Shining a light on PGE
This past Thursday I made the following remarks to the Public Utility Commission. It was the first of two hearings, the second one being March 25, 2006, in which the PUC will decide whether to conduct an investigation of PGE's various practices.
City of Portland
DATE: March 2, 2006
TO: Public Utility Commission
FROM: Portland City Commissioner Randy Leonard
RE: Portland General Electric
The City of Portland is initiating a process to resolve fundamental questions about PGE’s rate setting, tax collection, tax payment, and accounting practices. The answers to those questions may lead to the City of Portland exercising its authority to set rates for PGE customers residing within the City limits of Portland.
The following list outlines key areas of interest to the City of Portland that we believe should be resolved completely in any rate setting process for a public utility:
1. PGE is a profitable entity whose tax liability has been engulfed by the massive losses of its parent company Enron. However, there are multiple provisions of state law which enable the State to retain those dollars paid by ratepayers for State taxes in Oregon, instead of having them paid to Enron:
The Department of Revenue is authorized by ORS 314.280 (OAR 150-314-280(M)) to require the segregated method of reporting for a public utility. This is the alternative to the consolidated method of reporting, which is the current practice of PGE and Enron and allows PGE and Enron to combine their income for tax reporting purposes. The consolidated method in this case has reduced or eliminated any tax debt to Oregon for PGE because of substantial losses reported by Enron. Under the status quo, any PGE tax debts are paid to Enron as cash and not to State government.
Additionally, ORS 314.670 states that where the reporting requirement utilized does not fairly represent the extent of the taxpayer’s business in the State, the Department of Revenue may require separate accounting, which would dramatically increase PGE’s tax liability in the State of Oregon, since nearly all its income is derived within the State.
Finally, even though PGE and Enron have been allowed to use the consolidated method of reporting, their application of this provision under State Law is incorrect. ORS 317.710 states in section 5(a) that if two or more affiliated Corporations (in this case PGE, Enron, and all of Enron’s 346 subsidiaries) are filing a joint return for Federal tax purposes, that they shall only file a joint State return with those entities who are unitary in nature (in other words affiliated entities who engage in similar business). In the case of PGE and Enron, this provision would not have allowed the summary consolidation of Enron’s filing with PGE, but rather consolidated filing with only like companies under Enron. Available information suggests that complying with this statute would result in PGE consolidating their filing with only a small number of Enron affiliates, and it would almost certainly result in income tax due to the State.
The need for Senate Bill 408 would not be necessary were the State enforcing these provisions.
In light of these features of State Law, why wasn’t the Oregon Public Utility Commission proactive in making sure the taxes provided for in rates for the State of Oregon were paid to the State of Oregon?
2. Why would PGE be permitted to include the cost of income tax liability in rates if there is no actual or potential income tax liability to be paid by PGE?
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Policy permits an income tax allowance in rates for all entities owning utility assets ONLY if the entity has an actual or potential income tax liability to be paid. When Enron declared bankruptcy in 2002, the possibility of a potential tax liability for PGE was effectively eliminated and the PUC had basis for reducing rates by the amount of tax expense collected in rates.
3. What is the explanation for PGE retroactively more than doubling its assignment of wholesale revenue to Multnomah County in 2001?
Emails between PGE employees in 2001 demonstrate an initiative by PGE to ascribe additional wholesale revenues to Multnomah County for the purpose of elevating their Multnomah County Business Income Tax (MCBIT) liability, even though trading energy through Multnomah County is virtually unheard of. Since it is clear from the emails that PGE did not consider the MCBIT a liability, but rather an opportunity to increase their cash disbursements to Enron, the question of whether or not it is appropriate to ascribe the revenue to Multnomah County is secondary to the apparent motivation behind this change in approach.
4. Did PGE violate its fiduciary duty to the ratepayers and Multnomah County by disbursing monies collected for Multnomah County Business Income Tax (MCBIT) to Enron?
It is clear that PGE collects money for the purpose of paying the Multnomah County Business Income Tax because it is explicit as an adder on ratepayer bills. What is also clear is that PGE has paid almost no Multnomah County Business Income Tax over the past several years. This is important because by placing the adder outlining to the ratepayer exactly what amount of their payment is going to Multnomah County for taxes, PGE accepts the role as fiduciary of those monies, and should correspondingly act in scrupulous good faith and candor. If PGE has inappropriately disbursed these monies for any purpose other than tax payments to Multnomah County, they are in violation of their fiduciary duty to the ratepayers and the County.
5. In addition to not paying the Multnomah County Business Income Tax, has PGE been double charging the ratepayers for this tax, once in rates and again in the bill adder?
Public financial statement information about its actual effective tax rate at 46% versus an expected combined federal and state rate of 39 % suggests that PGE may have charged ratepayers in Multnomah County twice for its Multnomah County Business Income Tax liability—once in rates and again on the PUC authorized bill adder. Further, despite the potential double charging of this tax to ratepayers, the tax was never paid to Multnomah County.
6. Did PGE engage in unlawful or fraudulent trading activities that contributed to the inflated energy costs during the west coast energy crisis? Did PGE use the high cost of energy and the unstable market they helped create as a basis for a 41% residential rate increase in 2001?
In 2000, a west coast “energy crisis” occurred when Enron and subsidiary traders
engaged in market manipulation, which created artificial energy shortages and drove up energy prices. PGE traders were directly involved in “Death Star” trading schemes which contributed to this crisis. PGE went to the OPUC seeking a 41% residential rate increase in the wake of the crisis, despite a trend of substantial increases in profits between 1999 and 2001, which suggested that they were not in need of a rate increase at all.
Given the questionable need for a rate increase, and the fact that PGE was involved in fraudulent “Death Star” trades, which in part served to artificially inflate energy markets, it follows that PGE may have been motivated to pursue a rate case in 2001 to capitalize on an environment of instability in energy markets that they had a hand in creating, rather than to address new revenue requirements.
7. Is PGE now preparing to disburse $106 million in deferred taxes and $54 million in current taxes to Enron?
PGE’s September Form 10-Q shows a sudden increase in current deferred tax liability, meaning the deferred tax was owed within a year. Combined with other current tax liabilities of $54 million, this may signal an additional disbursement to Enron totaling $158 million right before the stock redistribution occurs.
Finally, We are appealing the PUC’s decision to approve the redistribution of stock from Enron to its creditors. While we are not suggesting the following as the only alternative to the plan that the PUC approved, we do believe it represents but one example of many that the PUC could have added to the approval as a condition that would have resulted in a huge benefit to ratepayers:
Proposed Alternative to PUC Approved PGE Stock Redistribution Plan:
PGE seeks their stock redistribution plan to get a “fresh start” in the wake of Enron’s unfortunate stewardship of the utility. What the OPUC should consider is how also to help the ratepayers enjoy the same kind of “fresh start.” The City of Portland has identified a reorganization approach that has all the same benefits to PGE and its shareholders that the current proposal does, plus the benefit of reduced electricity rates due to reduced tax liability, thus providing an undeniable benefit. Part of this benefit could also be dedicated to restoring the lost pensions of PGE employees.
The City of Portland’s suggested alternative reorganization is based on the following:
Revenue Ruling 63-228, provides in part:
“Where property having a fair market value is received in satisfaction of a debt, such fair market value is the unadjusted basis of the property for the purpose of computing gain or loss upon the subsequent sale or other disposition of the property. See Lawrence S. Vadner et ux. V. Commissioner, Tax Court Memorandum Opinion filed July 29, 1955, and Mary Kavanaugh Feathers v. Commissioner, 8 T.C. 376 (1947)”
In addition, Treas. reg. 301.7701-3(b)(1) and (2), provides in part:
“an eligible entity with a single owner may be disregarded as an entity separate from its owner.”
The City’s proposed course of action is to have PGE convert to an LLC (a disregarded entity) prior to its distribution to Enron’s creditors such that PGE LLC would receive a “step up” in the basis of its assets to the fair market value of the assets (as opposed to their fully depreciated value). The net benefit to ratepayers would be 40% of the amount of the step up in reduced future income taxes to PGE flowing through to them via the elimination of the deferred taxes currently listed on PGE’s balance sheet. The net benefit amounts to a rate savings estimated to be between 7 and 10%.
|
March 4, 2006 |
Randy Leonard | Comments (47 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Dan Meek | Mar 4, 2006 4:00:42 PM
The PUC "hearing" on Thursday was just a staged press conference for the PUC and staff. They did not issue the "report" until a few minutes before the hearing, thus allowing no potential commenter to even read it before the hearing started and certainly not to prepared a documented refutation.
According to the PUC staff, it was perfectly OK for PGE to charge ratepayers over $800 million for income taxes that PGE never paid. The "report" contained numerous legal and factual errors as well that I will have to point out later (after the press is gone, of course, which was exactly the PUC's plan in the first place).
Posted by: Robert Ted Hinds | Mar 4, 2006 5:18:21 PM
First of all, I have withdrawn my candidacy for Erik Sten's spot on City Council, since I've received an offer in private industry that is more than an honest City Commish can earn. This is not a campaign statement, I'm just telling it like it is.
Why the Hell didn't City Hall slam PGE with condemnation when it had the upper hand in doing so? You tell me, Randy. The word in the local press was that it would send a bad message to business about coming to Portland. Get friggin' real! We're talking about Enron here, the greatest example of securities fraud and white collar crime since John McCain and Neil Bush made millions off the Savings & Loan Scandal.
In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt finally put the big energy trusts and robber barons in their place with the Public Utility Holding Company Act and the Federal Power Act. These acts prevented the kind of abuse Enron engaged in at PGE and in California, where the company artifically created rolling blackouts that cost the state billions. That was until 1988 when oilman, George H W Bush, supported by the likes of Kenneth Lay, went on the deregulation war path. Public oversight and open bookkeeping requirements were an unnecessary burden on the highly ethical energy business they argued. In 1992, deregulation of these industries passed, and Enron began to flourish.
Randy, I have more respect for you than any other City Commish, but let's look at the big picture. The Enron guys and the people they surround themselves with are white collar criminals who have spent years perfecting the art of looting the public. Your proposal to change the PGE entity to an LLC to "step up" the basis of PGE assets to current FMV is a fair idea, but these guys don't play fair. It was a mistake not to condemn PGE immediately after Enron refused to negotiate in good faith with the City of Portland (it was also a huge mistake to send Erik Sten instead of Saltzman and Blackmer and a top notch investment banking advisor). Enron continues to give Portland the middle finger and it's high time Portland stops walking softly and starts swinging a big stick.
Posted by: Alice | Mar 4, 2006 5:44:37 PM
Ted: too bad you dropped out when you did. And I heard you were almost certain to finish in the top eight. Damn.
Good luck working for The MAN. Hope getting rich beats saving Portland from PGE.
Posted by: doretta | Mar 4, 2006 5:45:41 PM
Yes, the fact is inescapable that had the PUC been doing what most of us in the public think it should have been doing, this would never have become an issue. It follows that they were going to be defensive about it.
It's never been clear to me whether their general lack of usefulness is due to problems with the laws creating the PUC or problems with the people who end up on it or both.
Dan, I'd love to see you list those legal and factual errors here.
Posted by: Randy Leonard | Mar 4, 2006 8:08:33 PM
I have publicly supported condemning PGE for over two years.
However, It requires three votes on the city council to actually pass such a measure. There are currently only two votes on the council to condemn.
Posted by: Misty | Mar 5, 2006 8:22:09 AM
There is one candidate in the race for city council #3 that supports condemning PGE, Lucinda Tate. She wants to be your swing vote, check out what else she believes in at www.vote4lucinda.com
Posted by: W. Bruce Anderholt II | Mar 5, 2006 5:35:50 PM
Randy:
I thought you said it wasn't about a PUD? Isn't a PUD the end result of condemnation?
You need to make up your mind: you're either a regulator or an acquirer. You can't be both if you want to be taken seriously.
Posted by: Randy Leonard | Mar 5, 2006 7:28:45 PM
Bruce-
For over two years I have said I would vote to use the power of imminent domain to acquire PGE.
Because there isn't a majority on the council to accomplish that, I am focused on remedying the mismanagement of PGE that caused me to support condemnation.
I fail to see a conflict between those two strategies.
Posted by: W. Bruce Anderholt II | Mar 5, 2006 8:43:47 PM
Commissioner Leonard:
You remember the housing inspectors that were condemning properties and then buying them at auction on the courthouse steps? I believe they were fired over the obvious conflict of interest. I believe you did the firing.
You've said that you are NOT trying to punish PGE for rebuffing the city's overture; yet that is precisely how it appears when you focus regulatory scrutiny on that entity which you would prefer to acquire. It's no different than the housing inspectors, except both parties have greater legal resources: no single moms should get evicted from their homes this time around.
You can be an honest regulator, or the front man for a P.U.D. acquisition by condemnation. Pick one.
You can't be both.
Posted by: Randy Leonard | Mar 5, 2006 11:49:06 PM
There is an analogy to be made between the housing inspectors and PGE.
In both cases, innocent citizens who placed their trust in a person with power over their lives were taken advantage of.
My approach to the executives at PGE is no different than my approach to the housing inspectors who were taking advantage of innocent Portlanders.
And to carry your analogy one more step, there were those who defended the actions of the housing inspectors ("Gee...they are helping clean up neighborhoods, Randy") who were abusing their position and authority just as some are defending PGE now.
Posted by: W. Bruce Anderholt II | Mar 6, 2006 1:03:40 AM
The melodramatic "power over their lives" is only true for those on electric ventilators. My gas bill and combined water/sewer bill are both larger than my PGE bill, on an annual basis. My property taxes are 12 times larger than my PGE bill. That's real "power over my life"!
Condemnation is condemnation. The end target of condemnation (a house or an electric utility) doesn't justify the means. It's wrong to simply take something because your position of influence at City Hall gives you the power to do so. If you really want to stop those who are "taking advantage of Portlanders", then how about funding criminal justice in such a manner that Identity Theft and property crimes are all investigated and prosecuted. The people we matrix out of the jails are a much greater threat than any of PGE's alleged misdeeds. More importantly, only government can prosecute property crimes (by contrast, anybody can file a lawsuit against PGE).
If you want to buy PGE, then do it the old fashioned way: buy it. If it is not for sale, then you'll probably have to pay more. If you can't afford to buy an electric utility, you probably shouldn't own one.
Either way, you have ignored my central theme: you can choose to be a regulator or an acquirer. Not both. To pursue both objectives at the same time prostitutes both undertakings, and will likely lead to your failure on both counts.
I'm not trying to be argumentative; rather, I am afraid you will make it too easy for PGE to dimiss your accuasations as political posturing. If they have double billed for local taxes, or violated the law, then some redress (even rate reductions) may be justified.
If they have done nothing illegal, then leave them alone and quit wasting taxpayer dollars in a pissing contest with the largest electric utility in the state. PGE has more important priorities, and the City of Portland has bigger challenges (like how to comply with EPA Clean Water regulations in the most cost effective way possible).
A protracted legal battle with PGE will cost the City of Portland much more in terms of our reputation as an "anti-corporate" political climate than you will ever recoup in rate reductions. There simply are not sufficient large employers left in Portland to risk alienating those that remain or frightening those that may consider expanding here.
Education, transportation, housing, and public safety all matter more than PGE's rate structure, at least to this voter. I would bet that I am not alone.
Posted by: kathy | Mar 6, 2006 9:40:46 AM
I'd be more enthusiastic about the City overtaking PGE if they were better able to handle their own messes re: the Tram, the Water Bureau, etc.
How much taxpayer money has been spent on this vendetta against PGE? I swear I'm beginning to think it's like Bush and Iraq except it's Sten/Leonard and PGE. Sure, Iraq had problems but the amount of money that has gone into this personal vendetta that Bush has/had for it, wasn't warranted, especially since there are so many problems here at home that need fixing. Same with the City and PGE. The amount of time and energy that has gone into fixing a problem (and not a dire one given the city's current funding issues and cuts), seems a huge waste.
Once you fix the City's problems (firefighter's pension, the tram, etc), I'll support fixing PGE but getting involved in yet another battle just doesn't seem prudent. Unless this is just a way of wagging the dog -- if we focus the public's ire onto PGE, they won't notice that we're messing up other areas...
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Mar 7, 2006 9:31:46 AM
WBAII articulates the absolutist, knee-jerk attitude toward the Right of Eminent Domain common among rightists. PGE has been granted a protected monopoly by the state in return for operating in the public interest. It has failed at this in profound fashion. Free market power retailing simply does not work, so public ownership is the only alternative. If one does not see the difference between this case and the government seizing my home to sell to a developer in order to increase the property values, then one has little power of discernment.
Kathy repeats the Gard&Gerber, Oregonian slur about Portland's mismanagement. It would be be almost impossible to manage as poorly as PGE has. The record is clear: publicly owned power is cheaper and as just as reliable, in spite of the imperfections of government.
Posted by: kathy | Mar 7, 2006 10:43:46 AM
Tom - How much money are you willing to spend on this vendetta that Eric & Randy have against PGE? Especially given that PGE's rates have been shown to be in line with other PUDs (not all, but some)?
And why should we trust the City to run PGE efficiently when they haven't shown prudence in their current responsibilities? The tram is a classic example. Exactly what IS the bill on that now?
If you have a kid in college who has run up massive credit card debt funding shopping trips, spring break, etc, do you hand them another credit card? Or do you tell them they need to learn fiscal responsibility and help them learn how to work down their debt? I don't know what you'd do but my experience tells me giving that kid another credit card will not lead to responsible spending.
As I said in my post, I'm not opposed to public power. I AM opposed to people that can't manage what they have taking on another large project.
Posted by: Dan | Mar 7, 2006 2:48:47 PM
The main points Bruce Anderholt makes that reasonate with the common sense in the average person in the street, is the the question of the City finding the balance between attempts at correcting the sins of Enron/PGE and taking action on public issues for which the city is the only party that can take the lead in solving.
Examples given, like identity theft and property crime cost all of us in higher product and insurance costs. These are a huge part of my budget just like energy - of which electricity is the smallest fraction comparted to gasoline, oil, and natural gas. Save for Item 1 in Randys letter, I feel the issues the city has presently with Enron/PGE are non-issues anymore and twisting perspective on the real and pressing issues facing the city today. I have been following this rather closely and I guess, in my humble opinion, it seems pursuing further action on Enron/PGE today is political activity not consistent with public interest anymore.
But back to item 1 of Randys. Maybe our laws really do prohibit retroactive action concerning taxes and rates, but if Randys quote "The need for Senate Bill 408 would not be necessary were the State enforcing these provisions." has real merit, perhaps someone should be asking the State if there is any other company that is filing taxes, albeit leagally, BUT not in the manner consistent with what state law might allow if otherwise audited. Who knows, there may be companies filing consolidated returns where the state has the option of demanding otherwise.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Mar 9, 2006 2:00:41 PM
kathy,
A vendetta is about revenge. The issue with PGE is recovering what we can of our purloined money and preventing losing even more in the future. Portland's government is not perfect, but I would put my trust in a body that sometimes makes mistakes before one that works hard at extracting the most money from ratepayers, legally or not.
Dan,
You don't mind paying a PGE fraud premium? Fine, you can give them your life's savings for all I care. The cost of electric power is an important factor in the residential budgets and the cost of doing business. If WBAII's points resonate with the general public, it is because they have been inundated with Gard&Gerber orchestrated propaganda from many sides, including the editorial board of our only daily newspaper. For a take on PGE that doesn't sound like something Brian Gard wrote under contract to the Soviet Polit Bureau, look at About that $10 million smoking gun by Steve Duin.
Posted by: Alice | Mar 9, 2006 8:10:50 PM
Kathy: it certainly looks like vendetta, or at least payback for PGE's refusal to show up at the shotgun wedding. It has everything to do with revenge.
While I have no way of knowing, I'm inclined to think that Commissioner Leonard honestly believes that PGE overcharged consumers, and is now trying to cover up their misdeeds. That violates his sense of fair play, and he's angry with them (and the PUC) for treating him so dismissively. He wants revenge, but he's smart enough to disguise it with a sort of reverse muckraking disguise (the politician serving the role of journalist outing corporate corruption).
With Commissioner Sten, I think it has everything to do with politics. He has several viable challengers running against him. Following the water billing fiasco, the failed Public Power bid, a rising anti-incumbent tsunami (Tram, anyone?): it can't look real good now that he's the longest serving member of the council (boy wonder who?). What better way to energize your lefty base than by picking a fight with the POWER COMPANY? They have all the POWER. They make those obscene profits. Their executives get paid too much. And they're a subsidiary of Enron! I'm surprised the Stenmobile isn't parked in front of PGE's headquarters blaring Pink Floyd's MONEY 24/7 in a fit of anti-capitalist rage. If you can't afford to buy PGE, then just condemn them!
Civilleti: is everybody who disagrees with you a "knee jerk rightists"? Are there any other requirements to get into that club?
Posted by: Larry | Mar 10, 2006 12:04:09 AM
Tom -
I must take issue with a couple statements from your last point...
You said: "The issue with PGE is recovering what we can of our purloined money" Purloined means stolen. And stealing is illegal. Yet the PUC recently came out and said that PGE did nothing illegal. So end of story already! I'm not saying that they acted in a moral manner (I'm not convinced that they did), but we have set standards (laws and regulations) as to what corporations can do. If they act within those standards then we have no recourse against them. If you don't like the standards, or the regulatory body that sets the standards, then do something about that. But you absolutely cannot do what Randy Leonard (and Erik Sten?) did after the PUC ruling and say, "Okay... well... maybe it was illegal, but we still don't like it so we'll continue being jackasses." Not sure, but I think that's a direct quote. :-)
Then you follow that with: "If WBAII's points resonate with the general public, it is because they have been inundated with Gard&Gerber orchestrated propaganda from many sides". Gosh, I guess you're right.... NO ONE is able to look at the issues and form their own opinions, because all of us "general public" folks are too stupid to see beyond the G&G smokescreen. None of us have the ability to think through an issue and form our own opinions, like you do.
Well, Tom, screw you and your elitist attitude.
Posted by: Randy Leonard | Mar 10, 2006 12:24:19 AM
Larry-
I have never said anything PGE did may be legal but that I still object to it. In fact, I have said if some of what I suspect is verified by PGE's internal documents (which we will have to subpoena because PGE refuses to hand them over voluntarily)they have, in fact, violated criminal laws.
For an example, PGE hitting ratepayers twice for a Multnomah County income tax they never paid and retroactively changing their tax returns to collect the tax. Further, PGE engaged in the so called Death Star trading with Enron (buying and selling electricity circularly to from and to themselves with the end goal being to hit the ratepayers for higher electric bills).
PGE could settle both of those issues by producing the documents -which they possess- to refute my allegations. Yet, they won't. In fact, hell will freeze over, I predict, before they voluntarily hand over documents that would actually prove the above two charges plus others that are at least as serious.
It is beyond my comprehension why anyone -except those with a financial interest in PGE- would defend the practices of a company that has so clearly broken its trust with Oregonians...and is completely unrepentant about it.
That is my definition of elitist.
Posted by: Tenskwatawa | Mar 10, 2006 12:31:53 AM
#
I've got tapes and emails of city Water Bureau employees conspiring with Tualatin Valley's water-from-the-Willamette workers, so that Tuala.Vall.announces pumping station maintenance outage and then 'buys on paper' Bull Run water but before accepting delivery contracts a back-sale of Willy.River water-to-come-forward in the same gallonage amounts that cancel each other out. Thus to 'churn' the water sale market and extort phony water costs from ratepayers, although no water deliveries occur.
I've got tapes and emails of city building condemnation workers colluding with contractors to corrupt abuse of office and felonious practice by none-bid agreement against the city worker bidding on this foreclosure, in quid pro quo for the contractor winning bid unopposed on that next foreclosure the public worker promises to process.
I've got tapes and emails of newspaper editors and (ad) sales exec's talking points with ad buyers and exec's at the Electric Company, to capitalize and suborn the specific editorial slant statements in the paper against the public's eminent domain right, point by point correlating to point size and column inches advertising contract price fixing.
I've got tapes and emails of Alice W. Bruce Anderholt II Larry kathy Dan insurgency planning in agency of Liars Larson to private insubordination of public broadcast license reg's by censoring and fabricating information to craft the synchronized list of words each of them can swarm-comment to flash into blogs and onto radio programming (where legitimate callers are embargoed from), inanely and incessantly repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating their secret coded messages to activate the sleeper gang by Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars talking orders.
These physical evidences should land all the above named crimefolks in prison. Like what happened to the accounting employee who embezzled off EasyStreet for years, sentenced this week to incarceration and repayment of her hundreds of thousands of dollars of theft. I don't literally have myself the tapes and emails but I can say that because open free speech doesn't hurt anything or anyone. But that does not mean the nonexistence of boxes of tapes and emails evidence. Mine, continuing among investigations, is a search for the same hidden evidence to convict them.
Like the real tapes and emails, barely ever cited in papers and broadcasting news, which we have all seen, heard, and read -- HAVEn't we ! -- documenting crimes of PGE exec's and accounting employees committing to defraud and thieve with ENRON exec's and accounting employees, and continuing to illicitly defund, for PGE=ENRON employee and exec stock-conversion conspiracy, the millions and billions of dollars of lifetime utility workers' pension funds and value. As someone above commented, the identical type of PGE=ENRON employee imprisonable crimes as goes on in the double-bubble vater bureaus' abandonment of duty, truly makes a phenomenal similarity -- I take the point PGE=ENRON is as bad as a water billing department, and that futures in prison are in it.
Hey, maybe the two water bureaus 'churning' water deliveries and rates is a copycat of ENRON=PGE imprisonable crimes.
#
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Mar 10, 2006 11:56:33 AM
Alice,
Vendetta? I'll show you vendetta. Vendetta is when the Portland Business Alliance joins PGE's campaign of payback to the city council. They give Gard&Gerber several hundred thousand dollars to attack the publicly-owned elections ordinance championed by Eric Sten and they bankroll Gard&Gerber vice president Ginny Burdick to run against Sten at the same time. Now that, my dear, is vendetta.
Also, everyone who disagrees with me is not a knee-jerk rightist, but I've read enough of WBAII's comments to know that he is one.
Larry,
Randy Leonard discussed the legal dimension of tax collection issue above. I won't repeat that, but this is not the only case of PGE bending, buying, and ignoring laws and regulations. They twice had their legislative lapdogs overrule the people's vote to disallow profit on non-functional facilities. They still refuse to comply with a court order to refund illegally-taken profit on the Trojan plant. They are scam artists dressed in expensive suits.
As to elitism, if it is elitist to recognize propaganda generated by expensive and sophisticated public relations campaigns, then I cop to the label and get on my knees to give thanks for my functioning bullshit detector. Did you bother to read the Steve Duin column linked to above? Compare that with the editorial output of The Oregonian on the subject. If you can't appreciate the difference between Duin's insight and the editorial board's "through the looking glass" reasoning, then, well, I guess Gard&Gerber's propaganda campaign is working its magic.
Posted by: Jay Drai | Jul 23, 2007 4:55:34 PM
INCREASING COST OF ENERGY and INFLATED FRAUDULENT BILLING
It is not enough that consumers are paying higher cost for energy – Gas, Electric, Tel., Etc.
Due to the market volatility and the increase demand for energy worldwide and the manipulation of market conditions by various corporation.
Deregulation, which was designed to save the consumer on the cost of energy. Many new companies have started selling gas and electric in the past 20 years, as a result of this deregulation. We now have numerous deregulated third party suppliers of Gas and Electric that are gouging the consumers – billing prices higher than the regulated utility companies, inflating the bill, billing for product never delivered, billing phantom tax on the product, reneging on fixed price contract – when market prices go beyond the fixed contract. In short any way they can cheat, deceive and defraud the consumer is fair game.
Among the companies that practice such tactics is MULTIUT CORP or Multiut LLC of Skokie, Illinois the owner of the company is well connected, one of the previous owners was a federal judge and therefore has gotten away with numerous over billing and deceptive practices, there are numerous lawsuits for fraud pending against Multiut Corp and its owner among them a Class Action Suit and Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al 1:02-cv-07446 The Federal Court has imposed numerous contempt orders against Multiut and its owner and its owner is involved in numerous other fraud in the Nursing Home business (defrauding the state Nursing License with false documents to obtain a Nursing Home License) and a hotel project where he committed a fraud of $45 million dollars and numerous other fraud and deception too numerous to mention. (Especially since Multiut is represented by Jack Abramoff Law Firm – which has clout).
Another Company is Santana Energy out of Texas. Some utility companies were forced to refund the consumers hundreds of million of dollars due to manipulation of pricing and billing – many of those shenanigans stem from the Enron debacle some precede it and continue on to date.
Corporate CEO and other higher ups in the corporate world have been convicted of fraud and sentenced/fined (WorldCom, Enron, Adelphia, Etc.). But it seems that some companies can continue to defraud the public without being hindered by the authorities.
Other frauds by Gas Electric suppliers are: Centerpoint Energy Inc.,
Presented by Citizen for Honest and Fair Billing
Posted by: Jay Drai | Jul 26, 2007 4:25:33 PM
INCREASING COST OF ENERGY and INFLATED FRAUDULENT BILLING
It is not enough that consumers are paying higher cost for energy – Gas, Electric, Tel., Etc.
Due to the market volatility and the increase demand for energy worldwide and the manipulation of market conditions by various corporation.
Deregulation, which was designed to save the consumer on the cost of energy. Many new companies have started selling gas and electric in the past 20 years, as a result of this deregulation. We now have numerous deregulated third party suppliers of Gas and Electric that are gouging the consumers – billing prices higher than the regulated utility companies, inflating the bill, billing for product never delivered, billing phantom tax on the product, reneging on fixed price contract – when market prices go beyond the fixed contract. In short any way they can cheat, deceive and defraud the consumer is fair game.
Among the companies that practice such tactics is MULTIUT CORP or Multiut LLC of Skokie, Illinois the owner of the company Nachshon Draiman is well connected, one of the previous owners of Multiut was a federal judge and therefore has gotten away with numerous over billing and deceptive practices, there are numerous lawsuits for fraud pending against Multiut Corp and its owner Nachshon Draiman among them a Class Action Suit and Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al 1:02-cv-07446 The Federal Court has imposed numerous contempt orders against Multiut and its owner and its owner Nachshon Draiman is involved in numerous other fraud in the Nursing Home business (defrauding the state Nursing License with false documents to obtain a Nursing Home License) and a hotel project where he committed a fraud of $45 million dollars and numerous other fraud and deception too numerous to mention. (Especially since Multiut and its owner Nachshon Draiman is represented by Jack Abramoff Law Firm – which has clout).
Another Company is Santana Energy out of Texas. Some utility companies were forced to refund the consumers hundreds of million of dollars due to manipulation of pricing and billing – many of those shenanigans stem from the Enron debacle some precede it and continue on to date.
Many of these suppliers of Gas and Electric who are promoting saving are actually charging higher prices than the local utility company which defeats the intent of deregulation – Multiut’s billing shows 20% to 30% higher cost and billing for gas that was never delivered. Not to mention Multiut’s inflated billing for lighting retrofit to various Nursing Homes which inflates the Medicaid billing to the government.
Corporate CEO and other higher ups in the corporate world have been convicted of fraud and sentenced/fined (WorldCom, Enron, Adelphia, Etc.). But it seems that some companies can continue to defraud the public without being hindered by the authorities.
Other frauds by Gas Electric suppliers are: Centerpoint Energy Inc.,
Pending lawsuits are: AG files fraud suit against Sempra affiliate alleging Enron-like games,
This article is presented by Citizen for Honest and Fair Billing
PS
THREE FORMER NICOR ENERGY EXECUTIVES AND OUTSIDE
LAWYER INDICTED IN ALLEGED CORPORATE FRAUD SCHEME
CHICAGO -- Three former executives of Nicor Energy L.L.C. and an outside lawyer for the Lisle, Ill.-based company were indicted today for allegedly engaging in a corporate fraud scheme to obtain $400,000 in bonuses and other benefits for themselves by inflating revenues - at times by as much as $6 million - and understating expenses to make the company appear more profitable than it actually was in 2001. The defendants allegedly fraudulently deprived Nicor Energy - a retail energy marketing company established in 1997 as a 50/50 joint venture by Nicor Inc. and Dynegy Inc. - of their honest services and caused a loss to investors in publicly-traded Nicor, Inc. and Dynegy. On July 18, 2002, Nicor Inc. issued a press release announcing that its financial results for the second quarter and first half of 2002 were negatively affected by several factors, including irregularities in accounting at Nicor Energy, and the following day, the stock price of Nicor Inc. fell approximately 40 percent. Nicor Energy is currently in the process of final liquidation.
The five-count indictment returned by a federal grand jury charges Kevin Stoffer, formerly Nicor Energy's President and Chief Executive Officer; Andrew Johnson, former Director of Financial Services; John Fringer, former Vice President of Major Markets and Power Services; and outside counsel Michael Munson, announced Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois
MADIGAN, DALEY ANNOUNCE $196 MILLION SETTLEMENT WITH PEOPLES ENERGY; CUSTOMERS OF PEOPLES GAS AND NORTH SHORE GAS TO RECEIVE $100 MILLION IN CREDITS
Chicago – Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Mayor Richard M. Daley today announced that Peoples Energy has agreed to more than $196 million in consumer credits and benefits as part of a settlement that will provide much-needed relief to current Peoples Gas and North Shore Gas customers, establish a more than $25 million program of conservation and weatherization assistance for low- and moderate-income households and reconnect customers who have been disconnected from their heating services due to an inability to pay the high gas prices.
MADIGAN, DALEY, CUB ANNOUNCE REFUND CREDITS TO APPEAR ON NEXT GAS BILL FOR CUSTOMERS OF PEOPLES GAS AND NORTH SHORE GAS
Chicago — Attorney General Lisa Madigan, City of Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley and Citizens Utility Board (CUB) Executive Director David Kolata today announced that as a result of their settlement agreement with Peoples Energy more than one million current customers of Peoples Gas and North Shore Gas will see refund credits on their next gas bills.
To compensate for over billing consumers between 2000 and 2004, Peoples Energy has agreed to provide a refund credit to each of the 1,014,071 current customers of Peoples Gas and North Shore Gas. The credits – totaling $100 million – will be included on the first bill received by customers after April 24.
“These refund credits cannot change the conduct of Peoples Energy, but they will help consumers who suffered as a result,” Madigan said. “This is an appropriate response to Peoples' conduct.”
“We are pleased that consumers are finally receiving the refunds that they deserve,” said City of Chicago Corporation Counsel Mara Georges. “Consumers should not have to pay for bad planning and business decisions by Peoples Gas.”
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 2007
Justice Department Investigating NY Energy Markets
New York's wholesale energy market is being investigated for possible antitrust violations, according to a recent news report. A Newsday story indicates that a subject of the investigation may be possible withholding of capacity from the market, to drive prices up. This revelation has raised further questions regarding the proposed merger of National Grid and Keyspan, which controls significant amounts of generation capacity in the New York City markets.
2007.07.26
Posted by: N. Draiman | Aug 14, 2007 2:41:02 PM
Response to Post by: Jay Drai | Jul 23, 2007 4:55:34 PM
All of these claims are malicious, false, meritless, and contrived. These baseless accusations are the fabrications of a disgruntled former employee, Yehuda "Jay" Draiman, a convicted felon who has been found guilty of charges leading to millions of dollars in judgments by the Illinois and federal court system.
Left with no legal or rational alternative, "Jay" has resorted to conjuring up false stories and contrived meritless accusations on the internet and public forums, to attempt to smear his former employee.
These facts can be verified by court records available from a Google search for "Multiut v. Yehuda".
Yehuda Jay Draiman is a former employee who was terminated in 2001 from Multiut Corporation when he was discovered 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 addition to several findings of contempt, by the Cook County Circuit Court & upheld by the Appellate court (ruling 1-03-0857).
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2005/1stDistrict/July/Html/1030857.htm
Federal courts have also entered subsequent judgments against Yehuda and his wife Miriam for committing false bankruptcy filings in yet another attempt to defame his former employer. Federal courts declared the judgments to be non-dischargeable due to the fraud involved by Yehuda Draiman, for abusing the court system in a manner similar to the way he now attempts to abuse the internet. These facts can be verified by federal court records available from a Google search for "Doyle Draiman".
http://www.ilnb.uscourts.gov/JudgeDoyle/Opinions/Draiman_Yehuda.pdf
Public documents verify that 'Jay' was also convicted of 10 counts of wire and mail fraud during the 1980's. Nachshon, Yehuda’s brother, originally provided Yehuda with a job in the Multiut company subsequent to general assistance he provided to help Yehuda and his family following Yehuda‘s first stint of a four year sentence to the federal penitentiary for that conviction in the 80's. See United States v. Draiman, 784 F.2d 248 (7th Cir. 1986)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/023922p.pdf
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. The report cites testimony from a resident stating that Yehuda offered to return her money if she took a ride with him to his “bank”, and instead left her stranded in a deserted cornfield in the dead of winter in 8 degree weather. Only by luck was she spotted by a passerby who reported the incident to the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department. When the sheriff’s office interviewed Yehuda, he claimed “when they got out into the country she asked to be let out. He let her out and drove back to Chicago…and found her purse in the back seat.” In these instances, as well as the recent litigation, Yehuda Jay Draiman's tactic has been to invent illegalities to accuse his victims of, in order to shift the focus of attention away from him.
http://multiut.com/responses_to_YJD /IL_Assembly_Report_04_75.pdf
The current posting is just another example of Yehuda Jay Draiman's tactics.
Posted by: Jay Drai | Aug 15, 2007 10:18:49 PM
Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al 1:02-cv-07446.
Multiut Corp and Nachshon Draiman dba Future Associate of Skokie, IL. are withholding evidence of fraudulent activities in the Energy industry and inflated Medicaid billing to the government for Nursing Home patients. Also Bank fraud against their bank by presenting fraudulent and inflated receivable reports in order to get and keep a credit line, Nachshon Draiman was a large stock holder of the bank. Draiman Nachshon • SC 13G • Success Bancshares Inc • On 2/17/98
Filed On 2/17/98 • SEC File 5-53545 • Accession Number 950137-98-586
Court: United States District Court Northern District of Illinois -
Case Title: Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman Future Associates et al
Case Number: 1:02-cv-07446
Judge: Hon. John A. Nordberg
Filed On: 10/16/2002
SUMMARY
Case Number: 1:02-cv-07446
Referred To: Honorable Michael T. Mason
Jury Demand: Defendant
Demand: $9999000
Nature of Suit: Contract: Other (190)
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Case Updated: 01/20/2005
NAMES
Party Name: Multiut Corporation an Illinois Corporation,
Party Type: Defendant
Attorney(s): Paul Thaddeus Fox
(312) 456-8400
Firm Name: Greenberg Traurig, LLP.
Firm Address: 77 West Wacker Drive
Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Alan Jay Mandel
847-329-8450
Firm Name: Alan J Mandel Ltd
Firm Address: 7520 North Skokie Blvd
Skokie, IL 60077
Ira P. Gould
(312) 456-8400
Firm Name: Greenberg Traurig, LLP.
Firm Address: 77 West Wacker Drive
Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Ronald F. Labedz
(312) 456-8400
Firm Name: Greenberg Traurig, LLP.
Firm Address: 77 West Wacker Drive
Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Steven C. Coberly
(312) 456-8400
Firm Name: Greenberg Traurig, LLP.
Firm Address: 77 West Wacker Drive
Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Party Name: Nachson Draiman an Illinois Resident
Party Type: Defendant
Attorney(s): Paul Thaddeus Fox
Firm Address: (See above for address)
Alan Jay Mandel
Firm Address: (See above for address)
Ira P. Gould
Firm Address: (See above for address)
Ronald F. Labedz
Firm Address: (See above for address)
Steven C. Coberly
Firm Address: (See above for address)
Party Name: Future Associates an Illinois General Partnership
128 01/10/2005 MINUTE ORDER of 1/10/05 by Honorable Michael T. Mason : As stated on the reverse of this order, plaintiff’s motion to compel financial documents [124-1] and for sanctions is granted in part and denied in part. [124-2] Defendant’s request for reconsideration is denied. (See reverse of minute order.) Notices mailed by judge’s staff (hp) (Entered: 01/10/2005)
Order Document for Later Delivery
126 01/04/2005 BRIEF by Dynegy Mkg & Trade in opposition to defendants’ motion for reconsideration and in support of Dynegy’s motion to compel [95-1] (Attachments). (vmj) (Entered: 01/06/2005)
Order Document for Later Delivery
125 12/23/2004 MINUTE ORDER of 12/23/04 by Honorable Michael T. Mason : Plaintiff’s reply to its motion to compel financial documents [124-1] and in response to defendant’s motion for reconsideration to be filed by 01/03/05. Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 12/27/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
124 12/20/2004 MOTION by plaintiff to compel financial documents and for sanctions (Attachments); Notice. (hp) (Entered: 12/27/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
86 06/22/2004 RESPONSE by defendants to Dynegy’s motion to compel [85-1] or for sanctions [85-2] and motion for protective order (Attachment). (hp) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
85 06/17/2004 MOTION by plaintiff Dynegy Marketing and Trade, to compel or for sanctions for failure to respond to discovery (Attachments); Notice. (hp) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
79 05/13/2004 MINUTE ORDER of 5/13/04 by Honorable Michael T. Mason: Status hearing held and continued to 9:00 a.m. on 6/29/04. Plaintiff has until 6/4/04 to answer or otherwise plead to defendant’s first amended counterclaims. Fact discovery cutoff is extended to 7/19/04. Defendant’s disclosure of expert and expert report by 8/2/04. Deposition of defendant’s expert to be completed by 9/1/04. Plaintiff’s disclosure of expert and expert report by 10/1/04. Deposition of plaintiff’s expert to be completed by 10/15/04. Dispositive motion filing deadline of 8/16/04 is stricken. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is granted in part and denied in part [78-1]. Defendants are ordered to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests by 5/27/04. Plaintiff’s request for attorneys fees is denied. Mailed notice (air) (Entered: 05/14/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
77 05/12/2004 MINUTE ORDER of 5/12/04 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied. [44-1] Defendants’ motion for leave to file the first amended answer is granted. [72-1] (See reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
76 05/12/2004 RESPONSE by defendants to plaintiff Dynegy’s motion for sanctions [59-1] [65-1] (hp) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
78 05/10/2004 MOTION by plaintiff for sanctions (Attachment); Notice. (air) (Entered: 05/14/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
68 03/18/2004 MINUTE ORDER of 3/18/04 by Honorable Michael T. Mason : Motion hearing held. Plaintiff’s second motion for sanctions is granted in part and denied in part. [65-1] Defendant is ordered to turn over any unproduced damage requests, invoices and related volumes for 2002 by 03/22/04. Plaintiff’s request for dismissal of defendant’s affirmative defenses and counterclaims and request for attonrey’s fees are denied. Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 03/19/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
67 03/15/2004 AMENDED NOTICE of motion by plaintiff regarding motion for sanctions [65-1] (Attachments). (hp) (Entered: 03/19/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
64 03/08/2004 AMENDED NOTICE of motion by plaintiff regarding second motion for sanctions (hp) (Entered: 03/09/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
65 03/05/2004 SECOND MOTION by plaintiff for sanctions (Attachments); Notice (hp) (Entered: 03/11/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
61 02/17/2004 MINUTE ORDER of 2/17/04 by Honorable Michael T. Mason : Status hearing held and continued to 03/09/04 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is granted in part and denied in part. [59-1] Plaintiff’s request for an order dismissing the defendants’ affirmative defenses and counterclaims is denied. Defendants to respond to outstanding written discovery regarding the breach of contract claims by 02/24/04. Defendants to respond to outstanding written discovery regarding the fraudulent transfer claims by 03/08/04. Plaintiff’s request for attorneys fees incurred in bringing the motion for sanctions is granted. Fact discovery to close on 05/07/04. Expert discovery to close on 06/21/04. Dispositive motions to be filed by 07/21/04. No further extensions. Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
60 02/13/2004 ADDENDUM by plaintiff to their motion for sanctions (Attachments) [59-1]; Notice (hp) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
59 02/12/2004 MOTION by plaintiff for sanctions against defendants for failure to comply with discovery (Attachments); Notice (hp) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al 1:02-cv-07446
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.
-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 desciibed 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.
Posted by: Jay Drai | Aug 22, 2007 8:52:03 PM
Response to Multiut - Nachshon Draiman rebuttal about his fraud – rev1.
Nachshon Draiman - Multiut Corp. Fraud
You will note that State and Federal Court records in Illinois and elsewhere are replete with lawsuits, judgments and wrongdoing by Nachshon Draiman and his companies. Causing the death of patients in the Nursing homes and a lawsuit by the State of Illinois with civil and criminal conviction People v. Gurell, Nachshon Draiman (1983), 98 Ill.2d 194, 207, 74 Ill.Dec. 516, 456 N.E.2d 18.). Abusing nursing home patients see State of Illinois records.
Multiut Corp and Nachshon Draiman dba Future Associate of Skokie, IL. Are withholding evidence of fraudulent activities in the Energy industry estimated $10 million and inflated Medicaid billing to the government for Nursing Home patients estimated $20 million. Also Bank fraud against their bank by presenting fraudulent and inflated receivable reports in order to get and keep a credit line, Nachshon Draiman was a large stock holder of the bank. Draiman Nachshon • SC 13G • Success Bancshares Inc • On 2/17/98
Filed On 2/17/98 • SEC File 5-53545 • Accession Number 950137-98-586
Just because he was able to cheat the system with political contributions and expired statute of limitations does not make him any less guilty.
Everything stated previously by me against Nachshon Draiman, Multiut, Future Associates and his Nursing Homes can be very easily verified.
State and Federal Court documents confirm the frauds and more.
Where there is smoke - there is fire.
Several courts and administrative bodies have found Nachshon Draiman culpable in providing fraudulent documents and the intentional abuse and negligence of Nursing Homes patients in Illinois – in every case Nachshon tried to blame others for his misdeeds. See People of the State of Illinois vs. Gurell, Nachshon Draiman et al – 456 N.E.2d 18 there has been numerous patient abuse and deaths due to that abuse. In 127 Ill.App.3d 1165, 483 N.E.2d 731, 91 Ill.Dec. 385 Sonnenberg v. Mill View Associates, Nachshon Draiman where millions of dollars had to be paid as damages for abuse and death of a patient, not to mention numerous patients who died falling down an elevator shaft.
Nachshon Draiman former partner from Lydia Healthcare (in Robbins, IL.)Arnold Simensen will testify that Nachshon has been breaking and entering and stealing his personal financial records which is recorded on video tape. Nachshon therefore lost his ownership interest in that home. Numerous Nursing Homes operated by Nachshon Draiman have been closed down by the State due to abuse and deaths of patients – Numerous judgments are entered against Nachshon Draiman’s entities for overcharges $10 million. Not to mention the over 20 litigations that are currently pending. (Such as Dynegy v Nachshon Draiman w 6 contempt of court orders $22 million – Multiut, Israel Discount Bank vs. Nachshon Draiman $45 million, State Financial Bank vs. Nachshon Draiman and others). Inflated gas bill to his own nursing home and his friends and associates in order to increase the expenses and bill Medicaid fraudulently.
Defrauded and took about $8 million dollars plus from his nursing home partners in Burnham Healthcare.
Not to mentioned that he is represented by a Law Firm with attorneys who pleaded guilty to criminal conduct with Jack Abramoff as one of the partners – to say the least and has numerous ethical and criminal transgressions (Greenberg Traurig).
PS – THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
States: “All men are created equal” I state (except those with money, power and influence – who are more equal than others)
NEWSMEAT - NACHSHON DRAIMAN's federal campaign contribution search ...NACHSHON DRAIMAN » IL » 60077 ... Receive an alert every time new records are added to this search for NACHSHON DRAIMAN. Your Email ...
Political Campaign Contributors415777. Paulette Dragul ... Contribution Count/Amount - 1 / $2000 415778. Nachshon Draiman ... Contribution
Count/Amount - 2 / $2000 415779. ...
Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al 1:02-cv-07446.
Court: United States District Court Northern District of Illinois -
Case Title: Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al
Case Number: 1:02-cv-07446
Judge: Hon. John A. Nordberg
Filed On: 10/16/2002
128 01/10/2005 MINUTE ORDER of 1/10/05 by Honorable Michael T. Mason : As stated on the reverse of this order, plaintiff's motion to compel financial documents [124-1] and for sanctions is granted in part and denied in part. [124-2] Defendant's request for reconsideration is denied. (See reverse of minute order.) Notices mailed by judge's staff (hp) (Entered: 01/10/2005)
Multiut Nachshon Draiman lawsuits
2001-CH-19688
GORE JACK MULTIUT CORPORATION 11/20/2001
2002-CH-21586
KSJ CORPORATION TAM FITNESS TENNIS CLUB/ Nachshon Draiman 12/02/2002
2007-L-006471
MADDY MELISSA ADAIR THOMAS, Nachshon Draiman 06/22/2007
2006-L-005786
COWANS ISABELLE BURNHAM HEALTHCARE PROPER, Nachshon Draiman 06/02/2006
2004-L-013384
FEDDELER VIRGINIA PETERSON PARK HEALTH CARE, Nachshon Draiman 11/29/2004
2004-L-008129
STATE FINANCIAL BANK EMBASSY CARE ASSOCIATES, Nachshon Draiman 07/20/2004
2004-L-000663
ISRAEL DISCOUNT BANK LTD DRAIMAN NACHSHON Z 01/20/2004
2006-M1-129654
WEIS DUBROCK DOODY DRAIMAN NACHSHON 04/19/2006
1987-M1-168987
ILLINOIS PUBLIC AI DRAIMAN NACHSON D 09/09/1987
Case Number Plaintiff Defendant Date Filed
2004-M2-001804
LUBIN ROBERT MULTIUT CORPORATIO 08/02/2004
2004-M1-134094
MCCLURE WILLIAM MULTIUT 06/02/2004
1999-M2-000227
RABIN SCOTT R MULTIUT CORP 01/28/1999
Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al 1:02-cv-07446.
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.
-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 desciibed 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.
Ken Ditkowsky
wrote on May 16, 2007 9:52 AM:
' Read your story with interest. In my opinion we apparently have not learned from the Resko transactions. While Government cannot plan and execute a 'one car funeral' it should not delegate its responsibilites 'helter skelter.' The Illinois Court records are replete with information concerning the people involved in the transaction. '
Jerald Dims
wrote on May 16, 2007 8:52 AM:
' See Illinois Court documents federal and state regarding Nachshon Draiman, Future associates, Multiut corp. being involved in fraudulent actions and inflated billing, defrauding partners of $8 million dollars, fraudulent documents to the illinois department of Registration to obtain a Nursing Home License, defrauding the banks in Israel - currently pending a lawsuit and a criminal investigation 02c7446 '
This is just a small sample of the various actions and criminal and fraudulent acts by Nachshon Draiman and his alter ego companies.
Yehuda Draiman 8/15/2007
פרקי מלון פנינת דן בירושלים: לחייב את היזמים ב-20 מיליון שקל
טוענים כי יזמי הקמת המלון, נחשון ואליצור דריימן, ביצעו פעולות לא חוקיות שהביאו את המלון לחוב של כ-45 מיליון דולר, רובו לדיסקונט
שמואל דקלו
16:18 15/1/07
המפרקים של מלון פנינת דן שבירושלים דורשים בבית המשפט המחוזי בירושלים לחייב את יזמי הקמת המלון בפיצוי של למעלה מ-20 מיליון שקלים. בתביעה שהגישו המפרקים, עוה"ד יאיר גרין ירון פיינשטיין וניצן שמואלי, הם טוענים כי יזמי הקמת המלון, האחים נחשון ואליצור דריימן, ביצעו פעולות לא חוקיות שהביאו את המלון לחוב של כ-45 מיליון דולר, רובו לבנק דיסקונט
( 904 -0.66% )
.
המפרקים טוענים כי הם מצויים בהליכי מכירת הנכס, כאשר התשלום המבוקש הוא כ-20 מיליון דולר, ולאחר המכירה יגיע סכום החובות לכ-25 מיליון דולר.
את
מודעה
ההפרש הם מבקשים מהאחים דריימן, שהקימו את המלון באמצעות חברת חוץ שהתאגדה באלינוי.
המלון, שבו 88 חדרים ו-22 סוויטות, הופעל על ידי רשת מלונות דן, ולטענת המפרקים בעלי המלון לשעבר חייבים לרשת כ-900 אלף שקל.
לדבריהם, האחים דריימן ביצעו העברות פיקטיביות בין חשבונות; נתנו בטוחות באמצעות צ'קים שאת החשבון ממנו נמשך אחד הצ'קים סגרו; הציגו מצגי שווא בדבר סכום ההשקעה במלון; העבירו כספים לחו"ל מכספי החברה ללא הסבר וניפחו את סכום בניית המלון (כ-2,500 דולר למטר) בסכומים העולים פי כמה על הערכות הסבירות של בניית המלון.
עוד נטען, כי הם הציגו מצג מטעה כלפי מרכז ההשקעות על מנת להשיג הלוואות בערבות מדינה ומענקים. (פש"ר 119/99
Posted by: Jay Drai | Aug 28, 2007 8:09:15 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT - CHANCERY DIVISION
FILED
JACK GORE on behalf of himself and all ) NOV 28, 2002
other persons or entitles similarly situated, |
•
vs. No. 01 CH 19688
DOROTHY 8ROWN CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT
MULTIUT CORP, an Illinois corporation, } Judge Stephen A, Schiller
Defendant ) Courtroom 2402
RESPONSE TO §2-619.1 MOTION TO DISMISS J/
Plaintiff JACK GORE (“Gore”). by his attorneys LARRY D DRURY LTD., hereby responds to the Motion to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-615 and 619, brought as a combined 2-619.1 motion by defendant MULTIUT CORP. (“Multiut”).
Introduction
Multiut is trying to time-bar this case by transforming express a written agency-service contract drafted by Multiut into a contract for sale of goods, and by disputing Gore's allegations as to concealment and discovery of the wrong – but without submitting any Rule 191 affidavit or documentation. This is a class action arising out
of a written contract drafted by Multiut, attached here and to the 2nd Amended Complaint as Exhibit A and B collectively referred to herein as the "contract" or "agreement “ unless otherwise indicated by context): (1)
(A) A service contract to act as Gore's "purchasing representatives" in obtaining natural gas from “off system" suppliers. This contract, entered into on or about December 1990, was titled “Agreement," Exh. A 1, 3-6, 10. And,
{B} A series of supplemental agency contracts to act as Gore’s agent, in so doing with respect to various Properties. These were entered into contemporaneously with the service contract and thereafter, and titled "Natural Gas Purchasing and Agency Agreement.” Exh.-B. (2)
(1) Similarly Multiut refers to them collectively as “the agreement” in its brief (Mem. p. 2, fn. 1). Although the documents are on separately filed pages, they are mutually inclusive and one could not be entered into without the other; e.g. the service contract refers to and incorporates the agency contracts, wherein Multiut refers to itself as Gore's 'exclusive natural gas purchasing agent'. See Exh. A, third introductory paragraph and 16-17; Exh. B 1,
(2) Exh. 8 one of the series, is dated 1998, Exh. C is Gore’s §2-806 affidavit as to the others. Gore has stated he does not have a copy of each, they are inaccessible to him i.e. no longer in his possession, whether missplaced or otherwise, and cannot be located or returned. 2nd Amd.. Compl. {4; Exh, C, in the 1st Amd. Complaint, Count 4 for breach of oral contract was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after Gore's deposition of May 8,- 2002, when the service contract and the 1998 agency contract were produced by Multiut and adequately established, Exhs, A-B are the same Exhs. 1-2 attached to the Gore transcript, excerpts of which are attached herein as Exh. D, Similarly the missing agency agreements are likely in Multiut’s possession and will be produced in discovery.
The contract was drafted by Multiut, it unequivocally defines Multiut's role in the transactions, and shows that this case is not governed by the UCC. What is at issue here is not the "good" that Multiut obtained for Gore, but the service Multiut provided as his purchasing agent. Gore is suing upon the service and agency contract – not the natural gas - and has alleged that Multiut breached its duties in two respects;
{1} By falsely and intentionally charging and retaining for its own use funds that were to be applied to a City of Chicago 8% gross receipts tax (“Tax”), which it had promised would be placed in escrow and forwarded to the City. Between December 1990 and January 1995 (after the City of Chicago changed the Tax), Multiut collected approximately $14,000 from Gore and at least $1 million to $1.5 million from the Class, for this Tax that was not actually imposed upon Multiut. 2nd Amd. Compl. 7-9, '3! Multiut not only failed to inform Plaintiff and
the Class that the money collected was not so applied or escrowed, but also failed to escrow, account for, and refund the funds with interest.
(2) By overcharging for the service of providing natural gas. Multiut was to charge for natural gas actually supplied to Gore and the Class on a set per therm cost basis, plus an amount equal to 1/2 of their respective per therm cost savings per month, instead, Multiut overcharged and billed Gore at least $100.000 and the class millions of dollars and refuses to provide an accounting and refund with interest. Id. 10-11.
Gore has further alleged that Multiut prevented him from discovering the wrongs by intentionally concealing them until at least December 2000, when he discovered the truth and could not reasonably have done so earlier. (Gore testified at his deposition on May 8, 2002 that he first discovered the discrepancies in his bills, the overcharges, the taxes, and failure to escrow the taxes, in December 2000. See Exh, D, pp. 25-28,) Thereafter he was unable to obtain any refund and based thereon, terminated Multiut’s services on or about June 2001, However, the wrongful acts are continuing to date, in that Multiut continues to 'refuse to provide an accounting and refund with interest to Gore and the Class, all to their detriment and damage. They seek imposition of constructive trust (id. 22), an accounting and damages in not less than the foregoing amounts plus interest (id, 9-13, 23).
Gore filed the original Class Action Complaint on Nov. 20, 2001, and in lieu of responding to a motion to dismiss, filed the 1st Amended Class Action Complaint Feb. 14, 2002, setting forth 4 counts for (1) breach of
3-: The City did not and will not collect the 8% Tax, presumably because of U.S. constitutional restrictions as to the interstate commerce clause and exceptions for interstate pipelines and out-of-state suppliers. As a result in 1994 the City changed the tax from an 8% gross receipts tax to a flat rate tax of 1.4 to 1.5 cents per therm. 2nd Amd. Comp. P 8. in Multiut’s response to First Request to Admit {attached hereto as Exh. F), it has admitted the following statements about this Tax; (8) that Multiut collected approximately $14,000 in Tax from Gore between 1991-1994; and (9) that Multiut spent its customers Tax payments on business expenses.. Yehuda Draiman testified to the same effect in his deposition 1-10-02 See transcript excerpts attached hereto as Exh. E, at pp, 36-37,40, 68, and Exh, 6 thereto.
Activity Date: 8/15/2007 Participant: GORE JACK
CASE SET ON STATUS CALL
Court Date: 8/29/2007
Court Time: 0930
Court Room: 2402
Judge: BRONSTEIN, PHILIP L.
Posted by: Jay Drai | Aug 31, 2007 9:34:36 AM
MULTIUT OWNED BY NACHSHON DRAIMAN, Energy Fraud charges
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COCK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT CHANCERY DIVISION Case No. 01 CH 19688
JACK GORE, on behalf of himself And all other persons or entities similarly situated,
Plaintiff
FILED
MULTIUT CORPSORATION, an Illinois
Corporation,
Defendant,
FEB. 14, 2002
DOROTHY BROWN
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
FIRST AMENDED
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
NOW COMES Plaintiff, JACK GORE, ("GORE"), on behalf of himself and all other persons or entities similarly situated, by and through his attorneys, LARRY D DRURY LTD. And complaining against the defendant, MULTIUT CORPORATION (“MULTIUT”), states as follows;
COUNT I
BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT
1. Plaintiff is a resident of Lake County, State of Illinois, and owns numerous buildings throughout Cook County, Illinois, which use natural gas as part of their daily operations.
2. Defendant, Multiut, is a a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois, does business in the State of Illinois, is believed to use interstate pipelines and acquire natural gas from outside Illinois, from suppliers such as Dynegy Corporation, to supply said gas to the Plaintiff and the Class within Illinois including, but not limited to Cook County, Illinois. .
3. that on or about January, 1989, Plaintiff entered into a written contract with the Defendant, which was provided to plaintiff for signing by Yehuda Draiman, Multiut’s employee/agent, to purchase natural gas from the Defendant to be Supplied to the Plaintiff’s buildings in Cook County, Illinois. A signed copy of said contract is not available however, a copy of Multiut’s form "Agreement," believed to be the same as the contract signed by the plaintiff, is attached hereto as Plaintiff Exhibit A.
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid contract, the Plaintiff paid
the Defendant for natural gas from on or about January, 1989 to
the present, and from March 1, 1991 to on or about March 1, 1994,
said payment included an eight percent (8%) City of Chicago gross
receipts tax per the municipal code of Chicago ILCS Ch. 132,
Sen. 3, totaling approximately Fourteen Thousand Dollars ($14,000).
Pursuant to Exhibit: A, paragraph 5, the Defendant was
not to impose the eight percent (8%) City of Chicago gross
receipts tax on the Plaintiff and the Class unless said tax was
imposed upon the Defendant by the City of Chicago, which it was
not.
5. The City of Chicago did not and on information and belief, will not collect the aforesaid eight percent (8%) tax
5
paid by the Plaintiff and the Class to the Defendant, presumably because of United States constitutional restrictions with respect to the interstate pipeline clause and exemptions for interstate pipelines and out-of-state suppliers. As a result thereof, the City of Chicago changed the tax in 1994 from an eight percent (8%) of gross receipt tax to a flat rate tax of 1.4 - 1.5 cents per therm. Prior to January, 1995, the Defendant collected at least $1,000,000 to $1,500,000 of the eight percent (8%) tax from the Plaintiff and the class, and rather than refunding said tax, with interest, to the Plaintiff and the class or placing the taxes in an escrow fund, which should be so ordered by this court, the Defendant commingled the taxes with its general checking account(s) and held, spent, misappropriated , and/or disbursed said taxes on its own behalf to the detriment and damage of the Plaintiff and the Class.
6. The Defendant breached its contract with the Plaintiff and the Class in that the taxes were not paid to the City of Chicago, but were held, spent, misappropriated, and/or disbursed by the Defendant on its own behalf. Further, the Defendant breached the contract with the Plaintiff and the Class when, in fact, the Defendant was not assessed or charged said tax by the City of Chicago.
7. Plaintiff and- the Class have paid the Defendant the eight percent (8%) City of Chicago tax which has not been paid to
the City and although often demanded, the Defendant refuses to refund said taxes, plus interest, to the Plaintiff and the Class, all to their damage and detriment.
8. Pursuant to paragraphs 3 and 4 of Exhibit A attached hereto, the Defendant was to charge the Plaintiff and the Class for natural gas actually supplied to said persons and entities on a set per therm cost basis, and in addition thereto, charge the Plaintiff and the class an amount equal to one-half {1/2) of their per therm cost savings per month.
9. in fact, the Defendant did not charge the Plaintiff and
the Class as set forth in paragraph 8 above and, in breach
thereof, excessively overcharged the Plaintiff and the Class
millions of dollars for the purchase of natural gas from the
Defendant, and refuses to refund said overcharges, with interest,
to the Plaintiff and the class, all to their detriment and
damage. .
I0. Defendant's aforesaid conduct is continuing and Defendant's records and documents are voluminous and Plaintiff fears that unless enjoined, Defendant may destroy same. Defendant should account for the Plaintiff’s and the Class' overcharges and eight percent (8%) tax money, with interest, and determine the rights of the parties with respect thereto..
RE: MULTIUT CORP. FORMER CUSTOMERS!
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT YOU ARE PROBABLY DUE A REFUND PLUS INTEREST FOR SALES TAX ON NATURAL GAS WHICH WAS COLLECTED FROM YOU AND WITHHELD BY MULTIUT CORP. TEL # 847-982-0030 at 7514 N. Skokie Bl. Skokie, Illinois.
MULTIUT IS HOLDING APPROXIMATELY OVER ONE MILLION DOLLARS THAT MAY BELONG TO CUSTOMERS.
MULTIUT HAS OVERBILLED CUSTOMERS ON SHARED SAVINGS FOR THE PAST 14 YEARS.
THERE IS CURRENTLY A CLASS ACTION SUIT AGAINST MULTIUT.
I STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT YOU HAVE ALL YOUR BILLS THAT WERE ISSUED BY MULTIUT CORP. AUDITED THOROUGHLY THERE MAY BE STORAGE CREDITS DUE YOU AND ERRORS IN BILLING WHICH CREDITS MAY BE DUE YOU.
Multiut has admitted in Court that they are holding the money.
Gore vs Multiut 01 CH 19688 Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
From a concerned Citizen
For honesty in billing.
Posted by: Jay Drai | August 30, 2007 at 10:29 AM
Posted by: Jay Drai | Sep 17, 2007 8:55:50 AM
IDB vs Nachshon Draiman - 2007 Israel Discount Bank Fraud Lawsuit $45 million – filed Jan. 2007 in Jerusalem, Israel. from Globes Financial, in Israel
The charges are that the developers of the hotel Nachshon and Elitzur Draiman committed illegal acts that brought the debt of the hotel to be about $45 million dollars, most of it to Israel Discount Bank (The hotel Jerusalem Pearl is located outside the Jaffa Gate - the old city of Jerusalem)
The court appointed trustees of the Jerusalem Pearl Hotel claim in the municipal court in Jerusalem, to charge the developers in damages of over $20 million dollars - according to the lawsuit filed by the court appointed trustees, the lawyers Yair Green, Yaron Feinshtein and Nitzan Shemueli, claim that the developers of the hotel, the brothers Nachshon Draiman and Elitzur Draiman, committed illegal acts that brought the debt of the hotel to over $45 million dollars, most of it to Israel Discount Bank.
The trustees claim that they are in the process of selling the property, at the asking price of $20 million dollars, and after the sale there will be a debt of about $25 million dollars.
The difference of about $25 million dollars they hold against the brothers Nachshon Draiman and Elitzur Draiman, they developed the hotel with a foreign company that is incorporated in Illinois. (Jerusalem Enterprises)
The Hotel which has 88 rooms and 22 suites, was operated by the Dan Hotels chain, and according to the trustees, the previous owners Nachshon Draiman and Elitzur Draiman owe the Dan Hotel Chain about $250,000.
According to them Nachshon Draiman and Elitzur Draiman committed transfers of funds between various accounts, gave various guarantees in a form of checks that one of the accounts the check was drawn on was closed, presented exhibits and fictitious and false documents as to substantiate their investment in the hotel - which is false and fraud, transferred funds overseas from the funds belonging to the hotel project without explanation or reasoning and inflated the amount of cost of construction (about $2,500 per square meter) amounts that are way greater than any reasonable estimates that would cost to build the hotel.
Additional claim is that Nachshon Draiman and Elitzur Draiman presented false and deceptive documentation to the Israeli government division of development and investment, in order to obtain loans with government guarantees and government grants. (January 15, 2007)
Possible criminal charges may be initiated.
For More Information See: www.antidefamationusa.com or www.antidefamation.us
פרקי מלון פנינת דן בירושלים: לחייב את היזמים ב-20 מיליון שקל
טוענים כי יזמי הקמת המלון, נחשון ואליצור דריימן, ביצעו פעולות לא חוקיות שהביאו את המלון לחוב של כ-45 מיליון דולר, רובו לדיסקונט
שמואל דקלו
16:18 15/1/07
המפרקים של מלון פנינת דן שבירושלים דורשים בבית המשפט המחוזי בירושלים לחייב את יזמי הקמת המלון בפיצוי של למעלה מ-20 מיליון שקלים. בתביעה שהגישו המפרקים, עוה"ד יאיר גרין ירון פיינשטיין וניצן שמואלי, הם טוענים כי יזמי הקמת המלון, האחים נחשון ואליצור דריימן, ביצעו פעולות לא חוקיות שהביאו את המלון לחוב של כ-45 מיליון דולר, רובו לבנק דיסקונט
( 904 -0.66% )
.
המפרקים טוענים כי הם מצויים בהליכי מכירת הנכס, כאשר התשלום המבוקש הוא כ-20 מיליון דולר, ולאחר המכירה יגיע סכום החובות לכ-25 מיליון דולר.
את
מודעה
ההפרש הם מבקשים מהאחים דריימן, שהקימו את המלון באמצעות חברת חוץ שהתאגדה באלינוי.
המלון, שבו 88 חדרים ו-22 סוויטות, הופעל על ידי רשת מלונות דן, ולטענת המפרקים בעלי המלון לשעבר חייבים לרשת כ-900 אלף שקל.
לדבריהם, האחים דריימן ביצעו העברות פיקטיביות בין חשבונות; נתנו בטוחות באמצעות צ'קים שאת החשבון ממנו נמשך אחד הצ'קים סגרו; הציגו מצגי שווא בדבר סכום ההשקעה במלון; העבירו כספים לחו"ל מכספי החברה ללא הסבר וניפחו את סכום בניית המלון (כ-2,500 דולר למטר) בסכומים העולים פי כמה על הערכות הסבירות של בניית המלון.
עוד נטען, כי הם הציגו מצג מטעה כלפי מרכז ההשקעות על מנת להשיג הלוואות בערבות מדינה ומענקי
Posted by: Multiut President | Sep 26, 2007 6:44:37 AM
Jay Drai..AKA Yehuda JAY Draiman..THE REAL FRAUD..and ADJUDICATED FACTS...His claims are malicious, false, meritless,misrepresentations of the REAL FACTS and contrived. These baseless accusations are the fabrications of a disgruntled former employee, Yehuda "Jay" Draiman, a CONVICTED FELON who has been FOUND GUILTY of charges leading to millions of dollars in judgments by the Illinois and federal court system.
Left with no legal or rational alternative, "Jay" has resorted to conjuring up false stories and contrived meritless accusations on the internet and public forums, to attempt to smear his former employee.
These facts can be verified by court records available from a Google search for "Multiut v. Yehuda".
Yehuda Jay Draiman is a former employee who was terminated in 2001 from Multiut Corporation when he was discovered 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 addition to several findings of contempt, by the Cook County Circuit Court & upheld by the Appellate court (ruling 1-03-0857).
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2005/1stDistrict/July/Html/1030857.htm
Federal courts have also entered subsequent judgments against Yehuda and his wife Miriam for committing false bankruptcy filings in yet another attempt to defame his former employer. Federal courts declared the judgments to be non-dischargeable due to the fraud involved by Yehuda Draiman, for abusing the court system in a manner similar to the way he now attempts to abuse the internet. These FACTS can be verified by federal court records available from a Google search for "Doyle Draiman".
http://www.ilnb.uscourts.gov/JudgeDoyle/Opinions/Draiman_Yehuda.pdf
Public documents verify that 'Jay' was also CONVICTED OF 10 COUNTS of wire and mail FRAUD during the 1980's. Nachshon, Yehuda’s brother, originally provided Yehuda with a job in the Multiut company subsequent to general assistance he provided to help Yehuda and his family following Yehuda‘s first stint of a FOUR YEARS sentence to the FEDRAL PENITENTIARY for that conviction in the 80's. See United States v. Draiman, 784 F.2d 248 (7th Cir. 1986)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/023922p.pdf
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. The report cites testimony from a resident stating that Yehuda offered to return her money if she took a ride with him to his “bank”, and instead LEFT HER STRANDED in a deserted cornfield in the DEAD OF WINTER in 8 degree weather. Only by luck was she spotted by a passerby who reported the incident to the MCHENRY COUNTY SHERIFF'S Department. When the sheriff’s office interviewed Yehuda, he claimed “when they got out into the country she asked to be let out. He let her out and drove back to Chicago…and found her purse in the back seat.” In these instances, as well as the recent litigation, Yehuda Jay Draiman's tactic has been to invent illegalities to accuse his victims of, in order to shift the focus of attention away from him.
http://multiut.com/responses_to_YJD /IL_Assembly_Report_04_75.pdf
The current posting is just another example of Yehuda Jay Draiman's tactics.
For more information about defamation attempts by Yehuda Jay Draiman, see www.Illinoisantidefamation.com or www.IllinoisDefamationProtection.com
Posted by: Jay Drai | Oct 6, 2007 9:55:59 PM
Nachshon Draiman Conviction for the death of a patient and abuse in his Mill View nursing homes in Niles, Illinois. R1
Nachshon Draiman - Multiut Corp. – Future Associates Fraud
You will note that State and Federal Court records in Illinois and elsewhere are replete with lawsuits, judgments and wrongdoing by Nachshon Draiman and his companies. Causing the death of patients in the Nursing homes and a lawsuit by the State of Illinois with civil and criminal conviction People v. Gurell, Nachshon Draiman (1983), 98 Ill.2d 194, 207, 74 Ill.Dec. 516, 456 N.E.2d 18.). Abusing nursing home patients see State of Illinois records.
See People of the State of Illinois vs. Gurell, Nachshon Draiman et al – 456 N.E.2d 18 there has been numerous patient abuse and deaths due to that abuse. In 127 Ill.App.3d 1165, 483 N.E.2d 731, 91 Ill.Dec. 385 Sonnenberg v. Mill View Associates, Nachshon Draiman where millions of dollars had to be paid as damages for abuse and death of a patient, not to mention numerous patients who died falling down an elevator shaft.
Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian W. Ellis Claims he has DNA forensic evidence that Nachshon Draiman - Multiut forged and modified documents presented to the Court in his lawsuit against his brother Yehuda J. Draiman
The Supposed 1991 IMA Agreement Put Into Evidence by Multiut – Nachshon Draiman Is a Fraud
The evidence overwhelmingly favors Yehuda Draimans' account of events. There are at least eight separate, independent indicators that Nachshon Draiman deceptively modified an IMA Agreement that Yehuda received and signed in 1989, added terms to which Yehuda never agreed, including the incorporation of an unsigned Employee Confidentiality Agreement, and inserted a false date of execution to create the document introduced as Plaintiff's Exhibit 10. First, Defendants' expert forensic ink analyst, Erich Speckin, testified that he found manufacturer date tags in the ink for the disputed writings on Plaintiff's Exhibit 10, and that the sequence of those date tags establishes without question that the ink was manufactured in 1993, two years after Nachshon Draiman said he made the writings. (8/14/02 Tr., at 2214-25) That testimony is undisputed.
It is a known fact that justice in Chicago can be swayed in your favor with proper incentives. The trial judge left the bench after this case when the court ignored overwhelming evidence against Multiut and Nachshon Draiman and other cases were investigated by the government.
Nachshon Draiman’s intimidation of witnesses, blackmail and other scare tactics will not work.
Nachshon Draiman defrauds Israel Discount Bank in Hotel financing to the tune of $45 million dollars.
Utilizing modified and fabricated sales contract of units in the Jerusalem Pearl purchased and totally paid for by 1. Nachshon Draiman, 2. Elitzur Draiman, 3. Irwin Katz a former Federal Judge and part owner of Multiut, 4. Barry Ray, 5. Danny Shabat, 6. Gershon Bassman, 7. Dr. Sam Lipschitz, 8. It seems presenting false and deceptive documents is a way of life for Nachshon Draiman
Nachshon Draiman presented a forged College Diploma to the Illinois Department of Registration in order to receive his Nursing Home Administrator’s license No. 44001323.
For More Information See: www.antidefamationusa.com.
Posted by: JaJy Draiman, Energy Analyst | Dec 16, 2007 11:51:29 PM
Selling Renewable Energy (Solar Etc.) Without Incentives
In short, we need to market solar as an investment that will save money while you own it and return most or all of your investment when you sell the building it's sitting on.
Chances are, as natural gas and oil prices go up, there will be a corresponding jump in your monthly electricity bill. So, instead of promoting a solar power system based on today's savings in electricity, we need to have easily understandable projections on what the savings will be over the life of a system. These numbers need to reflect what's really happening to the cost of energy!
Here are some ideas I'd like to share. First, we need to find a way to make renewable energy economically competitive without the tax incentives. We do this by answering the question: "What is the opportunity cost of not using solar to decrease your energy bill?"
There's something interesting I've found. There's a direct correlation among electrical rates, the cost of air conditioning a building, the heat index and the amount of sunshine on any given day. In other words, on the hottest, sunniest days, we use more electricity that costs more per kilowatt. So, why do we continue to promote average hours of solar production, when in fact (at least down here in California), we produce far more solar power per day during the heat of the summer when energy costs are highest, than we do in our temperate winter months when energy costs are lowest. A sound marketing approach would be to evaluate solar energy in "dollars" of production per year instead of in kilowatts. I'm sure there are some smart people out there who can match kilowatts of solar production on any given day of the year to what the rates will be (based on the projected costs of electricity).
Secondly, we should stop trying to sell a solar package as a "cost." In real estate, there is a principle that says anything affixed to real estate becomes an integral part of the real estate. Once a solar package is installed, it immediately increases the value of a property. So how can you predict how much more a building will be worth in 5-10 years with a package as opposed to without one? In the real estate appraisal business, there are three approaches to appraising a property. The market approach (what are comparable properties selling for), the reproduction cost (the cost of creating an identical building at current construction and material prices) and the actual original cost adjusted for inflation. In all three methods, there's a strong case that a system installed today will make the building worth more today and in future years.
We need some realistic numbers to predict how much more a property will be worth in the years following installation. I believe that if you sell a building 5-10 years after installing solar, you should recoup all of your investment in the system plus an added bonus. If the rumors are true, a residential system (using the market approach) adds $20 of value to a home for every $1 it saves on the electric bill.
For commercial appraisals, you would divide the income (savings) by a cap rate (which was about 9% at last report). A system that saves $2000 a year then would be worth $40,000 on a home or $25,000 on a business. But if the cost of electricity goes up (if that is remotely possible), then wouldn't the value of the solar power system increase as well? In reality, we are not selling something that costs — we are actually offering a financial investment that grows comparably with other forms of energy.
In short, we need to market solar as an investment that will save money while you own it and return most or all of your investment when you sell the building it's sitting on. In commercial real estate, they use a "Cash Flow Analysis" form as the tool to evaluate a building's value using the income approach. We need a similar tool for putting a value on solar. If solar makes sense with this approach, then just think of how much better the systems look when you add the tax advantages!
This approach also applies to the cost of Energy efficiency implementation.
Reducing operational costs increases the value of the business and or property.
Compiled by Jay Draiman, Energy analyst
12/1/2007
Posted by: Jay Draiman, Energy Analyst | Dec 16, 2007 11:52:50 PM
Selling Renewable Energy (Solar Etc.) Without Incentives
In short, we need to market solar as an investment that will save money while you own it and return most or all of your investment when you sell the building it's sitting on.
Chances are, as natural gas and oil prices go up, there will be a corresponding jump in your monthly electricity bill. So, instead of promoting a solar power system based on today's savings in electricity, we need to have easily understandable projections on what the savings will be over the life of a system. These numbers need to reflect what's really happening to the cost of energy!
Here are some ideas I'd like to share. First, we need to find a way to make renewable energy economically competitive without the tax incentives. We do this by answering the question: "What is the opportunity cost of not using solar to decrease your energy bill?"
There's something interesting I've found. There's a direct correlation among electrical rates, the cost of air conditioning a building, the heat index and the amount of sunshine on any given day. In other words, on the hottest, sunniest days, we use more electricity that costs more per kilowatt. So, why do we continue to promote average hours of solar production, when in fact (at least down here in California), we produce far more solar power per day during the heat of the summer when energy costs are highest, than we do in our temperate winter months when energy costs are lowest. A sound marketing approach would be to evaluate solar energy in "dollars" of production per year instead of in kilowatts. I'm sure there are some smart people out there who can match kilowatts of solar production on any given day of the year to what the rates will be (based on the projected costs of electricity).
Secondly, we should stop trying to sell a solar package as a "cost." In real estate, there is a principle that says anything affixed to real estate becomes an integral part of the real estate. Once a solar package is installed, it immediately increases the value of a property. So how can you predict how much more a building will be worth in 5-10 years with a package as opposed to without one? In the real estate appraisal business, there are three approaches to appraising a property. The market approach (what are comparable properties selling for), the reproduction cost (the cost of creating an identical building at current construction and material prices) and the actual original cost adjusted for inflation. In all three methods, there's a strong case that a system installed today will make the building worth more today and in future years.
We need some realistic numbers to predict how much more a property will be worth in the years following installation. I believe that if you sell a building 5-10 years after installing solar, you should recoup all of your investment in the system plus an added bonus. If the rumors are true, a residential system (using the market approach) adds $20 of value to a home for every $1 it saves on the electric bill.
For commercial appraisals, you would divide the income (savings) by a cap rate (which was about 9% at last report). A system that saves $2000 a year then would be worth $40,000 on a home or $25,000 on a business. But if the cost of electricity goes up (if that is remotely possible), then wouldn't the value of the solar power system increase as well? In reality, we are not selling something that costs — we are actually offering a financial investment that grows comparably with other forms of energy.
In short, we need to market solar as an investment that will save money while you own it and return most or all of your investment when you sell the building it's sitting on. In commercial real estate, they use a "Cash Flow Analysis" form as the tool to evaluate a building's value using the income approach. We need a similar tool for putting a value on solar. If solar makes sense with this approach, then just think of how much better the systems look when you add the tax advantages!
This approach also applies to the cost of Energy efficiency implementation.
Reducing operational costs increases the value of the business and or property.
Compiled by Jay Draiman, Energy analyst
12/1/2007
Posted by: Yehuda Draiman, Energy Analyst | Dec 26, 2007 7:07:29 AM
Effective ways to dispute utility bills cable/dish bills
On December 26th, 2007 Yehuda Draiman (not verified) says:
Effective ways to dispute utility bills cable/dish bills
Do not get intimidated by the Utility companies
Start with the source – your local service provider.
Find an advocate. CUB, BBB, Etc.
Try city, state, national and federal organizations.
Remember deregulated service providers are also required to follow local regulations.
Resolving billing issues
If you stay calm and collected you can effectively dispute utility bills, solve the problems and maybe recruit some free help along the way.
It is very common to find errors and various unknown or unauthorized charges on your telecom bill (Telephone, Cellular, Data-Internet Etc.). Review your bills monthly. (Telecom companies bill a month in advance).
Water and sewer bills should also be reviewed in detail, you may be able to reduce you sewer charge (especially if you are watering lawn, pool and pond) or if you have no meter, reduce the monthly charge based on size and consumption.
Many third party deregulated Gas and Electric suppliers who contend that they save you money, actually cost you more. Review the charges versus your local regulated utility company. Insist that they guarantee a lower price and savings over the local regulated gas or electric company. Verify the accuracy of the billing including quantity delivered (therms, KWH).
That king-sized electric bill or gas bill may be appropriate for a family of five, but no way is it right for just you and your spouse. (avoid estimated billing)
Or, maybe your cable/dish company is dunning you for a pay-per-view movie you never ordered.
Errors and overcharges occur from time to time on utility bills and cable/dish bills, and they're usually not in your favor. Sometimes, a quick call to the company can resolve the mishap simply. Other times, disputing a utility bill is not so easy.
Don't let a ridiculous charge send you into a fuming rage, venting your frustrations to the customer representative or screaming for a lawyer. Keep your cool and voice your complaint in detail.
Start with the source. (Your local service provider)
Prepare before you contact the company. Have your current bill, past bills and any canceled checks in front of you. Make sure you have your account numbers and passwords if there are any. Have a notepad and pen handy because you'll want to make notes throughout the conversation and also get information about the customer service representative.
Figure out by how much you want to get the bill reduced, but be realistic about what you would accept for a settlement. Then, contact the company when it's least busy. Friday mornings are good times to call. Avoid Mondays and the days after holidays, since those times are the busiest.
Create the mood. Firm and aggressive presentations work as long as they are not combative. Tell the customer representative you have a problem with the bill that both of you need to review.
When you talk with the customer representative do the following:
Write down the date and time you talked with the person.
Ask for the person's name, identification number and extension before you begin to discuss the bill.
Ask if there's a case number, and jot it down.
Go through the bill line by line to determine the cause of the problem.
Ask what the expected turnaround will be for the resolution.
Write down any price quotes and/or charge adjustments. Ask the customer representative to do the same in the company's computer database.
Call at a different time if you have problems with the representative. Speak to the manager if disagreements persist.
Follow up the call with a letter to the company. The information collected during the phone call should be included in the note. Make sure you sign it.
If all else fail, ask for a supervisor or executive appeals division.
If you are not satisfied. File a complaint with the Utility Commission in your State.
In order to win disputes with utility companies you must keep thorough documentation to prove your points.
Find an advocate.
Recruit support if your calls to the utility company are not sufficient.
You can locate your state's public utilities commission, which oversees utility companies, or get help through the National Association of State Utility Advocates, or NASUCA. This organization represents the interest of utility consumers before state and federal regulators in court. Also your state Citizens Utility Board.
"At the commission you can have an informal investigation and if you are not satisfied you can file a formal complaint," says Jay Draiman, a Utility bill auditor.
He explains that the commission informally investigates the dispute by contacting the company on your behalf. If the commission's answer is one that you don't like, you can file a formal complaint against the utility company. If the formal complaint doesn't make you happy, you can appeal the decision. At this point, he warns, courts of law, most likely a municipal court, are involved and a lawyer might be needed.
Some public service commissions address cable disputes. If not, Consumers for Cable Choice, a consumer advocacy group, says other alternatives exist.
"Most consumers don't know this, but they can call their local franchising cable board. That's the agency that has the ability and authority to adjudicate public complaints," says the auditor.
Not all municipalities or towns have a cable board. So, try calling the clerk of the county or clerk of the city in your area to find out who is responsible for cable complaints.
A visit to the attorney general's office may or may not help. The procedure for handling complaints varies with each office. Some offices, depending on the type of utility, might refer you to other state regulators, and others may attempt to mediate the dispute between you and the company themselves.
Try national and federal organizations.
Consumers can file a complaint with the Citizens Utility Board (which has attorneys on staff), Better Business Bureau, or BBB, a private nonprofit organization that monitors and reports marketplace activities to the public. The bureau sends the consumer's complaints to the company.
"If we have not heard from the company in 30 days, we close the case and suggest small claims court," says spokeswoman for BBB.
According to the BBB, it cannot force a reply from the company and it cannot administer sanctions. It can make a note of the company's unwillingness to respond in the company's reliability report that's provided to the public.
The U.S. government can tackle some of your problems.
Telecommunications issues can be handled by contacting the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC.
Posted by: Yehuda Draiman, Energy Analyst | Jan 16, 2008 1:44:24 AM
PAY AS YOU SAVE Energy conservation financing program
The program will allow participants to purchase and install energy efficient products
And equipment (or “measures”), with no up-front cost. These measures can include modifications to lighting, heating, cooling, other energy efficient electric, gas and non-electric equipment and systems. Major measures promoted: lighting, weatherization, water saving devices and clock thermostats in both electric and non-electrically heated homes and businesses. We should also accept a variety of measures (provided they pass the Program qualification. This can apply to any conservation method, renewable energy systems (solar, photovoltaic, geothermal, wind), electric, gas and water.
Primary goals should be lighting retrofits, motor retrofit, HVAC efficiency, insulation and attic fans, windows, energy efficient appliances, water conservation equipment and techniques, utilization of gray water, landscaping for energy conservation.
HOW DO WE PROPOSE TO FINANCE THE COSTS: There is no up-front cost to the participants? Instead, the utility pays all initial costs associated with the purchase and installation of approved measures. (We must keep the costs competitive and reasonable)
Then, an Energy Finance Charge (EFC) is calculated and added to the ember’s/customers monthly utility bill until all costs are repaid.
A fund will be set up and the payments will reimburse the fund monthly.
Calculating the Term: Financing charge amounts itemized on the monthly utility bill should be based on two thirds of the estimated savings that will come from the measures installed.
This way, the monthly charge should be designed to be less than the savings realized on each bill once the new measures are installed and implemented.
If customers wish to pay off their Financing charges balances quicker (which in some cases they do), up to one hundred percent (100%) of the savings can be used to form the basis of their monthly Finance charge amount.
Payments Linked to Meter (not customer): The payments are always linked to the service location, not to the customer. So if an Energy Financing Charge (EFC) participant moves or sells, the new owner continues making the payments for the duration of the payment term, unless the previous owner/tenant chooses to pay off the obligation before selling or moving.
Also, the payments include a small percentage risk mitigation adder (5%) to protect the utility from bad debt risks associated with some portion of participants’ failure to pay.
To protect the utilities and their broader membership/customer base against other potential risks, three key requirements are included in the EFC program for those that choose to participate:
• Maintenance: All measures must be maintained in place and in good working order during the entire repayment period – the utility will help arrange for repairs, but any associated costs will be added to the EFC on the utility bill, or will extend the payment term to ensure recovery of these additional charges.
• Disconnection: All payments must be made on time – EFC charges are treated like other charges on the utility bill that are subject to service disconnection for non-payment.
• Disclosure: If the home or business is sold or rented, disclosure of the remaining monthly EFC payment amounts must be made to the potential purchaser or tenant (since they will be taking over the remaining payment obligation), unless the current owner chooses to pay the balance off before the sale or rental.
This proposed program – managed efficiently, will advance and expedite our reduction in the use of energy and resources in an expedited manner and reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources.
It will also promote an economic boom in the geographical areas where such program is implemented.
Compiled by: Yehuda Draiman, Energy analyst – 1/1/2008
Posted by: Jay Draiman | May 18, 2008 10:05:03 AM
Nachshon Draiman, Chicago – nursing home administrator license (044001323) revoked and fined
Illinois Department of Financial and
Professional Regulation NEWS
IDFPR
Disciplinary Actions for January 2008 SPRINGFIELD
The Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR)
announced today that the Directors of the Division of Professional Regulation, Daniel E. Bluthardt, and Insurance, Michael T. McRaith, signed the following disciplinary orders in January. Orders for the Division of Banking were authorized by Director Jorge Solis.
NURSING HOME ADMINISTRATOR
Nachshon Draiman, Chicago – nursing home administrator license (044001323)
revoked and fined $2,000 for misrepresenting information in his application concerning postgraduate education degree, to obtain nursing home administrator licensure from the Department.
Posted by: Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant | May 28, 2008 11:20:58 PM
American economy in crises - a long time coming
When a country and its society import more than they export for over a quarter of a century, it is bound to erod the economy to its primate state.
We have only ourselves to blame, what goods and products are we exporting, what goods and services are produced in the USA, the answer is very little by comparison.
In the past 50 years as our population has increased, technology advanced, we have become a nation that consumes enormous amounts of resources, we shop for competitive prices. Corporate America is constantly looking to increase the bottom line.
Most of the goods for and by Americans and its companies are produced overseas and in the past decade with the advancement of telecommunications, many of the services sector are also imported.
The increased costs of energy over the past 10 years, has affected the economy to unimaginable comprehension.
This economic activity has eroded our economy to its core. It seems that the situation is getting worse every year. American debts are increasing beyond our wildest dreams, endangering the future economic vitality of our future generation.
I hope it is not too late for our society to recognize the graveness of our economic predicament and its resolve to take appropriate action to stem the tide of our economic downturn.
Americans are a nation of great technology and knowhow. We must utilize that technology and our resources to find new means to regain our economic independence.
We must face and implement fiscal responsibility, both by the government and the population with its infrastructure of corporate America.
It is no longer an option, it is a must if we as a nation want to survive and retain our way of life and economic vitality.
Inflation, recession and financial crises are here. Let us take the bull by the horn, initiate immediate actions to minimize and hopefully reverse our economic crises.
Jay Draiman, Northridge, CA.
PS
The US economy has enormous momentum. Metaphorically speaking, if someone turned off the locomotive that drives the US economy, the economy would go on for miles before anyone would likely notice something was wrong. But something has been wrong for many years. Is there really hope for the future? Maybe. But the terrible truth is that no one really knows. But if there is hope, we're already on the wrong track. And that has to change..
Posted by: Jay Draiman, Utility Auditor | Sep 7, 2008 9:16:27 PM
Unauthorized Charges on Your Local Phone - Utility Bill?
How to Find Them, Eliminate Them & Get Your Money Back!
If your business still gets its phone service through the old "AT&T and Verizon, etc" local phone company (as opposed to one of the newer competitive phone providers) then you need to double check your phone bill each and every month for charges you did not authorize. You may not know it but the local phone company allows other companies to bill you through your local phone bill. And while the local phone company allows other businesses to bill you through your local phone bill, the local phone company does not verify that the charges being billed to you by the other company are valid. When these unauthorized charges fraudulently appear on your phone bill it's called "cramming". Unfortunately you as the business owner or manager are the only one that can spot the unauthorized charges and if you don't comb over your bill every month to spot these unauthorized charges - you'll pay for them.
Why does the local phone company allow other companies to pass charges onto your phone bill? "Third-party billing" is supposedly a great convenience in that you only have to pay one bill instead of separate bills for obvious authorized phone related charges like yellow-page advertising in the "real yellow pages", 411 information calls and long-distance calls from your chosen long distance carrier. Over the years though, some less-than-scrupulous companies have realized that most businesses rarely scrutinize their local-phone bills. To take advantage of this, these companies have come up with elaborate schemes to place
unauthorized charges on your phone bill that you'll end up paying for without even thinking. Unauthorized
charges you can end up paying for include charges for unwanted (and unused) email accounts, web sites,
directory information calls, directory advertising in obscure publications, voice mail accounts and other
services.
In theory, before these charges can be placed on your phone bill, the company that is originating the third-party billed charges is supposed to have a verification of the order like a voice recording. In reality though,
all the company needs to do to initiate the charge is submit your name and phone number to the billing
entity. The verifications are only required to be produced if a complaint is filed.
To prevent these charges from appearing on you business phone bill it's helpful to understand the four
parties that make unauthorized third party phone charges a costly reality. Party number one is any
employee who can answer your business phones. The unauthorized charge is rarely random and it usually
happens after one of your company employees gets a telemarketing call. Employees should be instructed to
document and report any overly aggressive telemarketing calls they receive. Party number two is the
telemarketing company that originates the unauthorized charges by trying to get your employee to accept
some service for which you'll be billed through your local phone bill. Party number three is the third-party
billing company that has billing agreements with your local phone company. The name of the third-party
billing is the one that is prominently displayed on your phone bill. After the third-party billing company's
name is the name of the company that is originating the unwanted charges. Party number four is your "former Ma Bell" local phone company that collects the unwanted charges (keeps a share for "Ma") and then passes the rest to the third-party billing company (who keeps a big share) and then passes the balance on to the company that initiated the unwanted charge.
Following are some of the top third-party billing names and unauthorized charge originators you'll find on
your phone bill. If you see these names on your phone bill you'll want to call the toll free number listed next to the charge to confirm it's a charge that's been properly authorized to be placed on your bill. Following are actual examples that we've recently found while auditing business phone bills.
We recommend customers should review any utility bills issued by deregulated utility companies. (In most instances today, consumers are paying higher charges to the deregulated gas and electric supply companies).
All Utility - Energy, gas, electric and water bills should be reviewed for proper reading and tariff.
If you suspect that you have been overcharged ask for detailed explanation and or file a complaint with your State Utility Commission.
Compiled by: Jay Draiman, Utility Auditor
Posted by: Jay Draiman | Sep 28, 2008 2:14:32 AM
Nachshon Draiman and Multiut charged $15 million judgment
Honorable John A. Nordberg: Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order.
For the reasons set forth above, defendants motion for summary judgment is granted, and judgment is granted to plaintiff, and against defendants Multiut and Nachshon Draiman
Case 1:02-cv-07446 Document 228 Filed 06/11/2008 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.2.1
Eastern Division
Dynegy Marketing and Trade
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 1:02−cv−07446
Hon. John A. Nordberg
Multiut Corporation, Nachshon Draiman, et al.
Defendant.
NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, June 11, 2008:
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John A. Nordberg:Enter Memorandum
Opinion and Order. For the reasons set forth above, defendants motion for summary judgment is granted, and judgment is granted to plaintiff, and against defendants Multiut and Nachshon Draiman, on Counts I and II of plaintiffs amended complaint, in the amount of
$15,348,244.72 plus interest accruing from October 1, 2004. Judgment is granted for plaintiff and against defendants on Counts I through VI of defendants
counterclaims.Status hearing set for 10/2/2008 at 2:30 PM. [183],[196]Mailed notice(tlp, )
ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please refer to it for additional information.
For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.
Posted by: Jay Draiman | Oct 2, 2008 8:32:59 AM
Nachshon Draiman and Multiut charged with a $15 million judgment for fraud
Honorable John A. Nordberg: Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order.
For the reasons set forth above, defendants motion for summary judgment is granted, and judgment is granted to plaintiff, and against defendants Multiut and Nachshon Draiman
Case 1:02-cv-07446 Document 228 Filed 06/11/2008 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.2.1
Eastern Division
Dynegy Marketing and Trade
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 1:02−cv−07446
Hon. John A. Nordberg
Multiut Corporation, Nachshon Draiman, Future Associates, et al.
Defendant.
NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, June 11, 2008:
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John A. Nordberg:Enter Memorandum
Opinion and Order. For the reasons set forth above, defendants motion for summary judgment is granted, and judgment is granted to plaintiff, and against defendants Multiut and Nachshon Draiman, on Counts I and II of plaintiffs amended complaint, in the amount of
$15,348,244.72 plus interest accruing from October 1, 2004. Judgment is granted for plaintiff and against defendants on Counts I through VI of defendants
counterclaims.Status hearing set for 10/2/2008 at 2:30 PM. [183],[196]Mailed notice(tlp, )
ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please refer to it for additional information.
For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted, and judgment is granted to plaintiff, and against defendants Multiut and Nachshon Draiman Draiman, on Counts I and II of plaintiff's amended complaint, in the amount of $15,348,244.72 plus interest accruing from October 1, 2004. Judgment is granted for plaintiff and against defendants on Counts I through VI of defendants' counterclaims.
N.D.Ill.,2008.
Dynegy Marketing and Trade v. Multiut Corp.
Slip Copy, 2008 WL 2410425 (N.D.Ill.)
See: www.nachshondraiman.net
END OF DOCUMENT
Nachshon Draiman, Chicago – nursing home administrator license (044001323). revoked
Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation 2008
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Nachshon Draiman, Chicago – nursing home administrator license (044001323). revoked and fined $2000 for misrepresenting information in his application ...
www.idfpr.com/Forms/DISCPLN/0108_dis.pdf - Similar pages
See: www.nachshondraiman.net
Posted by: Jay Draiman | Oct 29, 2008 8:34:55 PM
Nachshon Draiman Conviction for the death of a patient and abuse
On October 22st, 2008 jay draiman says:
Nachshon Draiman Conviction for the death of a patient and abuse
On October 21st, 2008 Yehuda Draiman says:
Nachshon Draiman Conviction for the death of a patient and abuse in his Mill View nursing homes in Niles, Illinois. R1
Nachshon Draiman - Multiut Corp. – Future Associates Fraud
You will note that State and Federal Court records in Illinois and elsewhere are replete with lawsuits, judgments and wrongdoing by Nachshon Draiman and his companies. Causing the death of patients in the Nursing homes and a lawsuit by the State of Illinois with civil and criminal conviction People v. Gurell, Nachshon Draiman (1983), 98 Ill.2d 194, 207, 74 Ill.Dec. 516, 456 N.E.2d 18.). Abusing nursing home patients see State of Illinois records.
See People of the State of Illinois vs. Gurell, Nachshon Draiman et al – 456 N.E.2d 18 there has been numerous patient abuse and deaths due to that abuse. In 127 Ill.App.3d 1165, 483 N.E.2d 731, 91 Ill.Dec. 385 Sonnenberg v. Mill View Associates, Nachshon Draiman where millions of dollars had to be paid as damages for abuse and death of a patient, not to mention numerous patients who died falling down an elevator shaft.
Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian W. Ellis Claims he has DNA forensic evidence that Nachshon Draiman - Multiut forged and modified documents presented to the Court in his lawsuit against his brother Yehuda J. Draiman
The Supposed 1991 IMA Agreement Put Into Evidence by Multiut – Nachshon Draiman Is a Fraud
The evidence overwhelmingly favors Yehuda Draimans' account of events. There are at least eight separate, independent indicators that Nachshon Draiman deceptively modified an IMA Agreement that Yehuda received and signed in 1989, added terms to which Yehuda never agreed, including the incorporation of an unsigned Employee Confidentiality Agreement, and inserted a false date of execution to create the document introduced as Plaintiff's Exhibit 10. First, Defendants' expert forensic ink analyst, Erich Speckin, testified that he found manufacturer date tags in the ink for the disputed writings on Plaintiff's Exhibit 10, and that the sequence of those date tags establishes without question that the ink was manufactured in 1993, two years after Nachshon Draiman said he made the writings. (8/14/02 Tr., at 2214-25) That testimony is undisputed.
It is a known fact that justice in Chicago can be swayed in your favor with proper incentives. The trial judge left the bench after this case when the court ignored overwhelming evidence against Multiut and Nachshon Draiman and other cases were investigated by the government.
Nachshon Draiman’s intimidation of witnesses, blackmail and other scare tactics will not work.
Nachshon Draiman defrauds Israel Discount Bank in Hotel financing to the tune of $45 million dollars.
Utilizing modified and fabricated sales contract of units in the Jerusalem Pearl purchased and totally paid for by 1. Nachshon Draiman, 2. Elitzur Draiman, 3. Irwin Katz a former Federal Judge and part owner of Multiut, 4. Barry Ray, 5. Danny Shabat, 6. Gershon Bassman, 7. Dr. Sam Lipschitz, 8. It seems presenting false and deceptive documents is a way of life for Nachshon Draiman
Nachshon Draiman presented a forged College Diploma to the Illinois Department of Registration in order to receive his Nursing Home Administrator’s license No. 44001323.
Nursing home license was revoked in January 2008 due to fraud.
There are currently Federal state and international charges of fraud against Nachshon Draiman and his entities.
A major lawsuit by Dynegy vs Nachshon Draiman, Multiut, Future Associates Case No. 02 C 7446 for $22 million – a $15 million judgment against Nachshon Draiman and Multiut was issued on June 11, 2008 – numerous contempt of court orders and a $45 million by Israel Discount Bank for fraud, just to name a few, Utility billing fraud Gore vs. Multiut No. 01 CH 19688.
See: www.antidefamationusa.com and www.nachshondraiman.net
Posted by: Bast | Apr 17, 2009 3:23:45 AM
Hi guys. The toughest question has always been, "How do you get your ideas?" How do you answer that? It's like asking runners how they run, or singers how they sing. They just do it!
I am from Belgium and also am speaking English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "Purchase low priced airline tickets online, find vacation packages, and make hotel reservations, find maps, destination information, travel news and more."
:P Thanks in advance. Bast.
Posted by: Abram | May 17, 2009 7:04:08 AM
Greeting. Happiness lies in the joy of achievement and the thrill of creative effort. Help me! Could you help me find sites on the: drug addiction rehabilitation. I found only this - drug rehab and treatment centers. Drug and alcohol treatment in south florida, providing individualized and comprehensive treatment for patients suffering from addiction in a nurturing. There are many types of alcohol treatment programs, such as step. Best regards ;-), Abram from Faso.
Posted by: Jay Draiman | May 17, 2009 10:10:53 AM
NACHSHON DRAIMAN 09-17582 and Multiut 09-17575 file for bankruptcy
ilnbke
09-17582
ilnbke
09-17575
On May 14, 2009, NACHSHON DRAIMAN filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The filer is being represented by Michael L Ralph, Sr of the firm Ralph, Schwab & Schiever, Chtd.
A bankruptcy petition preparer’s failure to comply with the provisions of
title 11 and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure may result in
fines or imprisonment or both 11 U.S.C. §110; 18 U.S.C. §156.
Multiut Corporation
/s/ SCOTT R. CLAR
SCOTT R. CLAR 06183741
Crane, Heyman, Simon, Welch & Clar
Suite 3705
135 South LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60603-4297
312-641-6777 Fax: 312-641-7114
May 14, 2009
Nachshon Draiman
/s/ Nachshon Draiman
President
May 14, 2009
I certify under penalty of perjury that the information provided above is true and correct.
Signature of Debtor: /s/ Nachshon Draiman
Nachshon Draiman
Date: May 14, 2009
Software
B4 (Official Form 4) (12/07)
United States Bankruptcy Court
Northern District of Illinois
In re Nachshon Draiman Case No.
Debtor(s) Chapter 11
LIST OF CREDITORS HOLDING 20 LARGEST UNSECURED CLAIMS
Following is the list of the debtor's creditors holding the 20 largest unsecured claims. The list is prepared in
accordance with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1007(d) for filing in this chapter 11 [or chapter 9] case. The list does not include (1)
persons who come within the definition of "insider" set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 101, or (2) secured creditors unless the value of
the collateral is such that the unsecured deficiency places the creditor among the holders of the 20 largest unsecured claims.
If a minor child is one of the creditors holding the 20 largest unsecured claims, state the child's initials and the name and
address of the child's parent or guardian, such as "A.B., a minor child, by John Doe, guardian." Do not disclose the child's
name. See 11 U.S.C. § 112; Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1007(m).
(1)
Name of creditor and complete
mailing address including zip
code
(2)
Name, telephone number and complete
mailing address, including zip code, of
employee, agent, or department of creditor
familiar with claim who may be contacted
(3)
Nature of claim (trade
debt, bank loan,
government contract,
etc.)
(4)
Indicate if claim is
contingent,
unliquidated,
disputed, or subject
to setoff
(5)
Amount of claim [if
secured, also state
value of security]
Alan Mandel
7520 N. Skokie Blvd.
Skokie, IL 60077
Alan Mandel
7520 N. Skokie Blvd.
Skokie, IL 60077
Attorney's Fees and
Costs
Disputed
Subject to Setoff
193,963.62
BankFinancial, F.S.B.
3443 W. Touhy Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Bank Financial
3443 W. Touhy Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Personal Line of
Credit
120,000.00
BankFinancial, F.S.B.
3443 W. Touhy Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Bank Financial
3443 W. Touhy Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Guaranty on Bank
Loan, Lifescan
Laboratiries, Inc.
Contingent
Unliquidated
259,748.58
BankFinancial, F.S.B.
3443 W. Touhy Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Bank Financial
3443 W. Touhy Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Guaranty on Bank
Loan, Peterson Park
Health Care Center
Contingent
Unliquidated
1,048,361.25
BankFinancial, F.S.B.
3443 W. Touhy Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Bank Financial
3443 W. Touhy Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Guaranty of Real
Estate Mortgage
Loan, Lifescan
Laboratiries, Inc.
Contingent
Unliquidated
859,670.31
Brickyard Bank
6676 N. Lincoln Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712-3631
Brickyard Bank
6676 N. Lincoln Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712-3631
Guaranty on Bank
Loan, Embassy
Holdings, LLC
Contingent
Unliquidated
2,200,000.00
Brickyard Bank
6676 N. Lincoln Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712-3631
Regina Hirn
Brickyard Bank
6676 N. Lincoln Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712-3631
847-979-2265
Personal line of
credit
677,251.85
Cole Taylor Bank
225 W. Washington St.
8th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Jonathon Rothstein
Cole Taylor Bank
225 W. Washington St., 8th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
312-442-5000
Guaranty of Bank
Loan LOC, LCF
Associates
Contingent
Unliquidated
400,000.00
Cole Taylor Bank
225 W. Washington St.
8th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Cole Taylor Bank
225 W. Washington St., 8th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Guaranty of Real
Estate Mortgage
Loan, LCF
Associates
Contingent
Unliquidated
1,000,000.00
Danny Shabat
3531 W. Howard
Skokie, IL 60076
Danny Shabat
3531 W. Howard
Skokie, IL 60076
200,000.00
Software Copyright (c) 1996-2007 Best Case Solutions - Evanston, IL - (800) 492-8037 Best
B4 (Official Form 4) (12/07) - Cont.
In re Nachshon Draiman Case No.
Debtor(s)
LIST OF CREDITORS HOLDING 20 LARGEST UNSECURED CLAIMS
(Continuation Sheet)
(1)
Name of creditor and complete
mailing address including zip
code
(2)
Name, telephone number and complete
mailing address, including zip code, of
employee, agent, or department of creditor
familiar with claim who may be contacted
(3)
Nature of claim (trade
debt, bank loan,
government contract,
etc.)
(4)
Indicate if claim is
contingent,
unliquidated,
disputed, or subject
to setoff
(5)
Amount of claim [if
secured, also state
value of security]
Dynegy Marketing and Trade
1000 Louisiana
Suite 5800
Houston, TX 77002
Dynegy Marketing and Trade
1000 Louisiana, Suite 5800
Houston, TX 77002
Judgment Creditor -
Appeal Pending
Disputed 15,348,244.72
First Bank
900 East Higgins Road
Elk Grove Village, IL 60007
First Bank
900 East Higgins Road
Elk Grove Village, IL 60007
Guaranty of Bank
Loan for now
inactive business,
Embassy Day Care
Center, Inc.
Contingent
Unliquidated
Disputed
800,000.00
Great-West Life & Annuity et al.
c/o Chittenden Murday Novotny
303 W. Madison #1400
Chicago, IL 60606
Great-West Life & Annuity et al.
c/o Chittenden Murday Novotny
303 W. Madison #1400
Chicago, IL 60606
Pending litigation -
health insurance
claims
Contingent
Unliquidated
Disputed
142,360.00
Greenberg Traurig
77 West Wacker Drive
Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Greenberg Traurig
77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Attorneys' Fees and
Costs
Disputed
Subject to Setoff
827,310.10
Israel Discount Bank
Yehuda Halevy 27-31
POB 456
Tel Aviv , Israel, 65136
Israel Discount Bank
Yehuda Halevy 27-31, P.O. Box 456
Tel Aviv, Israel 65136
Pending Litigation Contingent
Unliquidated
Disputed
Subject to Setoff
25,000,000.00
Peterson Park
7520 Skokie Blvd.
Skokie, IL 60077
Peterson Park
7520 Skokie Blvd.
Skokie, IL 60077
Contingent
Unliquidated
Disputed
3,000,000.00
Premier Bank
1210 Central Avenue
Wilmette, IL 60091
Ginett Ramos
Premier Bank
1210 Central Avenue
Wilmette, IL 60091
847-920-1400
Guaranty on Bank
Loan, Embassy
Holdings, LLC
Contingent
Unliquidated
749,316.68
Robert Hartman
6633 N. Lincoln Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Robert Hartman
6633 N. Lincoln Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Loan - Business 200,000.00
Ron Shabat
5936 N. Bernard
Chicago, IL 60659
Ron Shabat
5936 N. Bernard
Chicago, IL 60659
750,000.00
Virginia Feddeler et al.
c/o Paul R. Shuldiner
20 S. Clark #500
Chicago, IL 60603
Virginia Feddeler et al.
c/o Paul R. Shuldiner
20 S Clark #500
Chicago, IL 60603
Pending litigation -
personal injury torte
claim
Contingent
Unliquidated
Disputed
3,000,100.00
Software Copyright (c) 1996-2007 Best Case Solutions - Evanston, IL - (800) 492-8037 Best Case Bankruptcy
B4 (Official Form 4) (12/07) - Cont.
In re Nachshon Draiman Case No.
Posted by: Ginger | Jun 1, 2009 11:04:16 AM
Greeting. You're already here-might as well sign the thing.=). Help me! Can not find sites on the: Anti asthma. I found only this - phenergan pediatric. Overview of allergy, and how to treat it in a natural way. Spectrum,f,antibiotic extracts,herbal anti infective,antibacterial extracts. With love :-(, Ginger from Solomon.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: The Siskiyou Skewer | Mar 4, 2006 1:55:05 PM
Stick it to 'em, brother.