvency) (Numerous contempt of court) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION DYNEGY MARKETING and TRADE, a Colorado Partnership, ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 02 C 7446 v. ) ) Judge Nordberg MULTIUT CORPORATION, an Illinois Corporation and NACHSHON DRAIMAN, ) an Illinois Resident, FUTURE ASSOCIATES, ) an Illinois General Partnership, ) Defendants. ) THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Dynegy Marketing and Trade ("Dynegy"), by its attorneys, complains of Multiut Corporation ("Multiut"), Nachshon Draiman ("Draiman"), and Future Associates, as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Dynegy is a Colorado general partnership with its principle place of business in Houston, Texas. The only partners of the partnership are Dynegy GP, Inc., a Delaware corporation which maintains its principle place of business in Texas, and DMT Holdings, LP, a Delaware limited partnership (f7k/a NGC GP, Inc.). 2. The only partners of DMT Holdings LP are (1) DMT G.P., LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and (2) DMT L.P., LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation. 3. The sole member of DMT G.P., LLC is DMT Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation which maintains its principle place of business in Texas. 4. The sole member of DMT L.P., LLC is DMT Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation which maintains its principle place of business in Texas. 5. Multiut is an Illinois corporation with its principle place of business located in Cook County, Illinois. 6. Future Associates has its principal place of business located in Cook County, and is, upon information and belief, an Illinois general partnership. 7. Draiman is an individual residing in Cook County, Illinois. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. This Court has jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(l), because the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states. 9. Venue is proper, under 28 U.S.C. 1391(a), because the defendants reside in and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this judicial district. COUNTI (Breach of Agreement) 10. On or about January 1, 1994, Multiut signed a Natural Gas Sales Agreement with Natural Gas Clearinghouse ("NGC") for the purchase and sale of natural gas (the "Agreement"). A true and correct copy of the Agreement, with Exhibits A and B, is attached as Exhibit 1. 11. On July 7, 1998, NGC changed its name to Dynegy Marketing and Trade. 12. Under the Agreement, Multiut "[acted] as the duly authorized agent and representative of ultimate consumers and users of natural gas delivered to Multiut under the Agreement." (Agreement, page 1.) 13. Under the Agreement, Multiut is "responsible for collecting payment from its principals. The payment to [Dynegy] by Multiut on behalf of Multiut's principals shall be due on -2- the twentieth (20th) day of the month, or as to statements delivered after the tenth (10th), within ten (10) days after receipt of such statements." (Agreement, page 5, Article V-A (2).) 14. For natural gas Dynegy delivered to Multiut through December 2000, there existed an outstanding balance owed to Dynegy by Multiut of $1,664,501.06 (after offsets for payments made by Multiut through March 1, 2001). 15. Dynegy sent and/or Multiut received monthly invoices for the purchase and sale of natural gas under the Agreement from January 1, 2001 through December 31,2002 (the "Invoices"). 16. Multiut breached the Agreement by failing and/or refusing to pay the Invoices in full when due. 17. As of April 30,2003, the unpaid principal balance due to Dynegy under the Invoices, after application of payments in accordance with Article V-A(3) of the Agreement, is $12,504,912.51 (the "Unpaid Principal Balance"). 18. Under the Agreement, "Should Multiut fail to pay all of the amount of any bill when the same becomes due, Multiut shall pay [Dynegy] a late charge on the unpaid balance that shall accrue on each calendar day from the due date at a rate equal to two percent (2%) above the then-effective monthly prime commercial lending rate per annum announced by The Federal Reserve Bulletin from time to time . . . . " In addition, "the late charge . . . shall compound monthly." (Agreement, page 5, Article V-A (3).) 19. Under the-Agreement, "If either principal or late charges are due, any payments thereafter received shall first be applied to the late charges due, then to the previously outstanding principal due and lastly, to the most current principal due." (Agreement, page 5, Article V-A (3).) -3- 20. As of April 30, 2003, the amount of interest due, in accordance with Article V-A(3) of the Agreement, is $593,997.74 (the "Interest"). 21. Dynegy has performed all of its obligations under the Agreement. WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of a judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgment, in an amount in excess of 5593,997.74, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. COUNT II (Breach of Guaranty) 22. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as paragraph 22. 23. On or about October 31,1995, Draiman and Multiut executed a Guaranty (the "Guaranty"). A true and correct copy of the Guaranty is attached as Exhibit 2. 24. Under the Guaranty, Draiman and Multiut, jointly, severally, and unconditionally "[guaranteed] the payment to NGC promptly when due, or upon demand thereafter, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, the full amount of all obligation or indebtedness due to NGC under the Agreement." 25. Draiman and Multiut are jointly and severally liable for their obligations under the Guaranty. 26. Draiman and Multiut breached the Guaranty by failing to pay after demand, when due, the Unpaid Principal. Balance and the Interest. WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of a judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgement, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. -4- COUNT III (Fraudulent Transfer In Law- Multiut) 27. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 26, inclusive, as paragraph 27. 28. At all relevant times, Draiman has been a director, officer and/or control ling shareholder of Multiut. 29. At all relevant times, Draiman has been a general partner in Future Associates or otherwise had authority and/or control over the business affairs of Futures Associates or an entity that had authority over the business affairs of Futures Associates. 30. Since at least January 1999, Multiut failed to make timely payment, when due, for some or all of the natural gas delivered by Dynegy. 31. On March 7, 2001, Ginger Wright of Dynegy and Lenore Kamien of Multiut ' agreed that Multiut owed Dynegy approximately $11,000,000, excluding interest. 32. On September 5, 2001, Dynegy representatives Pete Pavluk and Mark Ludwig met with Multiut representatives Lenore Kamien and/or Nachshon Draiman at Multiut's offices to discuss the amount owed by Multiut. 33. At that meeting, Mr. Draiman said that Multiut did not have funds sufficient to pay the debt owed and that Multiut would propose a payment plan by September 17, 2001. 34. In a September 17, 2001 letter, Multiut proposed a payment plan by which it would make monthly payments, from October 2001 through March 2002, in order to pay down the amount owed to Dynegy. The proposed payments ranged from $600,000 in some months to $1,800,000 in other months. According to Mr. Draiman, Multiut was, "insurefd] [sic] an additional annual profit of $2,000,000" and that, "in the meantime, [Multiut] was working on bank financing as well as funds from private sources for capital infusion." -5- 35 . In an October 4, 2001 letter to Multiut, Dynegy responded to Multiut's September 17, 2001 proposal by asking for "a detailed formal plan by no later than Wednesday, October 10, 2001 that outlines bringing your account balance current by no later that [sic]-January 15, 2002." 36. In an October 12, 2001 letter, Multiut responded to Dynegy's October 4, 2001 letter by proposing "weekly payments for October through January." The weekly payments proposed by Multiut totaled $7,700,000. 37. Multiut did not make all the weekly payments described in its October 12, 2001 letter. 38. Multiut's check , dated August 23, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $300,000, was returned for insufficient funds. 39. Multiut's check, dated October 26, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $150,000, was returned for insufficient funds. 40. Multiut's check, dated November 9, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $200,000, was returned for insufficient funds. 41. Multiut check no. 1946, made payable to Dynegy for $200,000 and deposited on December 7, 2001, was returned twice due to insufficient funds. 42. On January 8, 2002, Multiut claimed it could not pay the amounts owed to Dynegy because of slow payment by the government in connection with Mr. Draiman's nursing homes. 43. On January 31, 2002, Multiut told Dynegy that it would make a $200,000 payment while it worked to raise cash through a factoring company and while it attempted to arrange a line of credit with Bank Leumi. 44. Multiut never raised cash through a factoring company or arranged a line of credit with Bank Leumi in 2002 or 2003. 45. In 2002 and 2003, Multiut did not have cash sufficient to pay the Invoices when due. 46. During 2000 and 2001, Multiut had creditors, in addition to Dynegy, to whom it did not make payments when due in the normal course of its business. 47. On June 19, 1998, Multiut entered into a Natural Gas Sales Agreement with WPS Energy Services, Inc. (WPS) for the purchase and sale of natural gas. 48. By June 2000, Multiut was indebted to WPS in the amount of $1,625,472 for natural gas delivered to Multiut prior to May 2000. 49. On September 27, 2000, Multiut gave WPS its promissory note in the amount of $1,570,337.87 (the WPS Promissory Note). 50. The WPS Promissory Note was a reaffirmation by Multiut of its debt to WPS incurred under the terms of the Natural Gas Sales Agreement between WPS and Multiut. 51. In the summer and fall of 2001, Multiut did not make payments, when due, in accordance with the WPS Promissory Note. 52. On September 27, 2001, WPS filed a lawsuit against Multiut alleging that Multiut defaulted on its obligation under the WPS Promissory Note by failing to make the required payments due on July 10, 2001, August 10, 2001 and September 10, 2001. 53. According to Multiuts 2002 tax return, Multiut transferred approximately $2,000,000 (or more) to Future Associates, Draiman and/or other entities, including Draimans nursing home, hotel and/or other business ventures, at some time during 2001 when Multiut was indebted to Dynegy. -6- 54. Multiut did not receive reasonably equivalent value for the transfer described in paragraph 53. 55. In the years 1999 through 2003, Multiut transferred cash or other assets to Future Associates, Draiman and/or other entities, including Draiman's nursing home, hotel or other business interests when Multiut was indebted to Dynegy. 56. Multiut did not receive reasonably equivalent value for the transfers described in paragraph 55. 57. When Multiut made the transfers described in paragraphs 53 and 55 (the "Transfers"), Multiut was insolvent and/or became insolvent as a result of the Transfers. 58. The Transfers were fraudulent conveyances in violation of applicable laws. WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of an order granting judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgment, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74; voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the Transfers to Multiut to be used to satisfy the debt to Dynegy; and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate. COUNT IV (Fraudulent Transfer In Fact- Multiut) 59. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 58, inclusive, as paragraph 59. 60. The Transfers were made with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud Dynegy, a creditor of Multiut and as-such constituted fraudulent conveyances in violation of applicable laws. WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of an order granting judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgment, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74; voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the money to Multiut to be -8- used to satisfy the debt to Dynegy; punitive damages and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate. COUNT V (Fraudulent Transfer in Law- Future Associates) 61. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 thorough 58, inclusive, as paragraph 61. 62. Future Associates accepted the Transfers of the assets without having provided adequate consideration for the Transfers. WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of order granting judgment in. its favor and against Future Associates, voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the money to Multiut to be used to satisfy the debt to Dynegy; and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate. COUNT VI (Fraudulent Transfer in Law- Diraiman) 63. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 58, inclusive, as paragraph 63. 64. Draiman accepted the Transfers without having provided adequate consideration or reasonably equivalent value for the Transfers. WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of order granting judgment in its favor and against Nachshon Draiman, voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the money to Multiut to be used to satisfy the debt to Dynegy; and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate. COUNT VII (Breach of Fiduciary Duty) 65. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 58, inclusive, as paragraph 65. -9- 66. When Multiut purchased natural gas from Dynegy in 2001 and 2002, Multiut was insolvent. 67. Because Multiut was insolvent, Draiman, as a director and officer of Multiut, owed a fiduciary duty to Dynegy, as a creditor of Multiut. 68. Draiman breached his fiduciary duty to Dynegy by causing Multiut to take natural gas from Dynegy when Draiman knew that Multiut did not intend to and/or could not pay for it. Draiman also breached his fiduciary duties to Dynegy by making and/or authorizing the Transfers. WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of an order granting judgment in its favor and against Draiman, for $ 12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgment, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74, and for punitive damages and any further relief that this Court deems appropriate. DYNEGY MARKETING and TRADE Barry S. Hyman (#6188142) Helen Wilson SCHIFF HARDIN & WATTE 6600 Sears Tower Chicago, IL 60606 -10- (312)258-5500 See: www.antidefamationusa.com

MULTIUT and NACHSHON DRAIMAN MODES OPEREDAI - 5/31/2006 1. During our litigation in the 01 CH 09989 Nachshon was found to alter documents as testified to by the expert witness ? Eric Speckin. (See attached exhibits) Committing perjury and deception, stalking, intimidation, threats of bodily harm, assault and battery, death threats, Computer intrusion, invasion of privacy, breaking and entry, fraudulent bills, causing death of patients, False application and education credentials, lying to The Illinois Department of Registration and Education in obtaining his Nursing Home Administrator License, Stealing from his partners $8 million dollars, obstruction of justice, mail fraud, civil rights violations, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violations, Tortious interference, Anti Trust, Bank Fraud, Mail Fraud, Postal fraud ? theft of mail, Money laundering, Defamation, Witness tampering, Stalking, Conspiracy, RICO, etc. US mail tampering, impersonating a private party as to delivery/ receipt of mail at US Post Office, FCC cellular and telephone tape-recording violations, invasion of privacy by Illegal eavesdropping & wire taps, computer hacking, theft of telephone service AT&T cellular, Voice mail intrusion. (Multiut with the heavy clout attorney's are trampling on our constitutional rights). 2. During the Dynegy v. Multiut and Nachshon Draiman 02c7446 again they were found in contempt of Court 4 times in the past year for intentionally disregarding court orders. Nachshon is accused of fraudulent transfer of funds, issuing a million dollars in NSF checks to Dynegy in furtherance of the fraud taking deliveries of natural gas without intending to pay for it ? insolvency and much more. (See attached exhibits) Fraud of $22 Million. Nachshon admitted to siphoning $12 mil. 3. In the Israel Discount Bank v. Nachshon Draiman 04L000663 Nachshon Draiman again accuses IDB of altering checks in order to defray his $43 million dollar fraud on the bank and the issuance of $2 million dollars in checks drawn on Chicago banks as security on a closed bank accounts. Submitting false affidavits of payment and request for partial releases on units in the hotel while using the IDB funds allocated for construction only. (Nachshon is a heavy casino gambler) Defrauding the bank of $43 Million dollars. (See attached Exhibits)Sale of HOME 4. In state financial Bank v. Nachshon Draiman ? again Nachshon is accused of intentionally defrauding the bank by providing modified documents and the refusal to pay the debt which is collateralized by Embassy Care Nursing Center. (See Attached Exhibits) 5. Multiut and Nachshon Draiman have issued in the past 2 years hundreds of Citation to Discover, hundreds subpoenas and over 50 depositions If this is not an abuse of the Courts I do not know what is. The purpose is to intimidate people and harass anyone to abstain from doing business or help Yehuda Draiman and Miriam Draiman and no other reason. Defame and intimidate that is Multiut/Nachshon Draiman's motto (Swindler). Using intimidation in order to deter people from investigating Multiut and Nachshon Draiman's ongoing frauds for the past 30 years. Found Guilty Causing the death of nursing home patients and abuse case No. 456 N.E. 2d 18 plus millions of dollars in compensation. 6. Even his lawyers and their firms (Greenberg Traurig Jack Abramoff) have pleaded guilty to criminal activities bribery, conspiracy, tax evasion, laundering funds thru charitable foundations. Nachshon Draiman and Multiut Corporation are in good company in false billing and other frauds pay-off's influence peddling and much more. It is a disgrace to the law profession as a whole. The law firm has other frauds' in other parts of the country Florida, Philadelphia, Chicago, Washington and more.

MULTIUT and NACHSHON DRAIMAN MODES OPEREDAI - 5/31/2006 1. During our litigation in the 01 CH 09989 Nachshon was found to alter documents as testified to by the expert witness ? Eric Speckin. (See attached exhibits) Committing perjury and deception, stalking, intimidation, threats of bodily harm, assault and battery, death threats, Computer intrusion, invasion of privacy, breaking and entry, fraudulent bills, causing death of patients, False application and education credentials, lying to The Illinois Department of Registration and Education in obtaining his Nursing Home Administrator License, Stealing from his partners $8 million dollars, obstruction of justice, mail fraud, civil rights violations, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violations, Tortious interference, Anti Trust, Bank Fraud, Mail Fraud, Postal fraud ? theft of mail, Money laundering, Defamation, Witness tampering, Stalking, Conspiracy, RICO, etc. US mail tampering, impersonating a private party as to delivery/ receipt of mail at US Post Office, FCC cellular and telephone tape-recording violations, invasion of privacy by Illegal eavesdropping & wire taps, computer hacking, theft of telephone service AT&T cellular, Voice mail intrusion. (Multiut with the heavy clout attorney's are trampling on our constitutional rights). 2. During the Dynegy v. Multiut and Nachshon Draiman 02c7446 again they were found in contempt of Court 4 times in the past year for intentionally disregarding court orders. Nachshon is accused of fraudulent transfer of funds, issuing a million dollars in NSF checks to Dynegy in furtherance of the fraud taking deliveries of natural gas without intending to pay for it ? insolvency and much more. (See attached exhibits) Fraud of $22 Million. Nachshon admitted to siphoning $12 mil. 3. In the Israel Discount Bank v. Nachshon Draiman 04L000663 Nachshon Draiman again accuses IDB of altering checks in order to defray his $43 million dollar fraud on the bank and the issuance of $2 million dollars in checks drawn on Chicago banks as security on a closed bank accounts. Submitting false affidavits of payment and request for partial releases on units in the hotel while using the IDB funds allocated for construction only. (Nachshon is a heavy casino gambler) Defrauding the bank of $43 Million dollars. (See attached Exhibits)Sale of HOME 4. In state financial Bank v. Nachshon Draiman ? again Nachshon is accused of intentionally defrauding the bank by providing modified documents and the refusal to pay the debt which is collateralized by Embassy Care Nursing Center. (See Attached Exhibits) 5. Multiut and Nachshon Draiman have issued in the past 2 years hundreds of Citation to Discover, hundreds subpoenas and over 50 depositions If this is not an abuse of the Courts I do not know what is. The purpose is to intimidate people and harass anyone to abstain from doing business or help Yehuda Draiman and Miriam Draiman and no other reason. Defame and intimidate that is Multiut/Nachshon Draiman's motto (Swindler). Using intimidation in order to deter people from investigating Multiut and Nachshon Draiman's ongoing frauds for the past 30 years. Found Guilty Causing the death of nursing home patients and abuse case No. 456 N.E. 2d 18 plus millions of dollars in compensation. 6. Even his lawyers and their firms (Greenberg Traurig Jack Abramoff) have pleaded guilty to criminal activities bribery, conspiracy, tax evasion, laundering funds thru charitable foundations. Nachshon Draiman and Multiut Corporation are in good company in false billing and other frauds pay-off's influence peddling and much more. It is a disgrace to the law profession as a whole. The law firm has other frauds' in other parts of the country Florida, Philadelphia, Chicago, Washington and more.

Yehuda Jay Draiman ("Jay") is a disgruntled former employee of Multiut Corp. He was terminated in 2001 when he was detected diverting clients and funds of the company. He was subsequently found guilty of breaches of fiduciary duty, consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices and conspiracy, and a judgment in excess of $1.5 million was entered against him. In the course of that litigation, Jay was held in contempt several times by the Circuit Court of Cook County. The judgments and contempts were upheld by the Appellate court (see Appellate Court ruling 1-03-0857). Since that time, "JAY" has engaged in numerous acts of retribution to defame Muliut Corp. and its owner, Nachshon Draiman. All of these claims are false, contrived, and meritless. For the record, public documents also verify that "JAY" was convicted of 10 counts of wire and mail fraud during the 1980's. See United States v. Draiman, 784 F.2d 248 (7th Cir. 1986) Yehuda Draiman was also the subject of a special investigation conducted by the Illinois Legislative Investigating Commission for the Illinois General Assembly (see:4/22/75 Illinois Nursing Homes: A Report to the Illinois General Assembly)."JAY" was barred from serving in the nursing home field after he defrauded a resident under his care of more than $40,000. After the resident complained JAY took her to a deserted cornfield in the dead of winter at 8 degrees bellow zero..,and left her there..Luckily she was subsequently rescued by a Sheriff who happened to drive by.. In these instances, as well as the recent litigation, Jay's tactic has been to accuse others of illegatilities to shift the focus of attention away from him. The current posting is just another example of this tactic.