Federal Trade Commission et al v. Vantage Point Services, LLC et al
Filing
299
DECISION AND ORDER ACCEPTING the 297 Receiver's Final Report with directives as specified. Signed by William M. Skretny, United States District Judge on 4/11/2019. (MEAL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
FEDERAL
TRADE
COMMISSION
and
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, by
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of
the State of New York,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DECISION AND ORDER
15-CV-006S
VANTAGE POINT SERVICES, LLC, et al.
Defendants.
1.
Presently before this Court is the Receiver’s Final Report, requesting the
Court to enter an order accepting the Final Report, discharging the Receiver and the
Receiver’s Bond, and directing a disposition of the funds held by the Receiver. (Docket
No. 297). The Receiver’s Final Report incorporates by reference the Preliminary Report
of the Receiver. (Docket No. 30). Plaintiffs, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and
the People of the State of New York, have submitted a response to the Final Report.
(Docket No. 298). Plaintiffs state that they have been developing a redress plan “with the
aim of partially redressing consumer victims” affected in this action. (Id. at 2).
2.
The Receiver presently holds in the account the total sum of Two Hundred
Fifty-Three Thousand, Eight Hundred Twenty-Five and 29/100 Dollars ($253,825.29).
(Docket No. 297-1). The Receiver requests allowance of the Receiver’s fees to the law
firm Harter Secrest & Emery LLP (the Receiver’s former law firm, from which the Receiver
performed the entirety of its functions and responsibilities), and for the discharge of the
Receiver and the Receiver’s Bond. It also requests a court-directed disposition of the
funds with respect to the claims of the following entities: the Internal Revenue Service
1
(“IRS”), the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board, the New York State
Department of Taxation and Finance, and third-party payment processor Merchants E
Solutions/Big Tree (“Merchants Solutions”). The Court addresses each request in turn.
3.
First, the Receiver requests the allowance of the second interim and final
compensation to the Receiver for services rendered from March 1, 2015, through
December 31, 2016, in the total amount of $22,289.68 ($22,062.63 for services rendered,
plus disbursements of $227.05) to be paid to the Receiver’s former law firm, Harter
Secrest & Emery LLP, where the entirety of the Receiver’s responsibilities with regard to
the Receivership Defendants and Individual Defendants took place. (Docket No. 297 at
5). This amount reflects Harter Secrest & Emery LLP’s agreement to accept one-half of
the final invoice plus disbursements, in the interest of maximizing funds for consumer
redress. (Id.). Moreover, the Receiver asserts that he does not seek compensation for
any services rendered from January 4, 2017. Plaintiffs do not oppose the Receiver’s
request.
Accordingly, and upon review of the Receiver’s application, supporting
materials, and applicable law, the Court finds that the requested fees are reasonable and
will grant the Receiver’s request to disburse $22,289.68 to Harter Secrest & Emery LLP.
See S.E.C. v. Byers, 590 F. Supp. 2d 637, 644 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (amount of a receiver’s
compensation is within a court’s reasonable discretion).
4.
Second, the IRS has filed a claim of $248.50 against Solidified Payment
Solutions LLC and Defendant Angela Burdorf. (Docket No. 297-5). Plaintiffs do not
oppose the payment of this amount to the IRS. Accordingly, the Court will order payment
of $248.50 to the IRS.
5.
Third, the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board has filed a penalty
2
claim in the amount of $24,000 for Defendant Payment Management Solutions, Inc.’s
(“PMS”) failure to provide insurance.
(Docket Nos. 297 at 4; 297-4).
In Plaintiffs’
response to the Final Report, Plaintiffs represent that counsel for the Workers’
Compensation Board has advised that it is amenable to subordinating its claim against
the Receivership estate to the extent that such funds are used for consumer redress
(Plaintiffs represent that this is indeed their intention). (Docket No. 298 at 3). Given the
“significant interest in maintaining funds to satisfy claims by consumers,” FTC v. Credit
Bureau Ctr., LLC, 284 F. Supp. 3d 907, 909 (N.D. Ill. 2018), the Court takes no issue with
Plaintiffs’ request and, accordingly, this amount shall be subordinated for consumer
redress and no payment will be made to the Workers’ Compensation Board. See S.E.C.
v. Hardy, 803 F.2d 1034, 1037 (9th Cir. 1986) (“[A] district court’s power . . . to determine
the appropriate action to be taken in administration of the receivership is extremely
broad.”).
6.
Fourth, the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance has filed
a claim against PMS in the amount of $2,646. (Docket No. 297-3). This amount is based
on estimated unemployment insurance wages for the first quarter of 2015. (Id.). Plaintiffs
believe this amount to be an overestimate given the fact that the instant lawsuit was filed
on January 5, 2015, and Defendants ceased all operations shortly thereafter. (Docket
No. 298 at 3). Accordingly, the Receiver is directed to calculate the appropriate amount
due to the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance based on the actual
qualifying wages incurred by Defendants. The Receiver shall then submit the appropriate
calculation to the Court to determine disposition of the amount owed, if any, to the New
York State Department of Taxation and Finance.
3
7.
Finally, third-party payment processor Merchants Solutions has asserted a
charge-back claim against the Receivership in the amount of $42,258.51. (Docket No.
297-2). By way of background, the Receiver obtained a net remittance from Merchants
Solutions in the amount of $25,437.30 on April 13, 2015 (purportedly based on the
underlying merchant account agreement between Merchant Solutions and PMS).
(Docket No. 297 at 3). The Receiver states that he “is unable to determine the merits of
the Additional Back Charges” asserted by Merchants Solutions because he “was under
the impression that all of the charge backs had been cleared and that the final remittance
was net of all adjustments and charge backs.” (Docket No. 297 at 4) (emphasis in
original). Plaintiffs, in response, ask the Court to direct the Receiver to reject Merchants
Solutions’ claim given its untimeliness, that the supporting information submitted by
Merchants Solutions does not adequately explain the additional chargebacks, and the
strong interest in retaining a maximum amount of funds for consumer redress.
8.
Upon examination of the chargebacks, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs. As
stated above, on April 13, 2015, Merchants Solutions deposited $25,437.30 to the
Receiver, which the Receiver believed to be the “net of the chargebacks and setoffs.”
(Docket No. 297 at 3, 297-1 at 2). Upon request from the Receiver for proof of the
additional chargebacks now being asserted (in the amount of $42,258.51), Merchants
Solutions has submitted additional documentation reflecting the chargebacks from the
Processing Months from January through June of 2015, attached to the Final Report as
Exhibit B.
(Docket No. 297-2). Plaintiffs correctly observe that the majority of the
chargebacks upon which Merchants Solutions bases its present Additional Chargebacks
claim pre-date the April 13, 2015 transfer—in total, $33,191.62. (See id.).
4
9.
“Receivership courts have the general power to use summary procedure in
allowing, disallowing, and subordinating the claims of creditors.” United States v. Arizona
Fuels Corp., 739 F.2d 455, 458 (9th Cir. 1984) (citing 1B J. Moore, Moore’s Federal
Practice ¶ 0.419[2.-1] at 600 (2d ed. 1983 rev.)); see also FTC v. Febre, 128 F.3d 530,
536 (7th Cir. 1997) (“Courts have regularly awarded, as equitable ancillary relief, the full
amount lost by consumers.”). Indeed, final relief under Section 13(b) actions such as this
one “may include a refund to the consumer of the full amount.” F.T.C. v. Home Assure,
LLC, No. 8;09-CV-547-T-23TBM, 2009 WL 1043956, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 16, 2009).
Given the above, coupled with the strong interest in retaining funds for consumer redress
as well as the court’s “wide discretion” in “determining relief in an equity receivership,” the
Court will direct the Receiver to reject the claim for Additional Chargebacks asserted by
Merchants Solutions. Fed. Trade Comm'n v. E.M. Sys. & Servs., LLC, No. 8:15-CV-1417T-23AEP, 2018 WL 1801214, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2018), report and recommendation
adopted, No. 8:15-CV-1417-T-23AEP, 2018 WL 1801216 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 15, 2018); see
also Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Premier Debt Acquisitions LLC, No. 15-CV-421-FPG, 2018
WL 4963620, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2018) (“Under the final order, any funds held by
the Receiver after court-authorized payments and expenses are to be transferred to the
FTC and used for equitable relief, including consumer redress.”); see also Credit Bureau
Ctr., LLC, 284 F. Supp. 3d at 909 (“[T]here is a significant interest in maintaining funds to
satisfy claims by consumers.”).
In light of the foregoing, IT HEREBY IS ORDERED that the Receiver’s Final Report
(Docket No. 297) is ACCEPTED to the extent that the Receiver shall:
5
1. Within thirty (30) days of entry of this Order, submit the appropriate calculation
to the Court to determine disposition of the amount owed, if any, to the New
York State Department of Taxation and Finance;
2. Disburse $22,289.68 to the law firm of Harter Secrest & Emery LLP;
3. Disburse $248.50 to the IRS;
4. Reject the claim asserted by Merchants Solutions in the amount of $42,258.51
for consumer redress; and
5. Subordinate the penalty claim in the amount of $24,000 asserted by the New
York State Workers’ Compensation Board, to be used for consumer redress.
FURTHER, that upon making the payments authorized in this order, and upon
advising the Court within 30 days of entry of this Order as to the appropriate amount due
the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance based on the actual qualifying
wages with respect to the claims asserted against the Receivership by the New York
State Department of Taxation and Finance, the Court will determine the amount to be
disbursed to the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, if any, and will
order disbursement accordingly;
FURTHER, that upon completion of the above directives, the Court, in a
subsequent Order, will order the Receiver to transmit any and all remaining Receivership
assets to Plaintiffs and file a notice advising the Court that the transfer has been
accomplished;
6
FURTHER, that upon completion of all services to be rendered, the Court will order
that the Receiver and the Receiver’s bond (Bond #S-836738) be discharged.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 11, 2019
Buffalo, New York
/s/William M. Skretny
WILLIAM M. SKRETNY
United States District Judge
7
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?