![]() ![]() 1 at ♡7.) The Court notes that the Modification Agreement attached to the complaint is in Spanish and Nodus Bank failed to submit any English translation of that document. Although on its face the Note matured on May 2, 2019, the maturity date was extended to December 23, 2019, and the loan amount was reduced to $1,350,000 after the parties executed a Modification Agreement to the Note (the “Modification Agreement”) on October 2, 2019. ![]() 1-5 at ¶(r)), including “all proceeds of Collateral of every kind and nature in whatever form, including, without limitation, both cash and non-cash proceeds resulting or arising from. 1 at ♡4.) The schedule attached to the Financing Statement pledges as collateral all assets of Arocha, “real and personal, tangible and intangible” (ECF No. The Financing Statement for the Security and the Note was registered with the State of Florida on or about July 9, 2018. 1-4) for 100% of the shares in Codazzi Investments, LLC and “all assets of Debtor, including but not limited to those listed on the schedule” pursuant to a UCC-1 Financing Statement (the “Financing Statement”) (ECF No. at ♡2.) As security for the Note, Arocha pledged and endorsed a Certificate (ECF No. at ♡1.) The Note also provides for a post- default interest rate of 18% per annum. It provides for payment of interest at the annual rate of 9.25%, or $11,562.50 per month, until the maturity date of May 2, 2019. The financial terms of the Note are straightforward. The holder of this Note may at its sole discretion, freely assign or transfer this Note and may deliver all or any of the property then held as collateral security therefore to the transferee(s) who shall thereupon become vested with all the powers and rights above given to the holder in respect thereto and the holder and any mesne transferee shall thereafter be forever relieved and fully discharged from any liability in relation thereto. at ♡0.) With respect to assignments and transfers, the Note provides that: 1-3).) The complaint alleges that “he owner and holder of the Note from that moment forward was Nodus Bank,” although the Defendants dispute the validity of the transfer of the Note from Nodus Financial to Defendant Nodus Bank. On the same day, the Note was sold to Nodus Bank via a Loan and Purchase Agreement. 1 at ♨.) Nodus Finance relied upon these representations and, on or about May 2, 2018, Arocha executed and delivered to Nodus Finance a Note in the principal amount of $1,500,000. Partner with an annual salary of $600,000. 1-1 at 13.) Arocha also provided a letter from the human resources manager of HES Management and Services, LLC, advising that Arocha was its CEO/Managingġ The Court accepts the Plaintiff’ s factual allegations as true for the purposes of evaluating the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 1-2 at 2.) As part of the loan application, Arocha provided a financial statement of his assets as of February 2018, wherein he represented that he had total assets of $69,650,472 and a net worth of $39,100,472. On or about April 17, 2018, Arocha filed a loan application with non-party Nodus Finance, LLC (“Nodus Finance”), a Florida limited liability company. Having reviewed the motion, the record, and the relevant legal authorities, the Court grants in part and denies in part the motion to dismiss (ECF No. The Defendants argue that the complaint must be dismissed because Nodus Bank lacks standing to enforce the Note or otherwise recover on the loan, and because Nodus failed to plead fraud with particularity. Nodus Bank alleges that Arocha breached the Note by failing to repay it, that Arocha committed fraud in connection with the making of the Note, and that Arocha and 5711 together fraudulently transferred an asset to hinder Nodus Bank’s ability to collect on the Note. 20.) This case arises from Arocha’s purported failure to make good on a promissory note (the “Note”) that was allegedly transferred to Nodus Bank. Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss This matter is before the Court upon the motion filed by Francisco Arocha Hernandez (“Arocha”) and 5711 Miami Beach, LLC (“5711,” and, together with Arocha, “Defendants”) to dismiss Plaintiff Nodus International Bank, Inc.’s (“Nodus Bank”) complaint. Francisco Arocha Hernandez, and others, Defendants. For the Southern District of Florida Nodus International Bank, Inc., Plaintiff, v. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |