Docstoc

Omer B. Yalincak, Ayfer Yalincak, Hale Yalincak and Hakan Yalincak v Michael J. Legamaro, Mary E. Siachitano (aka Mary E. Hatami) and Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum Perlman & Nagelberg, LLP, et al

Document Sample
Omer B. Yalincak, Ayfer Yalincak, Hale Yalincak and Hakan Yalincak v Michael J. Legamaro, Mary E. Siachitano (aka Mary E. Hatami) and Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum Perlman & Nagelberg, LLP, et al Powered By Docstoc
					Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                        Filed 08/25/08 Page 1 of 59



                           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

OMER BULENT YALINCAK,                                         )
AYFER YALINCAK AND HALE YALINCAK,                             )
                                                              )
                          Plaintiffs                          ) CIVIL NO. 3:07-CV00311 (AVC)
                                                              )
        V.                                                    )
                                                              )
BARACK FERRAZZANO KIRSCHBAUM                                  )
PERLMAN AND NAGELBERG, LLP, ET. AL.,                          )
                                                              )
                          Defendants                          )

                         PLAINTIFFS’ RICO CASE STATEMENT

        The Plaintiffs Omer Bulent Yalincak, Ayfer Yalincak, and Hale Yalincak

(hereinafter the “Plaintiffs”), pursuant to this Court’s Standing Order In Civil RICO
                                                               1
Cases, respectfully submit this RICO Case Statement. /

        In support of their RICO Claims as stated in their Claim’s For Relief (the “RICO

Claims”), paragraphs 13 to 15 of the Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs, upon

personal knowledge and information and belief, hereby allege as follows:

I.      INTRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY

                 1.       From on or about November 4, 2003, up to and including the

present, in the District of Connecticut and elsewhere, the defendants Michael J.

Legamaro (“Legamaro”) and Mary E. Hatami, f/k/a Mary E. Siachitano (“Hatami”), each

of whom was employed by and associated with the Plaintiffs through their family holding

company, their alter ego, HMMH Holdings, LLC (“HMMH”), an enterprise engaged in

and the activities of which, affect interstate commerce, did unlawfully, willfully and



1
 Terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Plaintiffs’ Second
Amended Complaint.
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                   Filed 08/25/08 Page 2 of 59



knowingly conduct and participate, directly and indirectly, in the conduct of HMMH’s

affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity, which included, but was not limited to,

mail fraud (18 U.S.C. §1341), bank fraud (18 U.S.C. §1344), wire fraud (18 U.S.C.

§1343), obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. §1503), extortion (18 U.S.C. §1951), and

money laundering (18 U.S.C. §1956), all in violation of the following, as more fully

described in Part V below:

        a.      acquired an interest in or control of HMMH, a RICO enterprise, through a
                pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(b);

        b.      conducting or participating in the conduct of an enterprise’s affairs
                through a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
                §1962(c);

        c.      conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C. §§1962(b) and 1962(c), in violation of 18
                U.S.C. §1962(d).

                2.      As a result of the foregoing and the conduct of the defendants as

more particularly described below, the Plaintiffs have been damaged.

II.     DEFENDANTS

        A.      Michael J. Legamaro

                3.      Defendant Legamaro is a citizen and resident of the State of

Illinois. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Legamaro served as general counsel to

the Plaintiffs; trustee of all of the Plaintiffs’ trusts; executor of each of the Plaintiffs’

estates; board member and counsel to HMMH and its affiliates and subsidiaries;

authorized signator on HMMH’s bank accounts at Bank One, n/k/a J.P. Morgan Chase,

Chicago, Illinois and UBS, AG, Zurich Swtizerland as more fully detailed below.

                4.      At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Legamaro was employed

by Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum Perlman & Nagelberg, LLP, n/k/a Barack Ferrazzano

Kirschbaum & Nagelberg, LLP (“BFKPNLLP”), a Chicago, Illinois law firm.



                                                2
                                                --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                 Filed 08/25/08 Page 3 of 59



       B.      Mary E. Hatami , f/k/a Mary E. Siachitano

               5.      Defendant Hatami is a citizen and resident of the State of New

York. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Hatami served as Vice President of

HMMH, including its affiliates and subsidiaries; friend of the trust to the Plaintiffs’

trusts; friend of the estate to the Plaintiffs’ estates; board member of HMMH; authorized

signator on HMMH’s bank accounts at Bank One, n/k/a J.P. Morgan Chase, Chicago,

Illinois and UBS, AG, Zurich, Switzerland as more fully detailed below.

       C.      HMMH AND THE DEFENDANTS

               6.      HMMH was and is a Delaware limited liability company formed

on or about October 1, 2004, by Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami, with a

principal place of business in Greenwich, Connecticut. At all times relevant hereto,

HMMH was affiliated with HMMH St. Lucia, Ltd., a St. Lucia limited company formed

and operated by Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami. HMMH was the parent

company, directly or indirectly, of the following entities:

       a.      Daedalus Capital Partners, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;

       b.      Daedalus Capital (Cayman), LLC, a Cayman limited liability company;

       c.      Daedalus Capital Relative Value Fund I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
               company;

       d.      Daedalus Capital Relative Value Portfolio, LLC, a Delaware limited
               liability company;

       e.      SACS Capital Group, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;

       f.      SACS Global Trust & Mortgage, LLC, f/k/a Greenwich Trust &
               Mortgage, Inc., a Delaware limited liability company;

       g.      SACS Special Financing I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;

       h.      Yasam Trading, LLC, f/k/a Greenwich Special Financing I, LLC, a
               Delaware limited liability company;



                                              3
                                              --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101             Filed 08/25/08 Page 4 of 59



       i.     Greenwich Global Structured Financing, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
              company;

       j.     Sugarloaf Commercial Properties, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
              company;

       k.     Hagan Properties, LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company;

       l.     Hakan Hale Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;

       m.     Kanyal, LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company; and

       n.     The Omer Bulent Yalincak and Ayferafet Yalincak Family Foundation, a
              Delaware corporation.

              7.      As of April, 2007, HMMH Holdings, LLC and all of the entities

listed above (collectively “HMMH”), are involved in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding

in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut, In Re HMMH

Holdings, LLC, Case No. 07-50121 (AHWS). Additionally, the Daedalus Capital

Relative Value Fund I, LLC (the “Fund”), has a separate bankruptcy proceeding in the

United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, In Re Daedalus

Capital Relative Value Fund I, LLC, Case No. 05-13790 (PCB). (A copy of the HMMH

Holdings, LLC Operating Agreement, Organizational Chart, and Contribution &

Assignment Agreement are collectively attached hereto as Exhibit A.)

              8.      At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Legamaro served on the

Board of Managers of HMMH and General Counsel of HMMH and served as the trustee

and executor of the following:

       o.     The Omer Bulent Yalincak Revocable Trust dated December 1, 2004 and
              Will dated March 23, 2005;

       p.     The Ayferafet E. Yalincak Revocable Trust dated December 1, 2004 and
              Will dated March 23, 2005;

       q.     The Hakan Yalincak Irrevocable Gift Trust dated October 27, 2004 and
              Will dated March 23, 2005; and



                                           4
                                           --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                 Filed 08/25/08 Page 5 of 59



       r.      The Hale Yalincak Irrevocable Gift Trust dated October 27, 2004 and Will
               dated March 23, 2005.

               9.      At all times relevant hereto, according to the fraudulent statements,

corporate minutes, and documents prepared by Defendant Legamaro and Defendant

Hatami, the foregoing series of revocable and irrevocable trusts owned all of the interests

in HMMH, whereas, at all times relevant hereto, Defendants Legamaro and Defendant

Hatami knew that the said revocable and irrevocable trusts were designed to create the

illusion that they were implementing tax strategies for the benefit of the Plaintiffs.

       D.      The Unlawful Conduct And Basis of Liability

               10.     Defendant Legamaro is liable as he outlined the income derived

from a pattern of racketeering activity to acquire an unknown and undisclosed interest in

HMMH, including at least a 33.33% interest in Greenwich Global Structured Financing,

LLC, which directly competed and conflicted with the Plaintiffs’ interests in their

business or property, namely, their mortgage company, SACS Global Trust & Mortgage,

LLC, f/k/a Greenwich Global Trust & Mortgage, Inc.

               11.     Defendant Legamaro is liable as he, directly and indirectly,

participated in HMMH’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity, namely, mail

fraud (18 U.S.C. §1341), bank fraud (18 U.S.C. §1344), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §1343),

obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. §1503), extortion (18 U.S.C. §1951), and money

laundering (18 U.S.C. §1956), as more fully described in Part V below, in violation of 18

U.S.C. §1962(c).

               12.     Defendant Legamaro is liable as he furthered an endeavor, as

general counsel, trustee, executor, agent and/or officer (i.e., using his fiduciary position,

which satisfies all of the elements of the substantive criminal offenses) and because he




                                              5
                                              --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                 Filed 08/25/08 Page 6 of 59



adopted the goal of furthering or facilitating the criminal endeavor through the unlawful

agreement with his co-defendant, Defendant Hatami and others as more fully described in

Part III below. As a result of the alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. §1962(b) and 18 U.S.C.

§1962(c), the Plaintiffs suffered direct injury in connection with millions of dollars that

were secreted via wire and mail and thus discipated by the Defendant Legamaro and

Defendant Hatami in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(d).

               13.     Defendant Hatami is liable as she utilized the income derived from

a pattern of racketeering activity to acquire an unknown and undisclosed interest in

HMMH, including at least a 33.33% interest in Greenwich Global Structured Financing,

LLC, which directly competed and conflicted with the Plaintiffs’ interests in their

business or property, namely, their mortgage company, SACS Global Trust & Mortgage,

LLC f/k/a Greenwich Global Trust & Mortgage, Inc.

               14.     Defendant Hatami is liable as she, directly and indirectly,

participated in HMMH’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity, namely, mail

fraud (18 U.S.C. §1341), bank fraud (18 U.S.C. §1344), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §1343),

obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. §1503), extortion (18 U.S.C. §1951), and money

laundering (18 U.S.C. §1956), as more fully described in Part V below, in violation of 18

U.S.C. §1962(c).

               15.     Defendant Hatami is liable as she furthered an endeavor, as Vice

President of HMMH (i.e., using her fiduciary position, which satisfies the elements of the

substantive criminal offenses) and in that she adopted the goal of furthering or facilitating

the criminal endeavor through an unlawful agreement with her co-defendant, Defendant

Legamaro and others as more fully described in Part III below. As a result of the alleged




                                             6
                                             --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                 Filed 08/25/08 Page 7 of 59



violations of 18 U.S.C. §1962(b) and 18 U.S.C. §1962(c), the Plaintiffs suffered direct

injury in connection with millions of dollars that were transferred via wire and mail and

thus discipated by Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§1962(d).

               16.     Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami are jointly and

severally liable to the Plaintiffs as there existed a fiduciary relationship, which was

characterized by a unique degree of trust and confidence between the parties and

Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami had superior knowledge, skill or expertise

and were under a duty to represent and protect the interests of the Plaintiffs and failed to

do so.

III.     WRONGDOERS OTHER THAN THE DEFENDANTS

         A.    THE DEFENDANTS’ CONFEDERATES AND ASSOCIATES

               17.     Beginning on or about November 4, 2003, Hakan Yalincak, when

he was nineteen (19) years of age, retained Defendant Legamaro as tax and estate counsel

for his family to address certain tax matters arising from his trading at Bear Stearns,

which had led to gains of over $2,000,000.00 for tax year 2003. At the time of his initial

introduction to Defendant Legamaro, Hakan Yalincak had falsely represented to

Deutsche Bank, AG, that he had $100 million in assets that he wished to shelter, whereas,

he had substantially less than $100 million. Defendant Legamaro subsequently learned of

Hakan Yalincak’s misrepresentation to Deutsche Bank, AG in or about late February of

2004; learned that the reason for the said misrepresentation was, an effort by Hakan

Yalincak to induce Deutsche Bank, AG to reduce the trading fees and/or other expenses

associated with derivatives trading.




                                              7
                                              --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                 Filed 08/25/08 Page 8 of 59



               18.    By way of example, Hakan Yalincak was knowledgeable regarding

derivatives trading and maintained an ISDA (International Swap Dealers Association

Agreement) and BMA (Bond Market Association) Repurchase Agreement with Deutsche

Bank, AG to facilitate such trading. On a typical derivatives trade on the Standard &

Poors (“S&P”) 500 through Variance Swaps, the ordinary commission for small accounts

could be as high as $200,000.00, while for larger accounts, the commission could be

reduced to $25,000.00.

               19.    Thereafter, Defendant Legamaro came to learn the following

regarding the Yalincak family’s financial status:

       a.      In or about February of 2004, he learned that the Yalincak family was not,
               worth over $100 million, but closer to $2 million;

       b.      In or about May of 2004, he learned that Hakan Yalincak and his
               associate, Matthew J. Thomas, the then Chief Executive Officer of the
               Daedalus Capital Partners, LLC, a/k/a Yasam Trading, LLC, were under
               federal criminal investigation for credit card misuse;

       c.      In or about August of 2004, he learned that the Yalincak family home in
               Newtown, Connecticut was being foreclosed;

       d.      In or about December of 2004, he learned that the Connecticut State
               Banking Department had commenced an investigation of Yasam Trading,
               LLC and Daedalus Capital Relative Value Fund I, LLC, as a result of false
               and fraudulent filings made with the Securities And Exchange
               Commission (“SEC”) by defendant Legamaro (i.e., drafted and mailed)
               through his law firm of BFKPNLLP;

       e.      Between February of 2005 and March of 2005, he learned that the federal
               criminal investigation had been expanded to include all of the activities of
               Daedalus Capital Relative Value Fund I, LLC and that each and every
               investor was seeking return of their investments;

       f.      In or about March of 2005, he learned that Hakan Yalincak had deposited,
               and/or caused to be deposited, approximately $43 million in counterfeit
               checks at a personal bank account established by Defendant Legamaro on
               Hakan Yalincak’s behalf at UBS, AG and a SACS Global Trust &
               Mortgage, LLC account at the Bank of New York. According to the
               security footage from the Bank of New York, Defendant Legamaro



                                            8
                                            --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                Filed 08/25/08 Page 9 of 59



               accompanied Hakan Yalincak to the New York City branch to withdraw
               funds;

       g.      In or about March to April of 2005, he learned from his conversations with
               the government, that Hakan Yalincak may be indicted for bank fraud and
               wire fraud;

               20.    At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Legamaro and Defendant

Hatami knew that the Yalincak family was not fabulously wealthy; however, they each

continued to represent and bolster such representations, directly and indirectly, through

their confederates, to lure investments in the Daedalus Capital Relative Value Fund I,

LLC, to open and obtain credit lines from numerous banks and they further knew that a

substantial portion of the monies being invested in the Daedalus Capital Relative Value

Fund I, LLC were not actually being invested, but rather used in part, for their personal

expenses, including, inter alia, a Porsche Cayenne automobile for Defendant Hatami and

fraudulent and exorbitant legal bills generated by Defendant Legamaro through his law

firm, BFKPNLLP.

       B.      The Money Men

               21.    Between in or about February of 2004 to on or about March 31,

2005, Matthew J. Thomas (“Thomas”), served as the Chief Executive Officer of the

Daedalus Capital Partners, LLC (“DCP”), the non-member manager of the Daedalus

Capital Relative Value Fund I, LLC (the “Fund”). Throughout this period, Thomas was

under federal scrutiny for credit card misuse, which culminated in a “promissory note

scheme”, more fully described in an action entitled SACS Global Trust & Mortgage,

LLC v. Matthew J. Thomas, et al., Case No. 3:06-CV-01228 (JBA)(478 F.Supp.2d 278

(D.Conn.2007)).




                                             9
                                             --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101              Filed 08/25/08 Page 10 of 59



               22.    At all times relevant hereto, Thomas represented that he was a

graduate of Georgetown University and the Kellogg Business School of Northwestern

University and that he previously worked at Goldman Sachs (London, U.K.), Banco

Santander (Madrid, Spain), Credit Suisse First Boston (New York), and Spencer Trask

Capital Ventures, LLC (New York).

               23.    To fulfill his role as money men for the enterprise, Thomas, using

the fraudulent documents drafted and otherwise authored by Defendant Legamaro and

Defendant Hatami, obtained as investments in the Daedalus Capital Relative Value Fund

I, LLC, monies from the following individuals:

       a.      Joseph Healey,        $1,550,000.00;

       b.      Arthur Cohen,         $1,250,000.00;

       c.      Waddah Al-Mousa,      $750,000.00;

       d.      William Auslander,    $100,000.00;

       e.      Jeffrey Benton,       $25,000.00;

       f.      James Oliphant,       $25,000.00;

               24.    On or about March 31, 2005, after Thomas had raised

approximately $3,700,000.00, Defendant Legamaro caused Thomas to be fired and

replaced as CEO of the Daedalus Capital Partners, LLC and the Daedalus Capital

Relative Value Fund I, LLC with Ralph Hallenborg.

               25.    It was a further part of the racketeering scheme that Defendant

Legamaro and Defendant Hatami would and did at various times, enlist other individuals

such as Ralph A. Hallenborg (“Hallenborg”), Preston Tsao (“Tsao”), and Stephen J.

Denari (“Denari”) (collectively with Thomas and Hakan Yalincak, the “money men”),

and others to assist and share with them in these schemes and pattern of racketeering.



                                            10
                                            --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101             Filed 08/25/08 Page 11 of 59



              26.     Among the means by which Defendant Legamaro and Defendant

Hatami used the money men to conduct the affairs of HMMH through a pattern of

racketeering were the following:

       a.     Hallenborg after Thomas’ departure, purported to serve as the CEO of
              Daedalus Capital Partners, LLC and Daedalus Capital Relative Value
              Fund I, LLC; however, his functions were in name only, as Defendant
              Legamaro well knew and believed that because of Hakan Yalincak’s
              youth, absent an individual with an established resume, investors in the
              purported hedge fund may seek to withdraw their investments, and further
              fundraising of investments would be unlikely. In return for Hallenborg’s
              services as one of the money men for HMMH, he was offered a
              $250,000.00 per year pay package by Defendant Legamaro on DCP and
              the DCRVFILLC’s behalf, to be paid from the HMMH;

       b.     Tsao was hired by Defendant Legamaro in or about April of 2005 for the
              sole purpose of raising additional funds for DCRVFILLC to continue the
              pattern of racketeering. In return for Tsao’s services as one of the money
              men for HMMH, he was offered a $250,000.00 per year pay package by
              Defendant Legamaro on DCP and DCRVFILLC’s behalf, to be paid from
              HMMH;

       c.     Lisa LaBonte (“LaBonte”) was hired by Defendant Legamaro in or about
              April 2005 for the sole purpose of raising additional funds for DCRVILLC
              to continue the pattern of racketeering. In return for LaBonte’s services as
              one of the money men for HMMH, she was offered a $15,000.00
              Consultancy Agreement by Defendant Legamaro on SACS Capital Group,
              LLC’s behalf, to be paid from HMMH;

       d.     Conner served no official function in the day-to-day affairs of DCPLLC or
              DCRVFILLC; however, from time to time, when no other individuals
              were available to accompany Hakan Yalincak to a meeting with potential
              investors, or investment banks, or other financial functions, he would
              accompany Hakan Yalincak to such meetings to bolster the image that
              DCPLLC, DCRVFILLC, and HMMH were legitimate entities;

       e.     Denari served no official function in the day-to-day affairs of DCPLLC or
              DCRVFILLC; however, he was involved in the hiring of Tsao and
              LaBonte. Additionally, Defendant Legamaro enlisted the services of
              Denari as a consultant to HMMH to address Hakan Yalincak’s then
              pending criminal indictment;

       f.     At all times relevant hereto, BFKPNLLP, Ferber Chan Essner & Coller,
              LLP (“FCECLLP”), Sherman, Richichi & Hickey, LLC (“SRH”), and
              Martin Lucas & Chioffi, LLP (“MLC”), were enlisted, directly and



                                           11
                                           --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                 Filed 08/25/08 Page 12 of 59



               indirectly, by Defendant Legamaro as outside counsel for the Plaintiffs or,
               for DCPLLC, DCRVFILLC, and HMMH; however, these law firms’
               positions were in name only and were enlisted with the primary purpose of
               covering up of the fraud at DCPLLC and DCRVFILLC, and were
               beneficiaries of the fraud. To wit: BFKPNLLP received $420,000.00 by
               wires and mail as purported legal fees. FCECLLP received at least
               $100,000.00 by wires and mail as purported legal fees. SRH received at
               least $185,000.00 by the wires and mail as purported legal fees. MLC
               received at least $77,000.00 by wires and mail as purported legal fees;

       g.      At all times relevant hereto, these law firms acted as money men in
               conjunction with the defendants and others, and were used to facilitate and
               further the defendants’ schemes and pattern of racketeering.

IV.    VICTIMS AND MANNER OF INJURY

               27.     Beginning in or about February of 2004 and continuing to on or

about April 29, 2005, Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami, together with

Thomas, Hakan Yalincak, and the other money men, more fully described above,

knowingly and willfully did combine, conspire, confederate and agree with each other to

devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud to obtain money and property

and lines of credit belonging to investors in HMMH, and HMMH subsidiaries such as

DCRVFILLC, as more fully described in Part V below.

               28.     At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Legamaro and Defendant

Hatami knew that the Plaintiffs would be directly injured for any losses to investors in

DCRVFILLC, by among other things, the loss of business for HMMH, as well as, the

undisclosed fact to the Plaintiffs that the defendants, acting as the Plaintiffs’ agents, had

in fact represented to the investors in DCRVFILLC that the Plaintiffs would guarantee

any and all investments in DCRVFILLC.

       A.      The Investors Of DCRVFILLC

               29.     The Plaintiffs invested the approximate sum of $156,000.00 in

DCRVFILLC by wire transferring their investment from an account at Alaron Tradinc



                                              12
                                              --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101               Filed 08/25/08 Page 13 of 59



Corporation, Chicago, Illinois to DCRVFILLC, f/k/a Yasam Trading Relative Value

Fund I, LLC (“YTRVFILLC”) account at Bear Stearns, Inc., New York, New York, in or

about June of 2004. The Plaintiffs’ investments were made in reliance on the defendants’

fraudulent misrepresentations that, among other things, the UBS Fund Administrative

was DCRVFILLC’s Fund Administrator, that Anchin Bloch & Anchin was

DCRVFILLC’s auditor and that the Fund was a legitimate operation and that Hakan

Yalincak’s trading record was real, accurate and verified by the defendants; however, in

reality, contrary to the defendants’ misrepresentations, DCRVFILLC did not have a Fund

Administrator or auditor and all Fund Investment Reports were written by Defendant

Legamaro and Defendant Hatami with Hakan Yalincak, Thomas, and Defendant

Legamaro’s law firm assistant John Chan. Additionally, DCRVFILLC’s K-1 Partnership

tax returns, contrary to the defendants’ representations, were prepared by and between

Defendant Legamaro and Hakan Yalincak.

                 30.    In addition, numerous outside investors invested in DCRVFILLC,

in reliance on the defendants’ fraudulent misrepresentations that DCRVFILLC was a

legitimate hedge fund, that its Fund Administrator was UBS Fund Administration and

that Anchin Bloch & Anchin was the Fund’s auditor. Several of the individuals that

invested were:

       a.        Joseph Healey (“J.H.”) invested a total of $1,550,000.00 as follows:
                 $250,000.00 via wire in June of 2004; $1,000,000.00 via wire in or about
                 August of 2004; and $300,000.00 via wire in or about October of 2004;

       b.        Arthur Cohen (“A.C.”) invested a total of $1,250,000.00 as follows:
                 $1,250,000.00 via check, which was mailed to Thomas on or about August
                 of 2004 and deposited into the account of DCPLLC;

       c.        Joseph Cannavo and Leonard Cannavo (“J.C.” and “L.C.”) collectively,
                 invested the sum of $1,050,000.00 between March of 2004 and March of
                 2005 via check, which was hand delivered to one of the defendants or to


                                             13
                                             --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                 Filed 08/25/08 Page 14 of 59



                one of the money men and deposited into various accounts affiliated with
                HMMH;

       d.       Frank Meyer (“F.M.”) invested the sum of $1,750,000.00 on or about
                April 29, 2005 by wiring the said sum to HMMH Account I;

       e.       Robert Doede (“R.D.”) invested the sum of $1,000,000.00 on or about
                April 29, 2005 by wiring the said sum to HMMH Account I;

       f.       Jeffrey Benton (“J.B.”) invested the sum of $25,000.00 in or about June of
                2004 by wiring the said sum to DCRVFILLC/YTRVFILLC account at
                Bear Stearns, Inc.;

       g.       James Oliphant (“J.O.”) invested the sum of $25,000.00 in or about June
                of 2004 by wiring the said sum to DCRVFILLC/YTRVFILLC account at
                Bear Stearns, Inc.;

       h.       Waddah Al-Mousa (“W. A-M.”) invested a total of $750,000.00 as
                follows: $250,000.00 via wire in March of 2004; $500,000.00 via wire in
                or about October of 2004;

       i.       William Auslander (“W.A.”) invested the sum of $100,000.00 in or about
                June of 2004 by wiring the said sum to DCRVFILLC/YTRVFILLC
                account at Bear Stearns, Inc.; and

       j.       Jeffrey Ervine (“J.E.”) invested the sum of $1,000,000.00 in or about April
                of 2005 by hand delivering two checks, which were deposited in a Fidelity
                Investments DCRVFILLC account.

                31.    As a direct result of the defendants’ conduct as described herein,

the Plaintiffs lost their $156,000.00 investment.

                32.    As a direct result of the defendants’ conduct as described herein,

investors J.C., L.C., F.M., R.D., W. A-M., W.A., and others lost the approximate sum of

$4,433,000.00

                33.    As a direct and proximate result of the defendants’ conduct herein,

HMMH was damaged in the approximate amount of $4,549,000.00

       B.       The Investment Banks.

                34.    It was a part of the scheme and means by which the defendants and

their confederates furthered the scheme to accomplish its objectives, to open and


                                             14
                                             --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                  Filed 08/25/08 Page 15 of 59



maintain large lines of credit so as to provide the illusion of trading at DCRVFILLC,

when, in fact, a substantial portion of the said monies were being used by the defendants

for their exorbitant legal expenses, personal expenses, pet projects and the hiring of

additional money men.

                   35.    To wit: through the pattern of racketeering described in Part V

below, the defendants, directly or indirectly, obtained and/or benefited from the following

lines of credit:

        a.         Mizuho Securities USA, Inc., approved and provided a $500 million credit
                   line for derivative trading to Yasam Trading, LLC, an affiliate of
                   DCRVFILLC, in or about May of 2004;

        b.         Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., approved and provided a $250 million
                   credit line for derivative trading to Yasam Trading, LLC, an affiliate of
                   DCRVFILLC, in or about June of 2004;

        c.         Refco Securities, Inc., approved and provided a $100 million credit line
                   for derivative trading to Yasam Trading, LLC, an affiliate of
                   DCRVFILLC, in or about June of 2004; and

        d.         Dresdner Bank, AG, approved and provided a $100 million credit line for
                   derivative trading to Yasam Trading, LLC, an affiliate of DCRVFILLC, in
                   or about June of 2004.

                   36.    Through the foregoing credit lines, the defendants, their

confederates, including the money men and others, were able to prolong their fraudulent

schemes and conceal their conduct from the investors.

V.      THE PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY

                   37.    In 2004, Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami were

employed by and associated with HMMH, including its subsidiaries and affiliates,

through which they established and operated HMMH subsidiaries, DCPLLC,

DCRVFILLC, DCRVPLLC, and DCCLLC (“the Fund Subsidiaries”), a purported master

fund/feeder fund engaged in fixed-income relative value trading. Defendant Legarnaro



                                                15
                                                --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101               Filed 08/25/08 Page 16 of 59



was the secretary and general counsel of HMMH, including without limitation, the Fund

Subsidiaries, from in or about March of 2004 through approximately May of 2005.

               38.     Defendant Hatami was the Vice President of HMMH, including

without limitation, the Fund Subsidiaries, from in or about May of 2004 through

approximately May 6, 2005.

               39.     During the period of time stated above, Defendant Legamaro was

the undisclosed principal of HMMH and shared control and operation of HMMH with

Defendant Hatami and the money men described in Part III, above.

               40.     The pattern of racketeering embraced an illegal scheme by

Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami, to create an illusion that the Yalincak

family was wealthy and thereby enable them to raise and maintain investments in the

Fund Subsidiaries, through the Yalincaks, which were in turn used for the purposes of

unlawfully enriching the defendants at the expense of the Plaintiffs and using the income

derived from the pattern of racketeering to acquire an interest in legitimate businesses at

the expense of the Plaintiffs through the commission of criminal acts.

               41.     It was a part of the racketeering scheme that in order to create an

illusion that the Yalincak family was wealthy and that the businesses affiliated with them,

and managed by Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami, were legitimate and going

concerns, Defendant Legamaro arid Defendant Hatami, would and did use the

instrumentalities of the mails and interstate and foreign commerce, to effectuate the

creation and operation of HMMH and its subsidiaries to engage in a mail fraud scheme

more particularly described below.




                                             16
                                             --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                Filed 08/25/08 Page 17 of 59



               42.     It was further a part of the pattern of racketeering scheme that

Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami, would and did enrich themselves

unlawfully by looting the receipts and proceeds of HMMH at the direct expense of the

Plaintiffs through a wire fraud scheme, by means of false and fraudulent, representations

and promises and did transmit and did cause to be transmitted, writings, signs and sounds

by means of wire communications in interstate commerce as more particularly described

below.

               43.     It was further a part of the pattern of racketeering scheme that

Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami, would and did enrich themselves

unlawfully by looting the receipts and proceeds of HMMH at the direct expense of the

Plaintiffs through a bank fraud scheme as more fully described below.

               44.     It was further a part of the pattern of racketeering scheme that

Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami through an extortion scheme would and did

induce the Plaintiffs, with the Plaintiffs’ consent, to part with property, through the

wrongful use of threatened force, violence or fear (fear of economic loss), in such a way

as to adversely effect interstate commerce as more particularly described below.

               45.     It was further a part of the pattern of racketeering scheme that

Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami would and did enrich themselves unlawfully

by looting the receipts and proceeds of HMMH at the direct expense of the Plaintiffs,

through a money laundering scheme, more particularly described below.

               46.     It was further a part of the pattern of racketeering scheme that

Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami would and did at various times enlist other




                                             17
                                             --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                Filed 08/25/08 Page 18 of 59



individuals, such as the money men described in Part III above and others to assist and

share with them in these schemes and pattern of racketeering.

               47.     Among the means by which the defendants and their confederates

would and did engage in, conduct and participate in the affairs of HMMH through a

pattern of racketeering were the following:

       A.      The Mail Fraud Scheme: Defendant Legamaro And the Inception of
               DCRVFILLC

               48.     Beginning in and around the early part of 2004, Defendant

Legamaro and Defendant Hatami became affiliated with DCP, and DCRVFILLC,

HMMH Fund Subsidiaries and later, all of HMMH subsidiaries.

               49.     Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami knew at that time that

HMMH Fund Subsidiaries were operated by Thomas as the Chief Executive Officer and

Hakan Yalincak as the junior member.

               50.     Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami knew at that time that

HMMH Fund Subsidiaries existed in name only (i.e., Yasam Trading Relative Value

Fund I, LLC, the predecessor-in-interest to the Daedalus Capital Relative Value Fund I,

LLC), and were not legally formed until on or about August 17, 2004.

               51.     It was a part of the mail fraud scheme that on or about August 17,

2004, Defendant Legamaro formed an entity known as the Daedalus Capital Partners,

LLC (“DCP”), under the laws of the State of Delaware by mailing a copy of the Articles

of Incorporation from the State of Illinois to the State of Delaware and the State of

Connecticut.

               52.     It was a further part-of the mail fraud scheme that on or about

August 24, 2004, Defendant Legamaro formed an entity known as the Daedalus Capital



                                              18
                                              --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                 Filed 08/25/08 Page 19 of 59



Relative Value Fund I, LLC (“DCRVFILLC” or “the Fund”), under the laws of the State

of Delaware by mailing a copy of the Articles of Incorporation from the State of Illinois

to the State of Delaware and the State of Connecticut.

               53.       It was a further part of the mail fraud scheme that on or about

August 24, 2004, Defendant Legamaro formed an entity known as the Daedalus Capital

Relative Value Portfolio, LLC (“DCRVPLLC” or collectively with DCP and

DCRVFILLC, “HMMH Fund Subsidiaries”), under the laws of the State of Delaware by

mailing a copy of the Articles of Incorporation from the State of Illinois to the State of

Delaware and the State of Connecticut.

               54.       At all times relevant hereto, the HMMH Fund Subsidiaries raised

investments from individuals, including the Plaintiffs, through a Private Placement

Memorandum, Operating Agreement, and Subscription Documents, authored by

Defendant Legamaro and represented to investors, including the Plaintiffs, that the Fund

invested substantially all of its assets through a “master fund/feeder fund” structure in the

DCRVPLLC, which in turn invested in Daedalus Capital (Cayman), LLC (“DCCLLC” or

collectively with the other Fund entities, “HMMH Fund Subsidiaries”), whose stated

objective was to maximize expected returns. The stated objective of maximizing expected

returns was supposed to be accomplished by taking long positions in securities believed

to be undervalued and short positions in securities believed to be overvalued and hedging

some or all of those components of exposures that were believed not to add to expected

risk-adjusted returns.

               55.       According to HMMH Fund Subsidiaries’ Private Placement

Memorandum, the non-member manager of DCRVFILLC was the DCP, who would




                                              19
                                              --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                Filed 08/25/08 Page 20 of 59



receive two-percent (2%) of all management fees based on the total of assets under

management and a twenty-percent (20%) incentive fee (i.e., 20% of all profits). The

DCP, as a wholly owned subsidiary of HMMH, was to then pay those sums to HMMH.

               56.     The Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami knew and

believed that Hakan Yalincak, then a nineteen-year (19) old would be unable, by himself,

or with Thomas’ assistance, to raise sufficient assets for DCRVFILLC; to operate

DCRVFILLC; and that false and fraudulent Fund documents, such as the Private

Placement Memorandum, Operating Agreements, Subscription Documents, financial

statements, and investor letters were necessary to raise sufficient funds to create

DCRVFILLC as a going concern because contrary to the false and fraudulent

representations contained in HMMH Fund Subsidiaries’ Fund Documents, DCRVFILLC

had no trading record and the only record it had was of paying legal fees to Defendant

Legamaro and other fees to the money men and others from investor funds in its

possession.

               57.     Before the units in the DCRVFILLC hedge fund could be offered

to members of the public, a prospectus was required to be filed with the United States

Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), detailing the terms and conditions by

which the units would be offered to the public and stating other material information with

respect to DCRVFILLC. This prospectus, in turn, would be distributed, through the

aforementioned money men, to members of the public who were interested in purchasing

units in DCRVFILLC. The defendants knew that disclosure of such material information

as the identities and backgrounds of some of the financial backers and operators of

DCRVFILLC and the source of the funds furnished to DCRVFILLC was reasonably




                                             20
                                             --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101               Filed 08/25/08 Page 21 of 59



likely to discourage investors from purchasing DCRVFILLC’s units. Accordingly, the

defendants caused to be filed, on a monthly basis through the use of the mails,

specifically the United States Postal Service and Federal Express, beginning in or about

September of 2004 and up to and including May of 2005, a prospectus containing false

and misleading statements of material facts, including, inter alia:

               a.      The prospectus contained a section entitled “Subscription Matters”

that purported to set forth the terms and conditions of the Private Placement Offering,

which stated that investments “will be accepted . . . only from persons who are accredited

investors for the purposes of Regulation D under the Securities and Exchange Act of

1933”. It was not disclosed in that section, or in any other section of the prospectus, that

DCRVFILLC had, in fact, accepted investments from individuals who were not

“accredited investors,” such as the Plaintiffs;

               b.      The prospectus contained a section entitled “Management” that

purported to set forth the identities of the executive officers of DCRVFILLC. It was not

disclosed in that section, or in any other section of the prospectus, that Defendant

Legamaro and Defendant Hatami were the principal actors with Hakan Yalincak, in the

daily operations of DCRVFILLC, and that the other individuals listed in the prospectus

served as officers of DCRVFILLC in name only;

               c.      The prospecus contained numerous sections, including but not

limited to, sections entitled “Administrator” and “Auditor,” which stated that UBS Fund

Services (Cayman), Ltd., was DCRVFILLC’s Administrator and that Anchin Bloch &

Anchin was the DCRVFILLC’s auditor. It was not disclosed in that section, or in any

other section of the prospectus, that DCRVFILLC, did not have a fund administrator or




                                             21
                                             --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                Filed 08/25/08 Page 22 of 59



fund auditor and that all such administration and audits were, in fact, effected through

Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami and the money men described in Part III

above;

               d.      In reliance on the foregoing misrepresentations of Defendant

Legamaro and Defendant Hatami, the Plaintiffs invested the sum of $156,000.00 via wire

transfer from their Alaron Trading Corporation, Harris Trust & Bank account, to a

DCRVFILLC/YTRVFILLC account at Bear Stearns, Inc., in or about June of 2004;

               e.      Additionally, Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami, with

the money men identified in Part III above, forwarded the false and fraudulent HMMH

Fund Subsidiary documents, which they knew to be false, through the mails, specifically

the United States Postal Service and Federal Express, to among others: UBS AG in or

about August of 2004 to establish an account for DCRVPLLC; to UBS AG in or about

February of 2005 to establish an account for DCCLLC; and to Joseph Healey and Arthur

Cohen in or about early March of 2005, as well as, the investment banks of Jeffries Asset

Management (Bradford Klein, Stamford, Connecticut) and Family Fund Advisors (UK),

Ltd. (Diego von Buch, London, U.K.), in order to open additional bank accounts and to

raise additional funds for HMMH Fund Subsidiaries.

         B.    Mail Fraud Scheme: Legamaro, Hatami And The Plaintiffs

               58.     On or about November 4, 2003, Defendant Legamaro was retained

by the Plaintiffs as general counsel and tax counsel to the Yalincak Family and charged

with the duty to create six trusts and to locate a trustee. Defendant Legamaro represented

the total cost of his representation of the Plaintiffs in this regard, would not exceed

$20,000.00.




                                              22
                                              --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                Filed 08/25/08 Page 23 of 59



               59.     Between November 4, 2003 and January 8, 2004, Defendant

Legamaro forwarded, via federal express and facsimile, an engagement letter on

BFKPNLLP letterhead memorializing the duties described in paragraph 58, above, to the

Plaintiffs from his office at 333 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700, Chicago, Illinois to the

Plaintiffs’ residence at 15 Charter Ridge Drive, Newtown, Connecticut, 06470.

               60.     Thereafter, on or about January 8, 2004, the Plaintiffs, via

facsimile returned the engagement letter to Defendant Legamaro and on or about January

15, 2004, returned a copy of the engagement letter via United States Postal Service to

Defendant Legamaro.

               61.     It was not disclosed in the said engagement letter, or in a

subsequent bill or invoice, that Defendant Legamaro would and did ultimately bill in

excess of $500,000.00 and receive in payment the approximate sum of $420,000.00 from

the Plaintiffs, as purported legal fees, and caused to be delivered via the United States

Postal Service on or about the tenth (10) day of each month beginning in or about

February of 2004 and continuing to on or about June 10, 2005, a billing invoice, which

reflected charges billed to the Plaintiffs and DCRVFILLC investors, when in fact,

Defendant Legamaro did not have the Plaintiffs’ permission to bill in excess of

$20,000.00 nor DCRVFILLC’s investors’ permission to bill for legal fees.

               62.     As a result of the foregoing, Defendant Legamaro and Defendant

Hatami knowingly and willfully did devise and did intend to devise a scheme and artifice

to defraud and to obtain property and money in the control, dominion, and/or possession

of the Plaintiffs by means of false and fraudulent representations and promises through

the use of the mails for the purposes of executing the scheme as follows:




                                             23
                                             --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                 Filed 08/25/08 Page 24 of 59



               a.      In or about February of 2004, Defendant Legamaro knew that the

purported hedge fund operated by Thomas and Hakan Yalincak would likely fail, since

they both had little or no assets and little or no financial background and therefore, that

they would not be able to locate investors without his assistance;

               b.      Beginning in or about March of 2004, Defendant Legamaro did

knowingly and willfully engage in a series of fraudulent gift negotiations with New York

University (“NYU”) totaling more than $21 million, purportedly on behalf of the

Yalincak family; however, it was not disclosed to NYU that the Yalincak family did not

have $21 million to donate; it was not disclosed to the Yalincak family that Defendant

Legamaro had arranged the purported gift with Hakan Yalincak, without their prior

consent or permission, until after the gift had been announced by NYU; and it was not

disclosed to the Plaintiffs that they were being used as conduits to facilitate the looting of

investors and other interested parties in DCRVFILLC and that the primary purpose of the

purported gift, was not ”tax benefits” for the Plaintiffs;

               c.      It was further a part of the mail fraud scheme that Defendant

Legamaro and Defendant Hatami on May 3, 2004 formed a foundation known as “The

Omer Bulent Yalincak and Ayferafet Yalincak Family Foundation” to facilitate the NYU

gift, by mailing invoices and the Articles of Incorporation for the said foundation, via

Federal Express, from the State of Illinois to the State of Delaware, and subsequently to

the State of Connecticut; however, it was not disclosed to the Plaintiffs that the said

Foundation had no assets and was, in fact, a shell company to facilitate the NYU gift,

assist in DCRVFILLC’s scheme and to obtain legacy admissions for individuals




                                              24
                                              --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                Filed 08/25/08 Page 25 of 59



associated with DCRVFILLC to NYU, and was not registered as a non-profit entity with

the Internal Revenue Service (IRS §501 (c)(3));

               d.      It was a further part of the mail fraud scheme that in or about May

2004 Defendant Legamaro delivered through the use of the mails, specifically the United

states Postal Service, to the Plaintiffs, financials for a Yalincak family entity known as

Yasam Trading, LLC (“Yasam”), a subsidiary of HMMH, purportedly audited by an

audit firm known as Kirschbaum Perlman & Nagelberg, LLP (“KPNLLP”) indicating

that Yasam, under Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami’s management, had over

$1.9 billion in assets under management; however, it was not disclosed to the Plaintiffs

that, in fact, the said financials were fabricated. To wit: Defendant Legamaro became

aware of the false financials through Brian Formento of Deutsche Bank, AG, which had

originally received the financials from Hakan Yalincak in or about February of 2004, and

which had originally listed the audit firm as “KPMG, LLP,” and which Deutsche Bank

had confirmed as false. In or about May of 2004, the audit firm of KPMG, LLP was

replaced with the non-existent audit firm of KPNLLP by Hakan Yalincak and mailed to

Defendant Legamaro via the United States Postal Service to scan and convert to Adobe

PDF format so it could be e-mailed and shared with others, including the Plaintiffs, to

raise additional investments and open bank credit lines. At all times relevant hereto,

Defendant Legamaro knew the financials were false as, among other things, the purported

audit firm name of KPNLLP was “based on” his employer’s corporate name of

BFKPNLLP and there were no subsidiaries or affiliates of BFKPNLLP with that name.

Further, the defendants were aware of the financial condition of the Yalincak family and

knew that the representations contained in the said financial documents were false. In




                                             25
                                             --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                 Filed 08/25/08 Page 26 of 59



addition, Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami met with members of Dresdner

Bank, AG on June 3, 2004 in New York City to lend further credence to the false Yasam

financials;

               e.         On May 17, 2004 and May 18, 2004, Defendant Legamaro caused

to be delivered, through the mails, a Memorandum on BFKPN letterhead marked,

“YALN: Limitations On The Deduction for Charitable Contributions” and “YALN:

Earmarking Contributions For A Particular Purpose Or Use”, respectively, to explain the

purported reasoning for the defendants’ creation of the Yalincak Family Foundation and

the NYU Gift Agreements;

               f.         On or about July 2, 2004, Defendant Legamaro caused to be

delivered, through the mails, a $2,500,000.00 Gift Agreement (“Gift Agreement I”)

between the Yalincak Family Foundation and NYU, to the Plaintiffs; however, Defendant

Legamaro well knew and believed that Gift Agreement I would not be honored as the

Plaintiffs did not have such funds; the Yalincak Family Foundation did not have such

funds; the financial statements relied upon by the Plaintiffs were false; and the language

of Gift Agreement I, as drafted by Defendant Legamaro, allowed the contribution of the

Plaintiffs’ interests in DCRVFILLC, which were also worthless;

               g.         On or about August 17, 2004 through October 8, 2004, Defendant

Legamaro and Defendant Hatami, in an effort to give DCRVFILLC, which did not

legally exist at that point, a scintilla of legitimacy, formed, through the use of the mails,

the following entities:

                          i.      Daedalus Capital Partners, LLC on August 17, 2004,
                                  through the use of the mails from Chicago, Illinois to the
                                  State of Delaware and State of Connecticut;




                                              26
                                              --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101               Filed 08/25/08 Page 27 of 59



                       ii.      Daedalus Capital Relative Value Fund I, LLC on August
                                24, 2004, through the use of the mails from Chicago,
                                Illinois to the State of Delaware and State of Connecticut;

                       iii.     Daedalus Capital Relative Value Portfolio, LLC on
                                August 24, 2004, through the use of the mails from
                                Chicago, Illinois to the State of Delaware and State of
                                Connecticut;

                       iv.      Daedalus Capital (Cayman), LLC on October 1, 2004,
                                through the use of mails from Chicago, Illinois to the
                                Cayman Islands and the State of New York;

                       v.       HMMH Holdings, LLC on October 1, 2004, through the
                                use of the mails from Chicago, Illinois to the State of
                                Delaware and the State of New York;

               h.      Neither of the entities listed in paragraph 62(g), above, served a

legitimate purpose other than furthering the fraudulent schemes and pattern of

racketeering of Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami, as the representations

contained in the documents regarding the level of assets under management, the principal

operators, and track record were false;

               i.      On or about September 24, 2004, Defendant Legamaro caused to

be delivered, through the mails, an $18,500,000.00 Gift Agreement (“Gift Agreement

II”), between the Foundation and NYU to the Plaintiffs by mailing a copy of Gift

Agreement II from Chicago, Illinois to the Plaintiffs’ home in Pound Ridge, New York;

however, Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami knew and believed that Gift

Agreement II could not be honored, as the Plaintiffs did not have such funds; the

financial statements relied upon by the Plaintiffs were false; and the language of Gift

Agreement II, as drafted by Defendant Legamaro, allowed the contribution of the

Plaintiffs’ interests in DCRVFILLC, which were also worthless;




                                             27
                                             --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101               Filed 08/25/08 Page 28 of 59



               j.      On or about October 27, 2004, Defendant Legamaro and

Defendant ‘Hatami, as counsel and trustee, and friend of the trust, respectively, formed

the Hakan Yalincak Irrevocable Gift Trust and Hale Yalincak Irrevocable Gift Trust and

caused to be delivered, through the mails, from the State of Illinois to the State of New

York, a copy of the said trust documents to the Plaintiffs, which listed, among other

things, that the said trusts, through Yasam, had invested, or through the defendants

caused to be invested, the sum of $20,000,000.00 in DCRVFILLC; however, no such

investments were made; the purpose of the said documents were only to create an illusion

at a particular time, as in or about November of 2004, with the knowledge of Defendant

Legamaro and Defendant Hatami, Hakan Yalincak deposited and/or caused to be

deposited, a nonsufficient funds check in the amount of $20,000,000.00 to the DCP

checking account at Morgan Stanley;

               k.      On or about March 1, 2005, Defendant Legamaro issued a K-1

(Form 1065) for investors in the Fund, and through the mails, specifically via Federal

Express, forwarded a partnership tax return for DCRVFILLC, to its investors including

the Plaintiffs, verifying the investment by Yasam in the amount 6f $20,000,000.00 and

the Yalincak Family Foundation in the amount of $750,000.00; however, it was not

disclosed that the said tax return was prepared by Defendant Legamaro and not

DCRVFILLC’s accountant and audit firm, Anchin Bloch & Anchin, and, further, was

false as no such investments existed;

               63.     It was known by Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami that

absent the foregoing mail fraud schemes, that the Plaintiffs would not continue to employ

them to supervise Hakan Yalincak, perform the duties of general counsel (Defendant




                                            28
                                            --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101               Filed 08/25/08 Page 29 of 59



Legamaro), trustee (Defendant Legarnaro), friend of the trust (Defendant Hatami),

executor (Defendant Legamaro), and would not have invested, and maintained, their own

monies in the proximate sum of $156,000.00 in DCRVFILLC.

       C.      Bank Fraud Scheme: Defendant Legamaro And Defendant Hatami

i.     Introduction

               64.    On or about August 25, 2004, Hakan Yalincak, one of the

aforementioned money men for Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami, opened a

business checking account at the Greenwich, Connecticut branch of People’s Bank in the

name of HMMH subsidiary, Yasam Trading, LLC, doing business as Greenwich Special

Financing I, LLC (“GSF”), with an address of 15 Charter Ridge Drive, Sandy Hook,

Connecticut (“GSFI Account”). The only authorized signator on the account was Hakan

Yalincak.

               65.    At all times relevant hereto, it was known to the defendants that

Yasam Trading, LLC, doing business as Greenwich Special Financing I, LLC was an

entity that was owned by the Plaintiffs through their family holding company, HMMH.

               66.    At all times relevant hereto, People’s Bank was a financial

institution, the deposits of which were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation (“FDIC”). At all times relevant hereto, People’s Bank had and continues to

have branch offices throughout Connecticut and was insured by the FDIC.

ii.    Scheme to Defraud

               67.    From on or about September 1, 2004 to on or about October 1,

2004, in the District of Connecticut and elsewhere, Defendant Legamaro and Defendant

Hatami, knowingly and willfully executed and did attempt to execute, a scheme and

artifice to defraud People’s Bank and to obtain moneys, funds, credits, assets, and


                                            29
                                            --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                Filed 08/25/08 Page 30 of 59



securities owned by and under the custody of People’s Bank by means of false and

fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises.

               68.     It was a part of the scheme and artifice that, between on or about

September 1, 2004 to on or about October 1, 2004, the defendants upon learning that

Hakan Yalincak would not approve a $70,000.00 payment to Defendant Hatami from the

GSFI Account, did cause to be delivered a false wire receipt, bearing a forged signature

of Hakan Yalincak, to the People’s Bank, Greenwich, Connecticut branch, with

instructions to wire $70,000.00 from the GSFI Account to Defendant Hatami’s J.P.

Morgan Chase personal account (account number 365000879365).

               69.     It was further a part of the scheme that to ensure that the Plaintiffs

would not report her unlawful actions to the authorities, Defendant Hatami would and did

induce the Plaintiffs, to part with property, to wit, $70,000.00, through the use of actual

or threatened force, violence or fear (fear of economic loss), as more fully described in

subparagraph F of this section below, by stating to the Plaintiffs that it was, “to protect

your son” Hakan Yalincak).

               70.     It was a further part of the scheme and artifice that the $70,000.00

misappropriated from the GSFI Account at People’s Bank was used, in part, to pay for

Defendant Hatami’s personal expenses, including among other things, to pay for plastic

surgery expenses in Greenwich, Connecticut.

       D.      Wire Fraud Scheme: Defendant Legamaro And Defendant Hatami

               71.     In or about November of 2004, Defendant Legamaro and

Defendant Hatami, as general counsel and vice president of HMMH, would and did cause

Bank One, n/k/a J.P. Morgan Chase in Chicago, Illinois to open a commercial account for

and on behalf of HMMH. The signatories on the accounts were: Defendant Legamaro and


                                              30
                                              --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101               Filed 08/25/08 Page 31 of 59



Defendant Hatarni, as well as, Hakan Yalincak, and the bank statements were forwarded

to 333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2700, Chicago, Illinois, Attention: Michael J. Legamaro

(“HMMH Account I”).

               72.    On or about April 26, 2005, Defendant Legamaro and Ralph

Hallenborg, a money men for the defendants, would and did cause Bank One, n/k/a J.P.

Morgan Chase in Chicago, Illinois to open a commercial account for and on behalf of

HMMH subsidiary, DCP. The signatories on the account were Defendant Legamaro and

Ralph Hallenborg.

               73.    Proximate to the date of April 25, 2005, Hakan Yalincak, in a

collaborative effort to save the Daedalus house of cards from failing, through the use of

the false and fraudulent Private Placement Memorandum for DCRVFILLC, drafted by

Defendant Legamaro, and through a Pledge And Guaranty Agreement drafted and

endorsed by Defendant Legamaro, on Hakan Yalincak’s behalf, borrowed the

approximate sum of $2,750,000.00, for the purposes of investment in DCRVFILLC, as

follows:

       a.      $1,750,000.00 from Frank Meyer (“F.M.”), who wired his funds into
               HMMH Account I on April 29, 2005;

       b.      $1,000,000.00 from Robert Doede (“R.D.”), who wired his funds into the
               HMMH Account I on April 29, 2005;

               74.    At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Legamaro and Defendant

Hatami were authorized signatories on HMMH Account I and knew that as a result of the

Pledge And Guaranty Agreement described in paragraph 73 above, that misappropriation

of the said $2,750,000.00 would cause losses to the Plaintiffs in the same amount by

virtue of the said Pledge And Guaranty Agreement.




                                            31
                                            --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101               Filed 08/25/08 Page 32 of 59



               75.     At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Legamaro and Defendant

Hatami knew that HMMH Account I was to be maintained for the Plaintiffs’ benefit, was

not to receive commingled investor funds and that transfers from the account would

require permission from each of the Plaintiffs.

i.     The Scheme And Its Objects

               76.     Beginning in or about March of 2005 and continuing to on or about

May 6, 2005, in the Districts of Connecticut and Illinois, and elsewhere, Defendant

Legamaro and Defendant Hatami, knowingly and willfully devised and intended to

devise a scheme and artifice to defraud the money and property in the control, custody,

and/or possession of the Plaintiffs, by virtue of the contract described in paragraph 73,

above, by means of false and fraudulent pretenses and representations and promises.

               77.     It was an object of the scheme and artifice that Defendant

Legamaro, and Hakan Yalincak, a money men for the scheme, did falsely induce and

direct Frank Meyer and Robert Doede to wire the sum of $2,750,000.00 into HMMH

Account I, by falsely representing to the said investors, that their monies would be

transferred from HMMH Account I to an account of DCRVFILLC.

               78.     It was a further object of the scheme and artifice that Defendant

Legamaro and Defendant Hatami would and did conceal the fact that on April 29, 2005, a

combined $2,750,000.00 was received from Frank Meyer and Robert Doede as purported

investments in DCRVFILLC; however, Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami,

knew and believed, a substantial sum of the funds deposited into HMMH Account I

would be used for purposes other than investments, including their personal enrichment.




                                             32
                                             --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101              Filed 08/25/08 Page 33 of 59



               79.    It was a further objective of the scheme and artifice that Defendant

Legamaro and Defendant Hatami, upon learning of Hakan Yalincak’s arrest on May 6,

2005, would and did conceal, and would and did attempt to conceal their fraudulent

conduct from the Plaintiffs and the investors in HMMH Fund Subsidiaries by falsely

representing that there were substantial sums of money on deposit at HMMH Account I;

by resigning from the board of HMMH; by advising the Plaintiffs to keep their “mouths

shut” in connection with the United States Department of Justice’s on-going

investigation; and, in the case of Defendant Legamaro, taking an unannounced trip to the

Caribbean after Hakan Yalincak’s arrest.

iii.   Use of Interstate Wire Communications

               80.    On or about the date and from and to the places set forth in the

subsections below, in the Districts of Connecticut, Illinois, and New York, and

elsewhere, for the purposes of executing the scheme and artifice, Defendant Legamaro

and Defendant Hatami, knowingly and willfully transmited and did cause to be

transmitted, writings, signs, signals and sounds by means of wire communications in

interstate commerce as follows:

               l.     On or about October 18, 2004, Defendant Hatami and Hakan

Yalincak, a money man for the defendants, authorized the wire transfer from a DCP

Morgan Stanley Greenwich, Connecticut branch account, the sum of $68,612.55 to the

New County Porsche bank account in Greenwich, Connecticut in payment of a Porsche

Cayenne automobile for Defendant Hatami;

               m.     On or about April 29, 2005, Defendant Legamaro authorized the

wire transfer of $15,000.00 from HMMH Account I, Bank One, n/k/a J.F. Morgan Chase




                                           33
                                           --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101             Filed 08/25/08 Page 34 of 59



Bank, Chicago, Illinois, to a First Hawaii Bank account (account number 01-099000), in

Honolulu, Hawaii titled to Lisa LaBonte in payment of a consultant contract as described

in paragraphs 17 through 26, above;

              n.      On or about April 29, 2005, Defendant Legamaro authorized the

transfer of $125,000.00 from HMMH Account I, Bank One, n/k/a J.P. Morgan Chase

Bank, Chicago, Illinois, to a J.P. Morgan Chase Bank account (account number 039-

123964) in New York, New York titled to Preston Tsao in payment of a consultancy

contract as described in paragraphs 17 through 26, above;

              o.      On or about April 29, 2005, Defendant Legamaro authorized the

transfer of $1,000,000.00 from HMMH Account I, Bank One, n/k/a J.P. Morgan Chase

Bank, Chicago, Illinois, to a Citibank Bank account in New York, New York titled to

Jeffrey Ervine, an investor in HMMH Fund Subsidiaries as a purported return of his

investment;

              p.      On or about April 29, 2005, Defendant Legamaro authorized the

transfer of $250,000.00 to a Bank of America Bank account in New York, New York

titled to Hines 600 Lexington Avenue, LLC in payment of a lease with Hines.

              q.      On or about May 2, 2005, Defendant Legamaro authorized the

transfer of $100,000.00 from HMMH Account I, Bank One, n/k/a J.P. Morgan Chase

Bank, Chicago, Illinois, to The Northern Trust Company, Chicago, Illinois Bank account

(account numbers 61417 and 4250427) in payment of Defendant Legamaro’s legal bills

at his law firm, Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum Perlman & Nagelberg;

              r.      On or about May 2, 200S, Defendant Legamaro authorized the

transfer of $300,000.00 from HMMH Account I, Bank One, n/k/a J.P. Morgan Chase




                                           34
                                           --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101               Filed 08/25/08 Page 35 of 59



Bank, Chicago, Illinois, to a Fidelity Investments account in Stamford, Connecticut titled

to the Daedalus Capital Relative Value Fund I, LLC;

               s.      On or about May 2, 2005, Defendant Legamaro authorized the

transfer of $500,000.00 from HMMH Account I, Bank One, n/k/a J.P. Morgan Chase

Bank, Chicago, Illinois, to HMMH Account II in Chicago, Illinois;

               t.      On or about May 4, 2005, Defendant Legamaro authorized the

transfer of $354,000.00 from HMMH Account I, Bank One, n/k/a J.P. Morgan Chase

Bank, Chicago, Illinois, to a J.P. Morgan Chase Bank account (account number

016482635) titled to Ferber Frost Chan & Essner, LLP; as partial payment of HMMH

Fund Subsidiaries’ legal bills and in an effort to resolve two lawsuits which had been

filed against HMMH Fund Subsidiaries;

               u.      On or about May 4, 2005, Defendant Legamaro authorized the

transfer of $110,000.00 from HMMH Account II, Bank One, n/k/a J.P. Morgan Chase

Bank, Chicago, Illinois, to a J.P. Morgan Chase Bank account (account number

016482635) titled to Ferber Frost Chan & Essner, LLP, as partial payment of HMMH

Fund subsidiaries’ legal bills, and in an effort to resolve two lawsuits, which had been

filed against HMMH Fund Subsidiaries;

               v.      Each of the wire transactions referenced in subparagraphs a

through j, above, were concocted by and between Defendant Legamaro and Hakan

Yalincak, or other money men associated with the defendants and were made without the

knowledge or consent of the Plaintiffs.

       E.      Obstruction of Justice

               81.     Beginning in or about September 1, 2004, and continuing up to and

including February of 2005, the Connecticut State Banking Department, the United States


                                            35
                                            --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                Filed 08/25/08 Page 36 of 59



Department of Justice, and the United States Securities And Exchange Commission (“the

Government Agencies”), were conducting an investigation into the lawfulness of

DCRVFILLC, to identify the individuals operating HMMH and to identify individuals

who committed, caused the commission of, and conspired to violate the Connecticut

General Statutes or the United States Code.

               82.    From on or about September 1, 2004 to on or about February 28,

2005, government agencies issued target letters to, among others, Andy C. Wall,

Matthew J. Thomas and Defendant Hatami. The Connecticut State Banking Department

issued a subpoena to Hakan Yalincak to appear and testify at an examination in Hartford,

Connecticut. Prior to the hearing, the defendants requested that Plaintiff Ayfer Yalincak

attend in lieu of her son, and proposed that they would “train” her on how to answer the

government agencies’ questions so as to avoid getting her, Hakan Yalincak, son in

trouble.

               83.    Prior to the said hearing, after Ayfer Yalincak declined the

defendants’ offer, the defendants conducted several meetings, including “mock cross-

examination” sessions with Hakan Yalincak, who ultimately attended the hearing. At all

times relevant hereto, the answers and responses given at the said hearing were identical

to the “training” provided by Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami to Hakan

Yalincak prior to the hearing and were false and misleading.

               84.    From on or about September 1, 2004 to on or about February 28,

2005, Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami, unlawfully, willfully and knowingly,

corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice

in connection with the government agencies’ investigation as described above, for the




                                              36
                                              --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                 Filed 08/25/08 Page 37 of 59



purposes of concealing and causing to be concealed, the identities of the persons who

were responsible for, participated in, and/or had knowledge of the fraudulent transactions

at DCRVFILLC and other HMMH Subsidiaries, including HMMH itself, which was one

of the principal subjects of the government agencies’ investigation.

       F.      Hobbs Act Violation: Defendant Legamaro And Defendant Hatami

i.      Introduction

                85.     At all times relevant hereto, the Plaintiffs owned all of the interests

in HMMH, and its subsidiaries, through a series of trusts established and managed as

trustee by Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami.

ii.     The Extortion

                86.     Through the wrongful use of threatened or actual force, including

fear of economic loss, Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami knowingly and

willfully caused the Plaintiffs to contribute their interests in the following entities to

HMMH, through a written Contribution And Assignment Agreement dated January 1,

2005: Yasam Trading, LLC; SACS Capital Group, LLC; SACS Special Financing, LLC;

Kanyal Kanyal, LLC; Hagan Properties, LLC, Sugarloaf Commercial Properties, LLC;

Daedalus Capital Partners, LLC; Daedalus Capital Relative Value Fund I, LLC; Daedalus

Capital Relative Value Portfolio, LLC; and Daedalus Capital (Cayman), LLC, and caused

the Plaintiffs to list the Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami as executor and

friend of the estate, on their respective wills, including the will of their son, Hakan

Yalincak, who had approximately $30 million in life insurance policies was the Mass

Mutual Life Insurance Company, with the death benefit payable to Defendant Legamaro.

                87.     It was a further part of the defendants extortion scheme, that they

committed the following acts of extortion to deprive the Plaintiffs of their property:


                                              37
                                              --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                 Filed 08/25/08 Page 38 of 59



                w.      In or about August of 2004, Defendant Legamaro and Defendant

Hatami advised the Plaintiffs that Hakan Yalincak would go to jail without their

“protection” and their continued presence and operation of HMMH;

                x.      In or about the fall of 2004, Defendant Legamaro and Defendant

Hatami further advised that, unless they were fully compensated for their services, they

would cause a “run on the bank” in DCRVFILLC;

                88.     As a result of the foregoing, the Plaintiffs did not report the

unauthorized transfer of $70,000.00 from their GSFI Account in or about September of

2004 to the authorities.

                89.     As a result of the foregoing, the Plaintiffs agreed that, for the

continued “protection” of their son, Hakan Yalincak, Defendant Hatami would receive a

Porsche Cayenne automobile from the DCP Morgan Stanley Greenwich, Connecticut

account and that they would not report her conduct to the authorities. Accordingly, on

October 18, 2004, Defendant Hatami accompanied Hakan Yalincak to the Morgan

Stanley, Greenwich, Connecticut branch to cover a previously “insufficient funds” check

provided by Plaintiff Ayfer Yalincak to the automobile dealership where Defendant

Hatami had purchased a Porsche Cayenne automobile.

                90.     As a result of the foregoing, the Plaintiffs agreed that, for

continued “protection” of their son, Hakan Yalincak, they would agree to assign their

control and interests in the numerous entities described in paragraph 86, above, through a

written Contribution And Assignment Agreement drafted by Defendant Legamaro, to the

defendants through a series of trusts, which the defendants were jointly managing on

behalf of the Plaintiffs.




                                              38
                                              --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                 Filed 08/25/08 Page 39 of 59



               91.     As a result of the foregoing, the Plaintiffs relinquished over control

of HMMH to the defendants and the defendants received an unlawful benefit.

       G.      Money Laundering: Legamaro And Hatami

               92.     At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Legamaro and Defendant

Hatami, knew that the monies obtained from the victims described in Part IV, above,

were derived from the unlawful activity described in paragraphs 37 through 91, above,

namely, mail fraud, bank fraud, wire fraud, and extortion.

               93.     Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami knew that the

financial transactions conducted by them were derived from the unlawful activity

described in paragraphs 37 through 91.

               94.     The Defendants Legamaro and Defendant Hatami engaged in

conduct to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, or the control of the proceeds

of the unlawful activity.

               95.     Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami knew that their

conduct described in paragraphs 71 to 80, above, would act as a fraud and deceit on the

Plaintiffs and HMMH Fund Subsidiaries’ investors, to the Plaintiffs’ and HMMH Fund

Subsidiaries’ investors’ loss and detriment.

       H.      Criminal Convictions In Regard To Predicate Acts

               96.     The Plaintiffs state, upon information and belief, that Defendant

Legamaro and Defendant Hatami have no criminal conviction(s) for violation of the

predicate acts, however, that in connection with Hakan Yalincak’s plea of guilty to bank

fraud and wire fraud (See, United states v. Hakan Yalincak, No. 3:05-CR-00111-JBA,

Doc. 77), and his sealed Cooperation Agreement with the United States Attorney’s Office




                                               39
                                               --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101              Filed 08/25/08 Page 40 of 59



for the District of Connecticut the Government stated that Defendant Hatami and

Defendant Legamaro are under federal investigation for criminal offenses.

          I.   Civil Litigation In Regards to Predicate Acts

               97.    The Plaintiffs have obtained the following judgments and/or

commenced the following related actions in connection with the predicate acts alleged

herein:

          a.   SACS Global Trust & Mortgage, LLC, v. Matthew J. Thomas, et al., No.
               3:06-CV-01228 (JBA), 478 F.Supp.2d 278 (D.Conn.2007), default
               judgment entered in favor of the Plaintiffs’ mortgage company in the
               amount of $695,350.30 on March 23, 2007;

          b.   The Yalincak Foundation v. MJL Investments, LLP, et al., No. CV-06-
               5000975-S, Stamford, Connecticut Superior Court, default entered on July
               26, 2007;

               98.    The Plaintiffs allege that they are aware of the following actions

commenced by HMMH Fund Subsidiary investors against the Defendant Legamaro and

Defendant Hatami:

          c.   Joseph Healey, et al v. Michael J. Legamaro, et al., No. 1:07-CV-01749,
               United States District Court for the Southern District of New York;

          d.   Frank Meyer, et al v. Barack Ferrazzano, et al., No. 2007-1-004186,
               Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois, Law Division;

          e.   Yann Geron Trustee of the Daedalus Capital Relative Value Fund I, LLC
               v. Mary E. Siachitano, et al., Adversary Proceeding No. 07-01745 (PCB),
               United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York;

          J.   The Predicate Acts Form Pattern Of Racketeering

               99.    The Plaintiffs allege that the predicate acts described in paragraphs

37 through 91, above, constitute a pattern of racketeering within the meaning of 18

U.S.C. §1961(5), and reveal continued, or the threat of continued, unlawful conduct.

Specifically, Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami received a benefit from their




                                            40
                                            --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                Filed 08/25/08 Page 41 of 59



unlawful conduct, have not divested themselves of their illicit gains and the pattern of

racketeering shared common goals, similar methods and was repetitious by virtue of the

numerous use of the mails and wires to loot HMMH, including its affiliates and

subsidiaries; convert, secret and/or transfer the Plaintiffs’ investments and interests in

HMMH and the investments of investors in HMMH Fund Subsidiaries.

       K.      Common Plan

               100.    Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami’s predicate acts relate

to each other as a part of a common plan, as follows:

               a.      Shortly after Hakan Yalincak and Thomas commenced operations

at DCRVFILLC, then known as, YTRVFILLC, Defendant Legamaro and Defendant

Hatami knew that Hakan Yalincak and Thomas could not raise money on their own for

the purported hedge fund;

               b.      Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami knowingly and

willfully became corporate officers of the purported hedge fund;

               c.      Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami represented to the

primary targets and potential investors of the hedge fund, that the hedge fund was

legitimate, managed and operated in accordance with its stated objectives in its Private

Placement Memorandum, which was drafted by Defendant Legamaro;

               d.      It was a further part of the defendants’ common plan that, together

with the money men, they represented to potential investors that the Plaintiffs could

personally cover losses sustained by investors in DCRVFILLC as, Defendant Legamaro

and Defendant Hatami managed “hundreds of millions of dollars” for and on behalf of

the Plaintiffs. For example, in or about the Fall of 2004, Defendant Legamaro and

Defendant Hatami, as well as, Hakan Yalincak, met with Jack DiMaio of DiMaio &


                                              41
                                              --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                   Filed 08/25/08 Page 42 of 59



Nasser, LLP, a credit derivatives hedge fund in New York, New York, and fundraiser

John Fogarty, in Greenwich, Connecticut. At that meeting, the defendants represented

and failed to correct representations, that the Yalincak family could and would invest “up

to $400 million” in DiMaio’s hedge fund, and could potentially “hire” Fogarty to manage

a “$2.5 billion bond portfolio;” however, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant

Legamaro and Defendant Hatami knew that such representations were false. Defendant

Legamaro and Defendant Hatami knew that the Plaintiffs, through their alter ego,

HMMH, a RICO enterprise, were being used as a vehicle, through the pattern of

racketeering described in paragraphs 37 through 91, above, to raise investments for

DCRVFILLC, an HMMH subsidiary; move such investments through HMMH; and loot

the said monies for payment fraudulent legal bills and personal expenses;

                e.      At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Legamaro and Defendant

Hatami knew that without using HMMH as a vehicle, their common scheme and artifice

to defraud, through the predicate acts more particularly described in paragraphs 37

through 91, above, would not have been successful and would not have continued and

evolved over a two year span and which continue to the present through their continued

possession and control of their illicit gains.

VI.     DESCRIPTION OF THE RICO ENTERPRISE

       A.       HMMH

                101.    HMMH Holdings, LLC (“HMMH”), was and is a Delaware

limited liability company formed by Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami, with a

principal place of business in Greenwich, Connecticut.

                102.    HMMH was owned by four trusts created and operated as trustee

by Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami as follows:


                                                 42
                                                 --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                 Filed 08/25/08 Page 43 of 59



        a.      The Omer Bulent Yalincak Revocable Trust (49.9983%);

        b.      The Ayferafet Yalincak Revocable Trust (49.9983%);

        c.      The Hale Yalincak Irrevocable Gift Trust (0.0017%);

        d.      The Hakan Yalincak Irrevocable Gift Trust (0.0017%).

                103.    At all times relevant hereto, HMMH served as the alter ego of the

Plaintiffs as it held their property and interests in the entities listed in paragraph 6, above,

with a principal place of business at 112 Mason Street, Greenwich, Connecticut and 333

West Wacker Drive, Suite 2700, Chicago, Illinois; numerous bank accounts in the

District of Connecticut and elsewhere; and maintained its corporate minutes in Chicago,

Illinois with Defendant Legamaro.

        B.      Employees, Officers, And Directors Of HMMH

                104.    Beginning on or about November 4, 2003, and continuing to on or

about May 6, 2005, Defendant Legamaro was employed as general counsel to the

Plaintiffs.

                105.    Beginning on or about March 2004, to on or about May 6, 2005,

Defendant Legamaro became the general counsel and secretary of HMMH, including its

affiliates and subsidiaries.

                106.    Beginning in or about Fall of 2004, and continuing to an unknown

date, Defendant Legamaro served as trustee for each of the trusts identified in paragraph

8, above.

                107.    Beginning in or about May 2004, and continuing to the present,

Defendant Hatami was employed and served as the vice president and director of

HMMH, including its affiliates and subsidiaries.




                                               43
                                               --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                 Filed 08/25/08 Page 44 of 59



                108.    Beginning in or about October of 2004, and continuing to May 6,

2005, as to Defendant Legamaro, and to the present with Defendant Hatami, served as the

trustee and friend of the trust, respectively, for each of the trusts identified in paragraph 8,

above.

         C.     The Defendants’ Conduct And Association Of HMMH

                109.    Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami conducted and

participated, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of HMMH, a RICO enterprise’s affairs

through a pattern of racketeering activity more particularly described in paragraphs 37

through 91 above.

                110.    Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami were a part of the

management of the enterprise, and were participants in its day-to-day affairs by virtue of

their drafting and submission of numerous corporate documents for, and on behalf of,

HMMH, as well as, their opening and maintenance of numerous bank accounts for, and

on behalf of, HMMH, as more particularly described in paragraphs 3 through 91 above.

         D.     Defendants And HMMH

                111.    The Plaintiffs as the victims, HMMH as the enterprise, and

Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami as the perpetrators of the alleged

racketeering activity, are each separate and distinct persons as defined in 18 U.S.C.

§1961(3).

                112.    By virtue of their position in the management and operation of

HMMH, Defendants Legamaro and Defendant Hatami, were the controlling members of

HMMH, and each and every one of its affiliates and subsidiaries; authorized signators on




                                              44
                                              --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                  Filed 08/25/08 Page 45 of 59



numerous bank accounts; managers, and/or members of each and every entity listed in the

corresponding corporate minutes and bank records.

        E.      HMMH And The Defendants Are Separate Entities

                113.      HMMH, as a legal entity onto itself, constitutes an enterprise

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1961(4) that engaged in and affects interstate and foreign

commerce in the United States, through its business operations, including daily use of the

mails and wires, and through its maintenance of numerous bank accounts at FDIC insured

financial institutions.

                114.      HMMH, as an enterprise, is a separate and distinct legal entity

from Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami and HMMH had its own distinctive

organizational structure that has existed over time. Furthermore, HMMH maintains an

existence beyond that which is necessary to commit the unlawful acts alleged herein.

VII.   DEFENDANTS’ PATTERN OF RACKETEERING AND THE
       ENTERPRISE ARE SEPARATE

                115.      As described by the Plaintiffs in paragraphs 37 through 91 and 92

through 114, above, the pattern of racketeering and the enterprise are separate, as the sole

purpose of HMMH was to serve as an estate planning vehicle for the Plaintiffs, whereas,

the pattern of racketeering activity looted HMMH’s coffers for the personal enrichment

of Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami.

                116.      As a result of the defendants’ conduct, HMMH is presently

involved in bankruptcy proceedings in the District of Connecticut as more particularly

described in paragraph 7 above.




                                               45
                                               --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                Filed 08/25/08 Page 46 of 59



VIII. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
       ENTERPRISE AND PATTERN OF RACKETEERING

               117.    At all times relevant hereto, prior to November 4, 2003, HMMH, a

RICO enterprise, its subsidiaries and each of its predecessors-in-interest, specifically, the

Yasam Trading, LLC, then a Connecticut limited liability company, were composed of

money and property belonging to the Plaintiffs.

               118.    Subsequent to November 4, 2003, and continuing to the present,

HMMH’s day-to-day affairs, under the management of Defendant Legamaro and

Defendant Hatami, evolved into the enterprise with numerous shell subsidiaries and

businesses, all of which were conducted and transformed, through the pattern of

racketeering more particularly described in paragraphs 31 through 91 above, to loot

HMMH and each of its subsidiaries and affiliates.

IX.    THE INJURY TO THE ENTERPRISE

               119.    At all times relevant hereto, under Defendant Legamaro and

Defendant Hatami’s management, they knowingly and willfully created and caused to be

created, the illusion, through the pattern of racketeering and fraudulent schemes, as more

particularly described in paragraphs 1 through 91 above, that HMMH and its subsidiaries

were collectively worth hundreds of million of dollars, whereas, they then and there knew

and believed, that HMMH, under their management had practically become insolvent.

               120.    As a result of the Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami’s

management of the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity, the enterprise

was looted, deprived of business opportunities, honest services, as well as, property and

money in its control, custody and/or possession and pillaged of assets.




                                             46
                                             --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101               Filed 08/25/08 Page 47 of 59



               121.   As of the date of filing of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint, HMMH was

and is insolvent and involved in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding in the United States

Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut as more particularly described in

paragraph 7 above.

X.     EFFECT OF THE ENTERPRISE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
       COMMERCE

               122.   At all times relevant hereto, the activities of the enterprise affected

interstate and foreign commerce by virtue of the following:

       e.      HMMH maintained numerous bank accounts at various domestic and
               foreign financial institutions, several of which were insured by the FDIC;

       f.      HMMH, directly and indirectly, regularly used, and continues to use, the
               wires and mails, including bank wire transfers, telephone and facsimile
               communications, as a part of its day-to-day existence.

XI.    VIOLATIONS OF 18 U.S.C. §1962(a)

               123.   At this time, the Plaintiffs have not alleged violations of 18 U.S.C.

§1962(a), however, continuing investigation and discovery may alter the Plaintiffs’

claims. The Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend their Complaint after continuing

investigation and discovery.




                                            47
                                            --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101               Filed 08/25/08 Page 48 of 59



XII. VIOLATIONS OF 18 U.S.C. §1962(b)

       A.     Defendant Legamaro And Defendant Hatami Receive Income Derived
              From Pattern of Racketeering Activity

               124.    The Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 122, above, as if fully set forth herein.

               125.    By virtue of their unlawful acts as more particularly described in

paragraphs 37 through 91 above, Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami received

income derived from a pattern of racketeering activity.

       B.     ACQUISITION OF AN ENTERPRISE

               126.    Pursuant to the unlawful schemes described in paragraphs 37

through 95 above, the defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity and

acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an ever-expanding ownership and/or

creditor interest in HMMH, including its affiliates and/or subsidiaries and control of

HMMH, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(b).

               127.    Pursuant to the unlawful schemes described above, the defendants

engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity and acquired and maintained, directly or

indirectly, a 66.6% ownership interest, in Greenwich Global Structured Finance, LLC,

which directly competed with the Plaintiffs’ interests.

               128.    As a direct and proximate result of the defendants’ acquisition

and/or control of HMMH, including its affiliates and/or subsidiaries, such as GGSF, the

Plaintiffs were injured by the defendants’ acquisition of HMMH, the RICO enterprise.

               129.    As a result of the defendants’ acquisition of GGSF and control of

HMMH, the Plaintiffs suffered a loss by, among other things:

       a.      loss of honest services;




                                             48
                                             --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101               Filed 08/25/08 Page 49 of 59



          b.   loss of past, present, and future gains, and economic opportunities;

          c.   loss of all interests and/or control over the day-to-day affairs of HMMH.

XII.      VIOLATIONS OF 18 U.S.C. §1962(c)

          A.   Defendant Legamaro And Defendant Hatami As Employees of the
               Enterprise

               130.    The Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege each and every allegation

in paragraphs 1 through 129 above, as if fully set forth herein.

               131.    The Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege each and every allegation

in paragraphs 1 through 151 of their Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth

herein.

          B.   Defendant Legamaro And Defendant Hatami Conducted The Affairs
               Of The Enterprise Through Pattern of Racketeering Activity

               132.    Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami conducted the affairs

of HMMH, a RICO enterprise engaged in and the activities of which affect interstate

commerce, and did unlawfully, willfully and knowingly conduct and participate, directly

and indirectly, in the conduct of HMMH’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering

activity, which included, but was not limited to, mail fraud (18 U.S.C. §1341), bank fraud

(18 U.S.C. §1344), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §1343), obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C.

§1503), extortion (18 U.S.C. §1951), and money laundering (18 U.S.C. §1956), in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(c), as more particularly described in paragraphs 1 through

95 above.

               133.    As a direct and proximate cause of the defendants operation and

management of HMMH, a RICO enterprise, through the above pattern of racketeering

activity, the Plaintiffs suffered damages.




                                             49
                                             --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                 Filed 08/25/08 Page 50 of 59



XIII. VIOLATIONS OF 18 U.S.C. §1962(d)

               134.    The Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege each and every allegation

in paragraphs 1 through 133 above, as if fully set forth herein.

               135.    The Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege each and every allegation

in paragraphs 1 through 151 of their Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth

herein.

          A.   Conspiracy To Violate 18 U.S.C. §1962(b) And 18 U.S.C. §1962(c)

               136.    From on or about November 4, 2003, up to and including the filing

of the Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, in the District of Connecticut and

elsewhere, Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami, together with the money men

more particularly described in paragraphs 1 through 26, above, did unlawfully, willfully

and knowingly combine, conspire, confederate and agree with each other to acquire,

maintain, and/or control HMMH, a RICO enterprise, including several or all of its

affiliates and/or subsidiaries, through a pattern of racketeering, all in violation of 18

U.S.C. §1962(d) (conspiracy to Violate 18 U.S.C. §1962(b)).

               137.    From on or about November 4, 2003, up to and including the filing

of the Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, in the District of Connecticut and

elsewhere, Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami, together with the money men

more particularly described in paragraphs 1 through 26 above, did unlawfully, willfully,

and knowingly combine, conspire, confederate and agree with each other to conduct and

participate, directly and indirectly, in the conduct of HMMH, through a pattern of

racketeering, including mail fraud (18 U.S.C. §1341), bank fraud (18 U.S.C. §1344), wire

fraud (18 U.S.C. §1343), obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. §1503), extortion (18 U.S.C.




                                              50
                                              --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101               Filed 08/25/08 Page 51 of 59



§1951), and money laundering (18 U.S.C. §1956), all in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(d)

(Conspiracy to Violate 18U.S.C. §1962(c)).

       B.     The Objectives Of The Conspiracy

               138.   It was an objective of the conspiracy that Defendant Legamaro and

Defendant Hatami, unlawfully, willfully and knowingly, would and did obtain monies, as

investments from the Plaintiffs and others, by falsely representing that their monies

would be invested in DCRVFILLC; however, Defendant Legamaro and Defendant

Hatami, knew and believed, a substantial sum of the monies so obtained, would be used

for purposes other than investments, including their own enrichment.

               139.   It was a further objective of the conspiracy that the defendants

would and did obtain control of HMMH, a RICO enterprise, directly and indirectly,

through a pattern of racketeering as more particularly described in paragraphs 1 through

129 above.

               140.   It was a further objective of the conspiracy that the defendants

would and did submit, false and fraudulent invoices for legal and other services, to secure

payment from the Plaintiffs and other interested parties; however, such services were not

rendered, as more particularly described in paragraphs 1 through 129 above.

               141.   It was a further objective of the conspiracy that the defendants,

directly and indirectly, would and did conduct HMMH, a RICO enterprise, through a

pattern of racketeering activity, as more particularly described in paragraphs 1 through

133 above.

       C.     Overt Acts




                                             51
                                             --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                   Filed 08/25/08 Page 52 of 59



               142.    In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the objectives

thereof, Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami, and their confederates, committed

the following overt acts, inter alia, in the District of Connecticut and elsewhere:

               a.      Each of the mailings alleged in paragraphs 1 through 95, above,

are hereby repeated, realleged, and incorporated by reference herein as overt acts as

though set forth;

               b.      Each of the wire communications alleged in paragraphs 1 through

95, above, are hereby repeated, realleged, and incorporated by reference herein as overt

acts as though set forth;

               c.      Each of the instances of bank fraud alleged in paragraphs 1

through 95, above, are hereby repeated, realleged, and incorporated by reference as overt

acts as though set forth;

               d.      Each of the instances of obstruction of justice alleged in

paragraphs 1 through 95, above, are hereby repeated, realleged, and incorporated by

reference herein as overt acts as though set forth;

               e.      Each of the instances of extortion alleged in paragraphs 1 through

95, above, are hereby repeated, realleged, and incorporated by reference herein as overt

acts as though set forth;

               f.      Each of the instances of money laundering alleged in paragraphs 1

through 95, above, are hereby repeated, realleged, and incorporated by reference herein

as overt acts as though set forth;




                                             52
                                             --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101               Filed 08/25/08 Page 53 of 59



               g.      Each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 124 through 129,

above, are hereby repeated, realleged, and incorporated by reference herein as overt acts

as though set forth;

               h.      Each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 130 through 133,

above, are hereby repeated, realleged, and incorporated by reference herein as overt acts

as though set forth.

XIV. INJURY TO BUSINESS AND PROPERTY

               143.    In connection with Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami’s

violations of 18 U.S.C. §1962(b), the Plaintiffs have suffered damages as a result of the

defendants’ control of HMMH and acquisition of a 66.66% stake in GGSFLLC, a

subsidiary of HMMH, for substantially less than fair value.

               144.    In connection with Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami’s

violations of 18 U.S.C. §1962(c), the Plaintiffs have suffered damages as a result of the

looting of HMMH by the defendants, as more particularly described in paragraphs 1

through 95 above.

               145.    In connection with the defendants’ violations of 18 U.S.C.

§1962(d), the Plaintiffs have suffered damages in connection with the overt acts

described in paragraph 142 above.

               146.    As a direct and proximate result of the defendants’ conduct as

alleged herein, HMMH is involved in involuntary bankruptcy proceedings in the United

states Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut and the Daedalus Capital Relative

Value Fund I, LLC is involved in separate involuntary bankruptcy proceedings in the

United states Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, as more

particularly described in paragraph 7 above.


                                            53
                                            --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                   Filed 08/25/08 Page 54 of 59



                147.    As a direct and proximate result of the defendants’ conduct as

alleged herein, the Plaintiffs have suffered damages of at least $9,888,612.55, or such

other amount to be determined at trial.

XV.    DIRECT AND CASUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INJURY TO
       PLAINTIFFS’ AND DEFENDANTS’ VIOLATION OF RICO

                148.    Since November 2003, (a) there have been numerous unlawful acts

committed by the defendants as more particularly described in paragraphs 37 through 95

above; the length of time over which the said unlawful acts were committed extends from

at least November of 2003 to the present; (c) the said acts were similar in that they related

to the fraud, theft, wiring, secreting and/or transferring of funds in the bank accounts of

HMMH and had a nexus with the defendants’ employment and association with the

Plaintiffs and HMMH; (d) there was more than one “primary target” of the defendants’

conduct -- (i) the owners of HMMH, and (ii) the customers and investors of HMMH; (e)

the perpetrator of these unlawful acts has been and continues to be Defendant Legamaro

and Defendant Hatami, as they have not divested themselves of their illicit gains; and (f)

the character of the unlawful activity involves numerous schemes both before and after

the demise of HMMH and HMMH Fund Subsidiaries in bankruptcy proceedings, to keep

any and all looted assets for the defendants’ enrichment through the pattern of

racketeering activity described in paragraphs 37 through 95, above, with the likelihood of

additional unlawful acts continuing into the future, as a result of the defendants’ efforts to

avoid the seizure or return of their illicit gains.

                149.    The predicate acts of racketeering committed by the defendants as

more particularly described in paragraphs 37 through 95, above, are related as they have

the same or similar purposes, results, methods of commission and are not isolated events.



                                                54
                                                --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                 Filed 08/25/08 Page 55 of 59



               150.    At all times relevant hereto, the defendants’ injurious conduct as

more particularly described in paragraphs 37 through 142, above, are both the factual and

proximate cause of the Plaintiffs’ injury.

               151.    At all times relevant hereto, the defendants’ conduct as more

particularly described in paragraphs 37 through 142, above, were a substantial factor in

the sequence of events -- the transfer of property, interest, and millions of dollars --

which resulted in losses to the Plaintiffs and such losses were reasonably foreseeable by

the defendants.

XVI.     DAMAGES

         A.    Defendant Legamaro

               152.    Defendant Legamaro is liable for $1.4 million in tax losses to the

Plaintiffs from 2003 and including $1.4 million in connection with the numerous entities

he formed, or caused to be formed and his purported “tax advice” to the Plaintiffs.

               153.    Defendant Legamaro is liable to the Plaintiffs for fraudulently

billing in excess of $500,000.00 to the Plaintiffs for his purported “tax advice”, when, in

fact, the original retainer agreement stated that he would not bill more than $20,000.00.

               154.    Defendant Legamaro is liable for the more than $2.75 million that

he transferred or caused to be transferred in connection with the wire fraud scheme more

particularly described in paragraphs 71 through 80 above.

               155.    Defendant Legamaro is liable for the more than $138,612.55 that

was received by Defendant Hatami in connection with the bank fraud and extortion

schemes as more particularly described in paragraphs 64 through 70 and 85 through 91

above.




                                              55
                                              --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101               Filed 08/25/08 Page 56 of 59



               156.    Defendant Legamaro is liable for the damages to the Plaintiffs

from the mail fraud schemes and money laundering schemes as more particularly

described in paragraphs 48 through 63 and 92 through 95 above.

               157.    Defendant Legamaro is liable for the damages sustained by the

Plaintiffs in connection with his acquisition of GGSF and his operation and control of

HMMH through the pattern of racketeering as more particularly described in paragraphs

1 through 142 above.

               158.    As a result of Defendant Legamaro’s conduct as alleged herein, the

Plaintiffs have been damaged in the amount of at least $9,888,612.55, or such other

amount to be determined at trial.

       B.     Defendant Hatami

               159.    Defendant Hatami is liable to the Plaintiffs in connection with the

mail fraud schemes as more particularly described in paragraphs 48 through 63 above.

               160.    Defendant Hatami is liable to the Plaintiffs in connection with the

wire fraud schemes more particularly described in paragraphs 71 through 80 above.

               161.    Defendant Hatami is liable for the damages to the Plaintiffs in

connection with the bank fraud and extortion schemes more particularly described in

paragraphs 64 through 70 and 85 through 91.

               162.    Defendant Hatami is liable for the damages to the Plaintiffs in

connection with the money laundering schemes as more particularly described in

paragraphs 92 through 95 above.

               163.    Defendant Hatami is liable for the damages sustained by the

Plaintiffs in connection with her acquisition of GGSF and her operation and control of




                                            56
                                            --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101               Filed 08/25/08 Page 57 of 59



HMMH through the pattern of racketeering as more particularly described in paragraphs

1 through 142 above.

               164.    As a result of Defendant Hatami’s conduct as alleged herein, the

Plaintiffs have been damaged in the amount of at least $9,888,612.55, or such other

amount to be determined at trial.

XVII.     PENDENT STATE LAW CLAIMS

               165.    The Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint also seeks to recover

damages in connection with the following claims:

               a.      Count One of the Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint seeks

damages in connection with claims for common law fraud;

               b.      Count Two of the Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint seeks

damages in connection with claims for negligent misrepresentation;

               c.      Count Three of the Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint seeks

damages, or in the alternative, return of property, in connection with claims for

conversion;

               d.      Count Four of the Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint seeks

damages in connection with Defendant Hatamis’ aiding and abetting Defendant

Legamaros’ breach of fiduciary duty;

               e.      Count Five of the Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint seeks

damages in connection with Defendant Hatami’s aiding and abetting Defendant

Legamaro’s fraud;

               f.      Count Six of the Plaintiffs I Second Amended Complaint seeks

damages in connection with both defendants’ breach of fiduciary duty;




                                            57
                                            --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                Filed 08/25/08 Page 58 of 59



               g.         Count Seven of the Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint seeks

damages for negligence as the defendants owed the Plaintiffs a duty of care;

               h.         Count Eight of the Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint seeks

damages for Defendant Legamaro’s breach of contract;

               i.         Count Nine of the Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint seeks

damages for Defendant Legamaro and Defendant Hatami’s breach of the duty of good

faith and fair dealing;

               j.         Count Ten of the Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint seeks

damages as to both Defendants under the equitable theory of unjust enrichment;

               k.         Count Eleven of the Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint seeks

damages for Defendant Legamaro’s attorney malpractice;

               l.         Count Twelve of the Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint seeks

damages in connection with Defendant Legamaro’s billing practices for violations of the

Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.

XVIII. PRAYERS FOR RELIEF

       WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully pray for relief and judgment as stated

in their Second Amended Complaint at Section VIII, paragraphs 1 to 10.

                                               Respectfully submitted
                                               By their attorney,

                                               /s/ Bernard Grossberg
                                               _________________________
                                               Bernard Grossberg
                                               99 Summer Street
                                               Suite 1800
                                               Boston, MA 02110
                                               (617) 737-8558
                                               Fax: (617) 737-8223
                                               E-Mail: bgrossberg@grossberglaw.com
                                               ct27356


                                              58
                                              --
Case 3:07-cv-00311-AVC Document 101                Filed 08/25/08 Page 59 of 59



                              CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

         I certify that on August 25, 2008, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically
to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system and by first class postage
pre-paid by depositing a copy of same in the mail addressed as follows:


Luis B. Blumenfeld, Esq.
Cooney, Scully & Dowling, LLP
Hartford Square North
Ten Columbus Boulevard
Hartford, CT 06106-5109
(Counsel for Michael J. Legamaro)

Jeralyn H. Baran, Esq.
Chuhak & Tecson, P.C.
30 S. Wacker Drive
Suite 2600
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(Counsel for Mary E. Hatami
f/k/a Mary E. Siachitano)


                                                      /s/ Bernard Grossberg
                                                      __________________________
                                                      Bernard Grossberg




                                             59
                                             --

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: Lawsuit by Omer B. Yalincak, Ayfer Yalincak, Hale Yalincak and Hakan Yalincak against Michael J. Legamaro, Mary E. Siachitano, Mary E. Hatami, Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum Perlman & Nagelberg, LLP et al, which was subsequently settled by Defendants for undisclosed sum. This is the Plaintiffs (Yalincak's) RICO statement against the Defendants.