Global One Financial, Inc. v. Intermed Services, P.A. et al
Filing
52
MEMORANDUM OPINION & FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of Global One Financial, Inc. against Intermed Services, P.A. Signed by Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley on 4/16/15. (lr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 13-81230-CIV-HURLEY
GLOBAL ONE FINANCIAL, INC.,
plaintiff,
vs.
INTERMED SERVICES, P.A.,
SHAHEED KALLOO and
CAROL VARONIQUE,
defendants.
__________________________________/
MEMORANDUM OPINION & FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST
DEFENDANT INTERMED SERVICES, P.A.
THIS CAUSE involves post-judgment proceedings initiated by plaintiff Global One
Financial, Inc. (“Global One”) against Intermed Services, P.A. (“Intermed”) in effort to
collect on a state court judgment previously obtained against All Care Medical Services, Inc.
(“All Care”), a Florida corporation owned and operated by defendants Shaheed Kalloo, M.D.
(“Dr. Kalloo”), and his wife, Carol Varonique.
Following a waiver of jury trial by all parties, the case was tried before the court at
a bench trial on April 13, 2015. Timothy Veith, general counsel and corporate representative
for plaintiff Global One, testified at trial. Plaintiff also introduced excerpts from the
deposition testimony of the defendant, Dr. Shaheed Kalloo. On the defense, Dr. Kalloo
personally appeared and testified.
At the outset of trial, the parties jointly stipulated to the voluntary dismissal of the
conspiracy claim asserted against the individual defendants, Dr. Kalloo and his wife, Carol
Varonique (Count 6), as well as the equitable lien claim asserted against Intermed (Count 5),
leaving Intermed as the sole remaining defendant in the case. The issue presented as to this
defendant is whether Intermed may be held liable for the prior judgment against All Care
under a theory of fraudulent transfer of assets, or under the related “mere continuation” of
business doctrine.
Having carefully considered all of the testimony and exhibits admitted at trial, the
court now makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. All Care is a Florida corporation formed in 1998 for purpose of providing medical
treatment to the public. Dr. Kalloo and his wife, Carol Varonique, were the sole owners and
shareholders of All Care, holding 51% and 49% of its shares respectively.
2. In December 2006, the Florida Department of Health filed an administrative
complaint against Dr. Kalloo’s medical license related to allegations of sexual misconduct
made by several of his female patients. Parallel criminal proceedings were also lodged
against Dr. Kalloo in Florida state court. In April 2010, Dr. Kalloo settled the administrative
complaint with the Department of Health with an agreement to accept continuing education,
a fine and certain restrictions on his medical license.
2
3. Global One is a Georgia corporation which obtained a final judgment against All
Care in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia, on July 2, 2010 in the principal
amount of $744,790.25 plus interest. At trial, the parties indicated the judgment resulted
from a default in repaying a loan in the approximate amount of $1,000,000.
4. In October 2010, Global One began the process of domesticating its foreign
judgment against All Care by filing suit in Florida state court, Global One Financial Inc.
v. All Care Medical Services, Palm Beach Circuit Court Case No. 50-2010-CA027305XXXX MB. In the course of those proceedings, Global One garnished a bank
account owned by All Care at Bank of America and collected $4,285.87 pursuant to this
garnishment writ.
5. On January 11, 2011 -- approximately six months after entry of the Georgia
judgment -- All Care, without undertaking the normal dissolution process, ceased doing
business in Florida, and Dr. Kalloo formed a new business entity, Intermed Services, P.A.
(“Intermed”), for the purpose of providing medical treatment to the public. Dr. Kalloo was
and is the sole owner of Intermed.
6. Intermed used the same office space as that previously occupied by All Care at
1115 45th Street, West Palm Beach, Florida, and used the same furniture, medical apparatus
and office equipment previously used by All Care. Intermed claims it paid All Care $120 for
patient examination tables, but acknowledges the money was never deposited into All Care
bank account. Other than this disputed amount, Intermed did not pay any money to All Care
in exchange for taking over its business.
3
7. Intermed used the same phone number as that previously assigned to All Care, and
assumed care of 75 patients formerly under Dr. Kalloo’s supervision at All Care.
8. Initially, All Care lost 50 female patients due to the license restriction imposed by
the Florida Department of Health; however, when this restriction was modified to permit Dr.
Kalloo to treat female patients in the presence of a female nurse, he regained these patients
in his practice under Intermed. Also as a result of the license restriction, and related criminal
complaints, Dr. Kalloo lost his privileges at a number of area hospitals where he worked as
an on-call emergency room physician, resulting in loss of a sizable segment of his patient
referrals (approximately 2/3 of new patients). After resuming practice under the name of
Intermed, he attempted to offset the loss of this patient population base by developing a new
business plan which catered to an elderly patient population through house-calls.
9. Dr. Kalloo testified that he decided to form Intermed because he lost almost 90%
of his patients as a result of the license restriction, and the debts accruing against All Care
as a result of his dwindling office practice appeared insurmountable. He stated that he
formed Intermed in January 2011, one month after Global One garnished his Bank of
America account and froze all of the All Care accounts.
10. On November 26, 2013, Global One filed this lawsuit against Intermed, Dr.
Kalloo and Carol Varonique seeking enforcement of the deficiency balance owed on the
underlying Georgia judgment against All Care. On April 8, 2014, Global One received
$628,123.94, representing the surrender proceeds of a life insurance policy used as collateral
4
on the underlying debt of All Care, and applied those proceeds to the final judgment owed
by All Care, leaving a remaining judgment of $292,537.27 as of April 8, 2014.
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Fraudulent Transfer
Under § 726.105 (1) (a) of the Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), any
transfer made with “actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud” any present or future creditor
is deemed a fraudulent transfer. Alternatively, under § 726.106 of the UFTA, applicable to
a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer, a transfer is fraudulent if the debtor did not
receive equivalent value and the debtor was or became insolvent as a result of the transfer
– regardless of the existence of fraudulent intent. Nationsbank, NA v. Coastal Utilities, Inc.,
814 So.2d 1227, 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Because of the difficulty of proving actual
intent, case law and the UFTA look to indicia of intent, commonly referred to as “badges of
fraud,” as a premise for interring intent. § 726.105(2); Cleveland Trust Co v. Foster, 93
So.2d 112 (Fla. 1957).
In this case, the court concludes that fraudulent intent of All Care’s principal, Dr.
Kalloo, may be presumed from evidence of the following “badges of fraud” delineated in
§ 726.105(2):
(a) the transfer of All Care patient files and assets to an “insider” as defined by
§726.102(7);
(b) Dr. Kalloo’s retention of possession or control of the patient files and assets after
5
the transfer;
(c) the transfer occurred shortly after a substantial debt was incurred by All Care, i.e.
shortly (within six months) after All Care suffered a $744,790.25 judgment in a Georgia state
court, and within one month of the time plaintiff implemented garnishment proceedings to
collect on the judgment;
(d) the transfer of patient files from All Care to Intermed consisted of substantially
all of All Care’s assets of any value.
In essence, Dr. Kalloo simply transferred the assets of one company, in which he and
his wife were the sole shareholders, to another P.A. which he solely owned and controlled,
without meaningful consideration and within six months of the entry of a substantial
judgment against the first company. Because the transfer occurred between two corporations
largely controlled by the same individual, without consideration, or for grossly inadequate
consideration, fraudulent intent is presumed, and the successor company is appropriately held
liable for fraudulent transfer under § 726.105, Fla. Stat. (2013). Florida Brogdex Distrib.,
Inc. v. Hulsey, 138 So. 728 (Fla 1931).
Under §726.106(1), the Florida UFTA alternatively creates a statutory category of
constructive fraud to protect present creditors, recognizing certain transactions as
“fraudulent” without regard to the debtor’s actual intent. Amjad Munim, M.D., P.A. v. Azar,
648 So.2d 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). A transfer is constructively fraudulent under this
subsection if the debtor made the transfer while insolvent and without receiving reasonably
6
equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation. Under the UFTA, a debtor is
“insolvent” if the sum of his debts is greater than his assets at a fair valuation, § 726.103(1),
Fla. Stat. (1993), or a debtor is presumed insolvent if he is generally not paying his debts as
they become due, § 726.103(2).
The court finds the elements of constructive fraud established in this case, based on
the undisputed evidence that All Care transferred all its patient files and good will (generated
by Dr. Kalloo) to Intermed without receiving reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the
transfer, thus providing an alternative theory to support the imposition of liability against
Intermed for the outstanding balance owed on the prior judgment entered against All Care.
Dr. Kalloo did not establish sufficient facts to rebut the presumption of fraudulent
transfer raised by this chronology. Dr. Kalloo argues that the patient files and good will of
his old company lacked value because his medical practice was virtually destroyed by the
allegations of sexual misconduct and related criminal and administrative proceedings against
him, which resulted, among other things, in the placement of a no-female treatment
restriction and later a no-unsupervised female treatment restriction against his license.
Because of this, Dr. Kalloo argues his old company lacked good will or value, and therefore
could not be the subject of a fraudulent transfer. However, this overlooks the central fact that
the patient files of All Care constituted an asset of substantial value, and that the transfer of
this asset to Intermed harmed All Care by eliminating its sole means of earning revenues to
pay the Georgia state court judgment.
7
Based on undisputed evidence presented at trial, the court concludes that Dr. Kalloo
ceased rendering medical services as All Care and formed Intermed to impede the rights of
an existing judgment creditor, and that final judgment in favor of plaintiff and against
Intermed based on fraudulent transfer, either under § 726.105 or §726.106 is appropriate in
this case. See Amjad Munim, M.D., P.A. v. Azar, 648 So.2d 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
(medical professional association’s transfer of assets to newly formed medical association
12 days after entry of judgment against predecessor association constituted fraudulent
conveyance where predecessor transferred patient files and assets to new association, sole
shareholder and president of association retained control of assets after transfer, transfer was
of substantially all of the predecessor’s assets, there was no consideration received for the
assets, and the transfer occurred shortly after substantial debt was incurred).
B. Mere Continuation of Business
The court also finds Intermed is appropriately held liable for the Georgia judgment
entered against All Care under a “mere continuation of business” theory.
The concept of continuation of business arises where a successor corporation is
merely a continuation or reincarnation of a predecessor corporation under a different name.
Bud Antle, Inc. v. Eastern Foods, Inc., 758 F.2d 1451 (11th Cir.) (en banc), reh’g denied, 765
F.2d 154 (1985). The key element of a continuation is a common identity of the officers,
directors and stockholders in the selling and purchasing corporation. Id. The concept is a
variation of a “de facto merger,” which occurs where one corporation is absorbed by another,
8
but without compliance with the statutory requirements for merger. In such instance, the
imposition of liability upon the successor corporation for obligations of the former is
grounded on the premise that no corporation should be permitted to commit a tort or breach
of contract and avoid liability through corporate transformation in form only. See Azar,
supra at 154.
The test for the existence of either a de facto merger or “mere continuation of
business” is whether there is effectively a continuity of the selling corporation evidenced by
such things as the same management, personnel, assets, location and stockholders. Id., citing
300 Pine Island Assoc. v. Steven L. Cohen & Assoc., 547 So.2d 255, 256 (Fla. 4th DCA
1989).
Applying this standard here, the court finds, based on undisputed evidence presented
at trial, that Intermed is a “mere continuation” of the business of All Care, the original
medical services corporation owned and controlled by Dr. Kalloo. All Care ceased rendering
medical services six months after the Georgia judgment entered against it. Intermed, Dr.
Kalloo’s new business model, provided the same type of medical services in the same office
with the same equipment, the same patients (with some new business in a geriatric patient
base), the same office manager (Dr. Kalloo’s wife) and the same primary medical care
provider, Dr. Kalloo, who was the primary owner of each entity. This situation mirrors that
discussed by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Azar:
For all intents and purposes, the new P.A. is the old P.A. dressed up with a
new name and controlled by the same individual. We agree...that [the new
9
company] is a mere continuation of the business of [the old company] because
it has the “same management, personnel, assets location and stockholder” as
that of [the old company].”
....
[A] professional association cannot simply cast off one corporate identity in
favor of another in order to evade the effect of a previously existing judgment
against the debtor P.A.
Azar at 154-155.
This court thus concludes that Intermed is appropriately held liable on the prior
Georgia judgment against All Care under a theory of “mere continuation of business,”
regardless of the existence of any element of fraudulent intent on the part of Dr. Kalloo.
III. DECRETAL PROVISIONS
Based on the foregoing, the court finds sufficient evidence to sustain the plaintiff’s
claims against Intermed based on fraudulent transfer and mere continuation of business
theory.
It is accordingly ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. The defendant Intermed, is liable on the pre-existing Georgia judgment against
All Care, and is properly held responsible for the deficiency balance owed on that judgment
as of April 8, 2014, the date on which surrender proceeds from Dr. Kalloo’s life insurance
policy were recovered and applied to that debt, plus prejudgment interest on that balance
running from April 8, 0214 to the present date.
10
2. Accordingly, PLAINTIFF, GLOBAL ONE FINANCIAL, INC., shall take and
recover the sum of $292,537.271 against DEFENDANT INTERMED SERVICES, P.A.,
together with pre-judgment interest accruing from April 8, 2014 in the sum of $18,703.50,
for the TOTAL SUM of $311,240.77, for which let execution issue.
3.
The claims against defendants SHAHEED KALLOO and CAROL
VARONIQUE (Count 6 - Conspiracy) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to
stipulation of parties announced in open court.
4. The claim for equitable lien against defendant INTERMED SERVICES, P.A.
(Count 5) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to stipulation of parties announced
in open court.
5. The court reserves jurisdiction to tax costs against defendant Intermed.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida this 16th day of
April, 2015.
___________________________
Daniel T. K. Hurley
United States District Judge
cc. All counsel
1
All Care originally suffered judgment in the amount of $744,790.25 in the Georgia state court
proceedings. Post judgment interest accruing on that original sum up through February 18, 2011 amounted
to $29,460.03; after a set-off for the funds garnished from All Care’s Bank of America account ($4,285.87)
on February 18, 2011, All Care owed a deficiency balance of $769,964.41 as of February 19, 2011.
Post judgment interest accruing on that deficiency balance up through April 8, 2014, the date of the
recovery of surrender proceeds on the life insurance policy, totaled $150,696.80; after a set off for the life
insurance surrender proceeds ($628,123.94), All Care owed a deficiency balance of $292,537.27 as of April
8, 2014.
For updated court information, see unofficial website
11
at www.judgehurley.com
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?