PHILADELPHIA – An electrical company is seeking the enforcement of a default judgment against a group of its debtors that it claims redirected funds for the express purpose of escaping the judgment in excess of $283,000.
Ford Brothers Electric Co., Inc. of Norwood filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on Sept. 28 versus Millennial Investment Group, LLC, John Prisk and Michael Boczar, all of Philadelphia.
On June 1, Ford Brothers filed a complaint in Ford Brothers Electrical Co., Inc. v. Brass Castle Building Co., which brought causes of action against Brass Castle for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit and violations of the Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act.
Ford Brothers’ claims originated from Brass Castle’s failure to pay $253,763.65 for electrical labor, materials and construction services performed by Ford Brothers according to contracts between the parties, and Brass Castle did not answer or otherwise respond to this underlying complaint. On Aug. 7, the Court entered a default judgment against Brass Castle in the amount of $283,767.05.
Prior to the entering of the default judgment, discovery conducted allegedly showed defendants Prisk and Boczar were fraudulently transferring sums out of Brass Castle to hinder, delay or defraud its creditors, including Ford Brothers. Upon information and belief, Prisk and Boczar allegedly used a fictitious entity, “Millennial Investment Group, LLC” to improperly divert funds away from Brass Castle.
On Aug. 6, 2014, defendants filed a certificate of organization for Millennial Investment Group, LLC. But on April 14, 2016, defendants filed a certificate of amendment to change the name of the LLC from “Millennial Investment Group” to “Brass Castle Building Company”.
In other words, “Millennial Investment Group” is simply Brass Castle’s former name, but each name refers to the same entity and the plaintiff claims the defendants use the “Millennial Investment Group” name to avoid Brass Castle’s creditors.
According to the lawsuit, the deliberate effect of Prisk’s and Boczar’s banking practices is that the defendant’s creditors cannot execute on their bank accounts, because they have been denied the funds that were improperly redirected to accounts in the name of “Millennial Investment Group”.
“Further, Prisk’s and Boczar’s scheme to divert funds away from Brass Castle to themselves and Millennial ignores manifold corporate formalities as between themselves, Millennial and Brass Castle,” the suit says.
For counts of fraudulent transfer and piercing the corporate veil, the plaintiff is seeking damages of $283,767.05, plus interest, costs and any further relief that the Court deems just and proper.
The plaintiff is represented by Evan A. Blaker and Carl L. Engel of Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman, in Philadelphia.
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 170903633
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at email@example.com