Enron's Meltdown: The History of Regulation in the Energy Industry
ENRON'S MELTDOWN:
The History of Regulation in the Energy Industry
HISTORY TELLS US THERE IS MORE TO THE STORY THAN ONE WAYWARD COMPANY
"History repeats itself, and that's one of the things that's wrong with history."
-- Clarence Darrow
True or false: the father of our electricity supply system is Thomas Alva Edison? On "Weakest Link" or "So You Want to Be a Millionaire" the answer would be true. But the real story is that the answer is FALSE. Very false. The history of "competition" in the electric markets is rife with myths, mistakes and missed lessons. What America is learning in 2002 is these missed lessons can be brutally expensive.
In 2001, United States witnessed a massive transfer of wealth to energy companies. This transfer was caused by poorly conceived regulatory reforms and is resulting in the creation of a new breed of megawatt moguls. A review of the history of regulation will show that such moguls roamed at the turn of the last century and their excessive greed led to their demise. It is likely that the excessive greed of some of the major energy companies in 2000-2001 will also lead to spectacular flame-outs. The Enron debacle was just the first. And what we'll find is that the cost of the greedmongering could be substantial for ratepayers and for the country.
We start with one very important missed lesson of history. Thomas Edison is properly credited for designing and developing the light bulb. Always looking toward the marketplace, Edison realized that his light bulb would mean nothing unless he developed an entire electric power system that generated and distributed electricity. So he built many of the early generating stations or "dynamos" that created electricity.
In 1882, he installed the world's first central generating plant in New York City's financial district. He built relatively small reciprocating steam engines that produced direct-current (DC) electricity to shop owners and other businesses that used electric lighting as a novelty to attract customers. He was unconvinced that the economies of scale would lend themselves to large, centralized power plants - in part because he relied upon direct current. Produced and distributed at relatively low voltages--around 110 volts--direct current electricity weakened substantially as it traversed the copper distribution lines. In practice, customers needed to be within one mile of a generating plant to receive power.
As a result, the emerging paradigm of electric power production consisted of cities being populated by numerous power plants, each selling to customers within a small radius. Typically, the large investment required for the plant prohibited one company from owning all of them.
So who was the real father of our centralized electricity system? What the game-show folks don't know is that it was the brainchild of a pariah, Samuel Insull. Insull's name is not well known, but in his day, he was to become an icon for greed and corruption, much like Ken Lay and his Enron executives have become today.
Insull migrated to the United States from England as a young man in 1881, linking up with Thomas Edison, serving as his secretary. He captured Edison's confidence and eventually co-founded the company that would become General Electric. In 1892 Insull was pegged by Edison to head a small Chicago Edison company, one of many Edison franchises around the country.
Insull had a different vision from his mentor. Actually, it wasn't really his vision but that of the banking industry. Whereas Edison wanted to own the manufacturing plant equipment and sell the product, electricity, Bankers such as J.P. Morgan who wanted to sell prime movers and generators to individual industrial and commercial companies. These same bankers held the patents Edison developed through the Edison Electric Light Company. The bankers refused to loan Edison more than a small portion of the money he needed to make his vision work. Instead, backed Insull who fought to make enormous profit by selling smaller generator sets to individual companies for their private generation of electricity.
Insull realized that his company could make more money by increasing what became known as the "load factor"--the ratio of average daily or annual power use to the maximum load sustained during the same period. Since Insull needed to purchase equipment to meet the peak load of use during a day--typically in the evening when customers used electric lights--he was stuck with power generating technology that sat idle most of the rest of the day. But Insull understood that if he could find customers who would use electricity during off-peak times, he could increase his company's income while avoiding new capital purchases (though he would still incur marginal expenses related to increased fuel use).
By enticing customers such as street railway companies, ice houses, and other businesses with low rates for off-peak power usage, Insull increased his load factor dramatically. He also found that lower-cost power stimulated demand, while still earning healthy profits for his company.
Insull also went for economies of scale. In other words, he found that larger generating units produced electricity at lower unit cost. Relying more upon steam turbines, he found that they could be scaled up to produce even more power with proportionally less investment. He fashioned a deal with the nascent General Electric corporation in 1903 that produced 5,000 kilowatts (kW) of power (5 megawatts [MW]). Within seven years, he was selling larger turbines that generated 12 MW. Power costs plummeted, allowing the company to sell more electricity at still lower rates.
Using steam turbines would not have been a successful strategy had it not been for Insull's use of an associated new technology --alternating current (AC) transformers. Developed in the 1880s, AC transformers overcame the technical limitation of transmitting low-voltage direct-current to distances beyond one mile. When power produced with already existing AC generators was transformed up to high voltages, current could flow for many miles without significant degradation. So when Westinghouse Electric promoted its AC motors, Insull turned his back on his mentor Thomas Edison and went with Westinghouse. AC quickly won the day, leading to the demise of Edison's direct current systems.
The last major innovation fashioned by Insull was the utility holding company. Insull quickly realized that competition in the fractured, regional electric power supply business would never allow him to exploit the large turbine-generators and AC transmission systems. After all, if many companies divided the market for electricity, none would have the demand for power that could be met by the bigger turbine-generators.
So Insull looked to consolidation. After buying-up competing firms, he often turned their generating stations into substations, relegating the generating equipment to back-up spares, and he used large, efficient steam-turbines to produce power for all customers. Successful in his efforts, Insull acquired 20 other utility companies by 1907 and renamed the firm "Commonwealth Edison." By that time, the company had already become known as one of the most notorious, but lowest cost utilities in the nation. As a result, Insull's strategies became emulated by utility entrepreneurs in other cities throughout the United States.
By 1912, Insull expanded outside of just energy utilities. He formed the Middle West Utilities Co., a holding company which eventually acquired several electric railways and utilities in Indiana. In 1924, the holding company became Midland Utilities Co., and in 1929 became Midland United Co. In addition, Insull continued to control Commonwealth Edison, and acquired three electric railways operating in Chicago and northern Illinois.
A natural outgrowth of electric utility companies was their ownership or acquisition of electric railroads such as interurbans and streetcar systems which were large electricity consumers. Insull acquired and rehabilitated during the 1910s and 1920s the major Chicago area interurbans (North Shore Line, South Shore Line, and the Chicago, Aurora, and Elgin) and the rapid transit lines which were merged into the Chicago Rapid Transit company.
The utility holding company phenomenon spread throughout the nation. Large banks saw what Insull had accomplished in Chicago and sought to emulate it. To help finance the great expansion of the early 1900s, the utility industry exploited Insull's "holding company" structure. It started by accepting the relatively unattractive stock and bond issues of utilities in exchange for generating and associated equipment. Thus, nascent utilities could therefore retain cash for their operations. After accepting the securities from several utilities (known as "operating companies"), the holding company issued stock and bonds using the subsidiaries' securities as collateral. Investors preferred the securities offered by the holding company, because they provided diversification and more secure returns than did offerings from individual companies.
Because the holding company now had a stake in the operating companies, they often consolidated the equipment and management of smaller companies into larger ones, thus helping them interconnect transmission facilities. The multi-state, multi-million dollar modern electric utility was born.
During the high-rolling Gatsby years of the 1920s, however the holding companies went wild. They assessed high fees for arranging financing for their operating companies, and they provided engineering services at levels way beyond their cost. Meanwhile, the companies pyramided one sub-holding company on top of another, none of which did anything but to hold securities of the companies below it. The scheme allowed stockholders of the top company to control the assets of operating companies with very little investment. Samuel Insull evolved to be one of the kings of these empires. In 1930, his capital investment of $27 million allowed him to control electric companies and assorted other businesses in 32 states having assets of at least $500 million. And in those days, $500 million was a lot of money.
So lucrative was the holding company structure that their number increased from 102 to 180 between 1922 and 1927, while the number of subsidiary operating companies actually declined from 6,355 to 4,409. By 1932, only eight holding companies controlled almost three-quarters of the investor-owned utility business.[1]
Perhaps best of all for the holding companies, their operations usually were exempt from the investigation of state regulatory commissions, since so much of their business crossed state boundaries. Yet another precursor of things to come.
As successful as Insull's company may have been, it soon became universally hated. A virtual monopoly in Chicago, the company reminded many public-spirited politicians and individuals of other monopolies that rubbed people the wrong way, with railroads being the most notorious.
When the stock market crashed in 1929, so too did Insull's empire. Newspaper accounts of abuses by holding companies invited a six-year investigation pursued by the Federal Trade Commission beginning in 1928. Public antagonism toward the companies intensified after the stock market crash of 1929 decimated the values of holding company securities. Campaigning for the presidency in 1932, Franklin Roosevelt lashed out against the "the Insulls, whose hand is against everyman's," and he vowed to reform the industry if he won election. Insull became the betrayed public's whipping-boy.
Pressure from creditors and the federal government, run by President Roosevelt, forced Insull to turn over Utility Investments Inc. to his creditors. Resigning from 60 corporations and facing an indictment, Insull left the country. Insull was tried and acquitted in each of three separate securities fraud trials in the mid-1930s. Insull became an example - and perhaps a scapegoat -- of the corruption and fraud which contributed to the Great Depression. The revelation of corporate duplicity brought to light during the Insull investigations led to a public outcry for reform.
Broken financially by the exhausting court trials and the Great Depression, he retired to France. Insull died on July 16, 1938, literally penniless, of a heart attack in a Paris subway station.
The current crop of megawatt moguls would do well to know the story of Sam Insull. Nowadays, his name is rarely mentioned in the industry, as he is associated with the condemnation of government and from the American people looking for explanation of the stock market manipulations and crashes of the 1930's. But if they did bother to read about this man, they could find that he was a pioneer whose greed led to his undoing.
RESPONSES TO THE REIGN OF HOLDING COMPANY TERROR
Creation of the"Natural Monopoly"
During the heyday of the electric utility holding company, another monopoly was unleashing its greed upon the public: the railroads. The greed of the railroad robber-barons, as they became known, spawned a period of reform that lasted from around 1896 through World War I. During this period, the Progressive movement created regulatory bodies to try to control the railroads. The philosophical core of the regulatory movement was the notion that some industries, such as the railroad business, constituted "natural monopolies."
According to academic economists of the day, such businesses exhibited tremendous economies of scale or the necessity of huge capital investment (and usually both) such that only one company would dominate a market. In the railroad business, it was argued that the large investment in equipment meant that duplication of facilities would incur great waste of financial and material resources, thus leading to overall higher costs for companies and higher prices to customers. Thus, monopoly appeared to be the "natural" outcome of such a situation, where one company could minimize the waste of resources to serve customers. In short, the railroad business was seen to be a "natural monopoly," one in which big technology and the high cost of investment led companies to move to a non-competitive environment.
The situation seemed similar to what was occurring in the electric utility business in the late 1800s. As electric power firms consolidated with others to exploit the benefits of large-scale turbine-generators and alternating current transmission, they increasingly looked like the epitome of natural monopolies. They were joined by other "public utilities," such as water and transportation industries that constituted, according to Richard T. Ely, an economist writing in 1903, "monopolies because, we know from experience, we cannot have in their case effective and permanent competition."
This rationalization of regulation set the stage for a series of reforms that began in the late 1890s and continued through the Roosevelt reform period.
Federal Action Against the Utilities
During the early years of his presidency, President Roosevelt had the opportunity to transform forever the utility industry. Having public and political support behind him after the holding company abuses became widely known, he could have urged that state and federal power agencies (such as the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Bonneville Power Authority in the Pacific Northwest) assume the assets and activities of privately owned utility companies. But Roosevelt was a capitalist at heart and a political moderate. He didn't go as far as the public likely would have let him.
Roosevelt and other policymakers realized the importance of electricity in achieving economic growth and social stability. They witnessed the vulnerability of this market to the manipulations of aggressive businessmen, like Insull. And they saw how the control of the energy markets could lead to the exercise of market power in related industries, such as transportation and manufacturing. When it came to electricity, the free market did not function smoothly.
Instead, Roosevelt sought to fill in gaps created by the private market and to impose safeguards, in the form of government oversight of holding companies and securities issuance, to prevent abuses in the future. As in other areas of his New Deal, the President preserved the private capitalist economy.
In order to fill in the gaps of the marketplace, Roosevelt and Congress used public funds to generate and distributed electricity to segments of the American public neglected by investor-owned utilities (IOUs). IOU executives had previously argued that electrifying rural areas would be too expensive and would not provide adequate returns on investment, but the Tennessee Valley Authority (created in 1933) and the Rural Electrification Administration (1935) proved otherwise. These and other institutions demonstrated that electrification of even the poorest households could raise standards of living of the inhabitants and produce good income to electricity suppliers. (In 1930, only 10% of American farms had electrical service; by 1945, almost 45% of them were wired up.) As a result of these actions, investor-owned utilities have been deprived, to this day, of a significant portion of the country's customers--customers who are served by municipal utilities or rural cooperatives.
Beyond embarrassing utility executives with rural electrification projects, the Federal Government also cracked down on the Insull-fueled industry consolations. Congress created the Federal Power Administration which imposed new rules on the investor-owned utility industry. By passing the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, Congress outlawed the pyramid structure that had been at the core of financial abuses.
Holding companies could remain, but they could only have two levels--one holding company on top and one or more operating subsidiaries below. And the law also dissolved holding companies that did not contain contiguous operating utilities; earlier companies held operating companies that were scattered about the country and could not take advantage of consolidated or interconnected operation.
Moreover, all interstate holding companies and practically all businesses that produced a substantial amount of electricity would be forced to register with the newly created (in 1935) Securities and Exchange Commission. Furthermore, they were required to follow its strict rules about submitting financial reports, and they needed to obtain approval to issue stock and bond securities.
The number of utility holding companies declined, from 216 to 18 in the period between 1938 and 1958, while hundreds of operating companies became separated from holding companies altogether. The landscape of the utility industry remained fairly consistent since then: about 77% of generated kilowatt-hours were produced by investor-owned companies in 1970, while municipal and government utilities (and rural cooperatives) produced the remaining 23%.
State Regulation Enters the Scene
While the Federal Government cracked down on financial abuses, states followed-up with the creation of regulatory bodies to set the rates and rules for the utilities that were formed by the holding-company diaspora.
Many progressives looked to state regulation as a way of controlling the railroads. Though several states had created regulatory bodies to oversee the activities of railroad companies--with Massachusetts' railroad commission created in 1869 being one of the most notable--few had the power to enforce their recommendations nor could they establish rates and fares.
But the new type of regulation, promoted by progressive Republican governors in Wisconsin and New York in the first few years of the 20th century, was different. In 1905, for example, Wisconsin's Governor Robert La Follette pushed through creation of a railroad commission that had full jurisdiction over a railroad's rates, schedules, service, and operations of the state's transportation companies.
In 1907, New York governor Charles Evan Hughes, signed into law a similar measure to create a regulatory body for the Empire State.
Just a few years later, reform Governor Hiram Johnson was leading a similar revolt in California.[2]
All three states pioneered the "science" of state regulation of railroads and electric utilities. Gaining support from politicians and civic reform groups, state regulation of utilities became commonplace, such that by 1914, 43 more states had established government oversight of electric utilities.
The overall purpose of regulation, as viewed by its founders, was to serve as a body that would enforce the responsibilities and rights of electric power companies and their customers. For example, utility companies were required to serve all customers without discrimination who sought to buy power. To fulfil this "obligation to serve," they would need to raise capital and build plants to meet projected loads.
The regulators controlled what the utilities could charge customers - the rates had to be "just and reasonable" and based on the value of their investments in equipment plus a fair rate of return on the so-called "rate base".
But there was an unsavory trade-off. In exchange for not fighting regulation, utility companies earned valuable concessions. Perhaps most importantly, regulatory bodies legitimated the utilities' status as natural monopolies within their service territories and protected them from interlopers. Utilities also earned the right of eminent domain, formerly a power reserved by the state, so it could obtain property for their generating plants, transmission towers, and other equipment that was necessary for supplying an increasingly necessary commodity.
Utility customers, on the other hand, undertook the responsibility, overseen by regulators, to pay rates that helped maintain the financial integrity of utility companies. Often, regulators would insist (in theory) that rates be sufficiently high to keep utilities financially healthy. Sometimes, this obligation meant that customers had to pay higher rates than in previous periods.
Astute utility moguls, such as Samuel Insull, anticipated the benefits of regulation to power companies. As early as 1898, he pointed out that regulation would legitimate the monopoly status of utility companies and would keep at bay those who harbored distrust and antipathy for non-competitive industries. In other words, regulation gave the utility industry a special place in the American political economy and protected it from those who saw evil in the big oil and railroad trusts of the day. The genie was kept in a bottle, but it was a very profitable genie during a Depression-era when economic certainty was indeed a luxury. Throughout the difficult years of the 1930s and 1940s, no electric utility ever went bankrupt.
Municipal Ownership Rises and Falls
The big question for progressive reformers of the era was how to avoid the abuses common among the utility holding company moguls. Their answer actually took two forms--municipal ownership and state regulation of companies. Many pursued regulation - clearly the preferred choice of the existing utilities.
However, many cities chose to purchase the local utilities, thus they could ensure that the benefits of natural monopoly would flow directly to the people (or so it was hoped). In the electricity supply business, customers would enjoy lower rates as the city-owned utility exploited economies of scale and increased sales to greater numbers of people and businesses. Since cities pay no federal or state taxes and have no stockholders demanding dividend payments they could pass on savings directly to their citizens.
While municipalization of electric utilities enjoyed growing popularity, they did not win universal approval. Progressive reformers had not yet been successful in reforming the patronage-gilded city and state governments. At the same time they were dealing with railroads and electric utilities, they were also confronting corrupt city and state governments - many of which were controlled by the "trusts". The Progressives didn't trust that the Tammany Halls and other city rascals could be entrusted with an important service such as power. Moreover, several critics of municipal systems viewed them as attempts to socialize American industry at a time when private enterprise still carried much popularity in society--the existence of abusive monopolies notwithstanding.
Despite the move toward state regulation, the idea that city-owned utilities could better derive the benefits of natural monopolies for their citizens continued to hold some appeal. In fact, the number of municipal utilities peaked in 1922, with more than 2,500 "munis" in existence. Only accounting for about 5% of the nation's total generating capacity and less than 4% of the total electrical energy produced, municipal ownership never really blossomed.
LESSONS NOT LEARNED FROM HISTORY
Perhaps Clarence Darrow had it right. History's unfortunate penchant for repeating itself may be its greatest flaw. That flaw is certainly in evidence in today's deregulating electricity markets.
In this new century, the public is witnessing the recreation of megawatt moguls with great similarities to Sam Insull. Men whom the public have never heard of before have laid claim to unimaginable riches. Names like Kenneth Lay, Bill Dahlberg, Chuck Watson, Richard Priory or Steve Letbetter are beginning to be mentioned frequently in the press. Some were mentioned more frequently, as guests, in the White House. And as soon as the Bush administration is forced to reveal the people with whom Vice President Dick Cheney met with in 2001, the public will realize the profound impact that these men have on government policy.
The new "bilateral" contract era of the 21st century evokes images of the free-wheeling, unregulated years of the power industry in America in the 1880's and 1890's. Truths that the electric industry held as inalienable just a few years ago are now being challenged. Some legitimately, and some not.
A legitimate challenge is the move away from large centralized power plants. The principle of economies of scale that was so well established one hundred years ago may be obsolete in light of new distributed generation technologies. Today the small combustion turbine and combined cycle plant can be built by new players at less cost than even the depreciated value of the large units in the utilities older central stations. But isn't it interesting that these established truths were really just a phase of technology; a truth that technology could obliterate in a few generations?
Another truth on the verge of being obliterated is the concept of economic dispatch. But this one is more suspect. In today's electric trading markets there is a system that monitors remote units every five seconds and sends raise/lower signals to equalize incremental fuel costs. This system was put in place to ensure that electricity - a real-time commodity - was used as efficiently as possible. Yet, today's deregulation proponents advocate a system of power exchanges that don't need economic dispatch. For them, "economic dispatch" is an obliterated truth! They argue that the current exchanges must be obligated to take bids, and those bids involve not only fixed costs but also gaming strategies. Is this truly economically efficient or does it enable abuses by energy traders? The truth is not so clear.
Deregulatory proponents seek to obliterate yet another truth - diversity of energy resources. Only ten years ago, most regulatory bodies embraced, if not preached, the concept of Integrated Resource Planning and Least Cost Planning. These doctrines held that utilities were obligated to ensure that their energy production portfolios are as diverse as possible, so as to avoid over-reliance upon one fuel. This was a lesson painfully taught us by the OPEC sheiks in the 1970s. But in today's deregulatory fervor, this lesson is forgotten. As regulators have been phased out of the generation-building part of the industry, gone also are the reasoned Commission proceedings inquiring into the utility's use of the best load forecasts, expansion planning and economic costing models to arrive at the least cost, diversified energy portfolio. California - once the leader in reducing its dependence upon fossil-fuel generated electricity -- is now facing a future of having all of its new energy sources based upon natural gas.
And as we speak, Congress debates the removal of the most important provisions of the 1935 Holding Company Act. Utilities are poised to begin a new wave of consolidations with other utilities and with non-utility companies. The re-emergence of the vertically-integrated holding company octopus awaits the signature of a bill supported by the Bush administration that would dismantle the Roosevelt-era financial restrictions. This is a truth that is being sacrificed not for compelling efficiency reasons but because the Siren-call of dollars in the grasp of the financial markets.
The future of electricity markets in the United States is not clear. Certainly, the break-neck-speed approach to electricity deregulation has been slowed by the one-two combination of the California crisis and the Enron Meltdown. But the underlying technology drivers and the political influence enjoyed by the emerging megawatt moguls suggests that deregulation will continue. It may be more modest and unspectacular. But the dangers of market manipulation, inflated energy prices and diminished fuel diversity will continue to lurk.
AN APOCRYPHAL STORY FOR THE MEGAWATT MOGULS
There is an unconfirmed, perhaps apocryphal, story of a very important meeting held at the Edgewater Beach Hotel in Chicago in 1923. Attending this meeting were nine of the world's most successful financiers in America: Charles Schwab, president of the largest independent steel company; Samuel Insull, president of the largest utility company; Howard Hopson, president of the largest gas company; Arthur Cotton, the greatest wheat speculator; Richard Whitney, President of the New York Stock Exchange; Albert Fall, a member of the President's Cabinet; Leon Fraser, President of the Bank of International Settlements; Jesse Livermore, the greatest 'bear' on Wall Street; and Ivar Krueger, the infamous "match king" who assembled vast monopoly holding companies.
Twenty-five years later, Charles Schwab died in bankruptcy, having lived on borrowed money for five years before his death; Samuel Insull had died a fugitive from justice and penniless in a foreign land; Howard Hopson was insane; Arthur Cotton had died abroad, insolvent; Richard Whitney had spent time in Sing Sing. Albert Fall had been pardoned so that he could die at home; Jesse Livermore, Iver Krueger and Leon Fraser had all died by suicide. All of these men had dominated the free-wheeling capitalist orgy of the 1920s but their excess caught up to them in subsequent years.
If the remaining megawatt moguls like Bill Dahlberg, Chuck Watson, Richard Priory or Steve Letbetter ever assemble again, they would do well to consider this story.
[1] If this sounds familiar it should. Similar consolidation is now occurring in the deregulated electric industry of the 21st century.
[2] At his inaugural address in 1911, Johnson spoke with words that could well have been lifted by current-Governor Gray Davis when he said: "Much, doubtless, will be said of destructiveness, of abuse of power, of anarchistic tendencies and the like, and of the astounding and incomparable fitness of him who represents "big business" to represent us all. And in the end it may be that the very plan, simple, and direct, to which we have set ourselves in this administration will be wholly distorted and will be understood only by those who, with singleness of purpose, are working for a return of popular government in California. It matters not how powerful the individual may be who is in the service of the State, nor how much wealth and influence there may be behind him, nor how strenuously he may be supported by "big business" and by all that has been heretofore powerful and omnipotent in our political life, if he be the representative of Southern Pacific politics, or if he be one of that class who divides his allegiance to the State with a private interest and thus impairs his efficiency, I shall attack him the more readily because of his power and his influence and the wealth behind him, and I shall strive in respect to such a one in exactly the same way as with his weaker and less powerful accomplices. I prefer, as less dangerous to society, the political thug of the water front to the smugly respectable individual in broadcloth of pretended respectability who from ambush employs and uses that thug for his selfish political gain.
Miriam Draiman was granted her appeal to the Illinois Appellate
Miriam Draiman was granted her appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court. (Rev.1)
First Division Docket No. 1-06-2323 – In an opinion issued on April 26, 2008, The Appellate Court reversed a lower court ruling (preventing Miriam from suing her attorney) that Miriam Draiman may now proceed with a law suit for ineffective assistance of counsel, negligence and damages of millions of dollars against her former Chicago attorney Glen Seiden and his Associates**.
Now that the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation on January 2008 revoked Nachshon Draiman Nursing Home License 044001323 for lying under oath and presenting a false College Diploma – some semblance of justice may come out of this protracted litigation and Miriam Draiman and Yehuda Draiman will be exonerated from all the litigations initiated by Nachshon Draiman – Multiut – Future Associates – where as usual Nachshon Draiman forged and presented modified documents to the courts as proven by the forensic expert and attested to by former Chicago Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Ellis. Court records show that Nachshon Draiman defrauded Yehuda Draiman of Millions of dollars.
Court records of both State and Federal are replete with Nachshon Draiman’s Frauds, numerous contempt of Court orders – numerous false and modified documents – See; Dynegy vs. Nachshon Draiman, Multiut, Future Associates - 02 C 7446 (A $22 million dollar lawsuit for fraud and insolvency), Class action lawsuit - Gore vs. Multiut 01 CH 19688 Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (Energy Billing Fraud Charges vs. Multiut owned by Nachshon Draiman). Nachshon Draiman’s conviction for the death of a patient at his Nursing Home. A $45 million lawsuit against Nachshon Draiman by Israel Discount Bank for fraud and deception.
A side note 2 Chicago Judges in this case – Judge Stephen Schiller and Judge Philip Bronstein (formerly investigated by the Illinois Greylord Corruption cases) left the bench under mysterious circumstances.
Glen Seiden (Miriam Draiman’s former attorney) was a personal friend of Allan J. Mandel (Nachshon Draiman’s attorney)
A former Chicago Federal Judge Irwin Katz is a partner of Nachshon Draiman
The frauds committed by Nachshon Draiman are too numerous to mention.
For additional information see; www.antidefamationusa.com
** But for [the law firm's] negligence and malfeasance, [Miriam] would not have had judgment entered against her for attorneys fees under the [Act]. Even if judgment had been erroneously entered against her in the trial court, the issue would have been preserved for appeal and reversed by the Appellate Court but for the negligent and reckless conduct of [the law firm.] 39. As a direct, actual and proximate cause of the breaches of the duty of reasonable care by [the law firm], [Miriam] has suffered and continues to suffer damages
Nachshon Draiman, Chicago – nursing home administrator license (
Illinois Department of Financial and
Professional Regulation NEWS
IDFPR
Disciplinary Actions for January 2008 SPRINGFIELD
The Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR)
announced today that the Directors of the Division of Professional Regulation, Daniel E. Bluthardt, and Insurance, Michael T. McRaith, signed the following disciplinary orders in January. Orders for the Division of Banking were authorized by Director Jorge Solis.
NURSING HOME ADMINISTRATOR
Nachshon Draiman, Chicago – nursing home administrator license (044001323)
revoked and fined $2,000 for misrepresenting information in his application concerning postgraduate education degree, to obtain nursing home administrator licensure from the Department.
THE BEAT GOES ON...Yehuda DRaiman..THE REAL FRAUD..
Jay Drai..AKA Yehuda Jay Draiman..THE REAL FRAUD ..and ADJUDICATED FACTS are that...His claims are malicious, false, meritless,misrepresentations of the REAL FACTS and contrived. These baseless accusations are the fabrications of a disgruntled former employee, Yehuda "Jay" Draiman, a CONVICTED FELON who has been FOUND GUILTY of charges leading to millions of dollars in judgments by the Illinois and federal court system.
Left with no legal or rational alternative, "Jay" has resorted to conjuring up false stories and contrived meritless accusations on the internet and public forums, to attempt to smear his former employee.
These facts can be verified by court records available from a Google search for "Multiut v. Yehuda".
Yehuda Jay Draiman is a former employee who was terminated in 2001 from Multiut Corporation when he was discovered diverting clients and funds of the company. He was subsequently FOUND GUILTY of breaches of fiduciary duty, consumer FRAUD and deceptive trade practices and CONSPIRACY, and a judgment in excess of $1.5 million was entered against him, in addition to several findings of contempt, by the Cook County Circuit Court & upheld by the Appellate court (ruling 1-03-0857).
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2005/1stDistrict/July/Html/1030857.htm
Federal courts have also entered subsequent judgments against Yehuda and his wife Miriam for committing false bankruptcy filings in yet another attempt to defame his former employer. Federal courts declared the judgments to be non-dischargeable due to the fraud involved by Yehuda Draiman, for abusing the court system in a manner similar to the way he now attempts to abuse the internet. These FACTS can be verified by federal court records available from a Google search for "Doyle Draiman".
http://www.ilnb.uscourts.gov/JudgeDoyle/Opinions/Draiman_Yehuda.pdf
Public documents verify that 'Jay' was also CONVICTED OF 10 COUNTS of wire and mail FRAUD during the 1980's. Nachshon, Yehuda’s brother, originally provided Yehuda with a job in the Multiut company subsequent to general assistance he provided to help Yehuda and his family following Yehuda‘s first stint of a FOUR YEARS sentence to the FEDRAL PENITENTIARY for that conviction in the 80's. See United States v. Draiman, 784 F.2d 248 (7th Cir. 1986)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/023922p.pdf
Yehuda Draiman was also the subject of a special investigation conducted by the Illinois Legislative Investigating Commission for the Illinois General Assembly (see:4/22/75 Illinois Nursing Homes: A Report to the Illinois General Assembly). “Jay” was barred from serving in the nursing home field after HE DEFRAUDED A RESIDENT under his care of more than $40,000. The report cites testimony from a resident stating that Yehuda offered to return her money if she took a ride with him to his “bank”, and instead LEFT HER STRANDED in a deserted cornfield in the DEAD OF WINTER in 8 degree weather. Only by luck was she spotted by a passerby who reported the incident to the MCHENRY COUNTY SHERIFF'S Department. When the sheriff’s office interviewed Yehuda, he claimed “when they got out into the country she asked to be let out. He let her out and drove back to Chicago…and found her purse in the back seat.” In these instances, as well as the recent litigation, Yehuda Jay Draiman's tactic has been to invent illegalities to accuse his victims of, in order to shift the focus of attention away from him.
http://multiut.com/responses_to_YJD /IL_Assembly_Report_04_75.pdf
The current posting is just another example of Yehuda Jay Draiman's tactics.
For more information about defamation attempts by Yehuda Jay Draiman, see www.Illinoisantidefamation.com or www.IllinoisDefamationProtection.com
Nachshon Draiman current fraud and deception
Nachshon Draiman fraud and deception
All of Nachshon Draiman’s claims are malicious, false, meritless, and contrived. These baseless accusations are the fabrications of a disgruntled Crook caught in the act of stealing from friends, employees, customers, the government, utilizing intimidation, fraudulent documents, etc., "Nachshon" Draiman, a convicted killer of Nursing Home patients who has been found guilty of those charges leading to millions of dollars in penalties by the Illinois and federal court system. See State of Illinois with civil and criminal conviction People v. Gurell, Nachshon Draiman, 98 Ill.2d 194, 207, 74 Ill.Dec. 516, 456 N.E.2d 18.). Many of Nachshon Draiman’s Nursing Homes were closed by the State of Illinois due to violations and abuse.
Left with no legal or rational alternative, "Nachshon" has resorted to conjuring up false stories and contrived meritless accusations on the internet and public forums, to attempt to smear his brother who would not participate in defrauding customers and informed the customers of the fraud being committed by Multiut and Nachshon Draiman.
These facts can be verified by court records available from a Google search for "Gore vs Multiut", “Dynegy vs Multiut, Nachshon Draiman”, “IDB vs Nachshon Draiman”; all are current litigations not from 20 to 30 years ago.
Nachshon Draiman operates nursing homes and Multiut a Natural Gas Supply Company. When his brother Yehuda did not agree to help him defraud customers with phantom tax and inflated billing and the theft of sales commissions and over a million dollars in personal funds. Nachshon Draiman and his alter ego company Multiut Corporation decided to fabricate documents to discredit his brother Yehuda Draiman who knows where the skeletons are buried and could bring his house down. When Nachshon Draiman was discovered stealing $8 million dollars from his nursing home partners at Burnham Terrace Healthcare, diverting funds of the partnership. He was subsequently found guilty of breaches of fiduciary duty, consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices and conspiracy, and a judgment were entered against him, in addition to at least Four (4) Federal findings of contempt, by the Federal Judge Mason & upheld by the Federal Judge Nordberg in “Dynegy vs Multiut, Nachshon Draiman” 02c7446.
http://www.antidefamationusa.com
Federal courts have also entered subsequent judgments against Nachshon Draiman and Multiut for refusing to provide documents ordered by the court and Nachshon Draiman’s refusal to admit to insolvency and fraud. Nachshon Draiman and his entities and the fraud involved fictitious billing to the tune of millions of dollars and abusing the court system in a manner similar to the way he now attempts to abuse the internet. These facts can be verified by federal court records available from a Google search for "Gore vs Multiut".
http://www.antidefamationusa.com
Public documents verify that 'Nachshon' was also convicted of 4 counts of Federal Contempt of Court during the 2004-2005. Yehuda, Nachshon’s brother, originally provided Nachshon help in the Multiut company subsequent to general assistance Yehuda provided to help Nachshon in his Hotel project in Israel for over a year, while Nachshon and his Multiut company devised and instituted schemes to defraud Customers with inflated natural gas bills, inflated lighting retrofit bills to his own nursing homes and others. The abusive billing practices by Multiut and Nachshon Draiman are well documented in. See “Gore vs Multiut”, where court documents show that Multiut and Nachshon Draiman admitted holding millions of dollars belonging to customers, the funds were used by Multiut for its general expenses and that they are refusing to refund those funds to the customers. Multiut and Nachshon Draiman deceptively withheld information and documents from customers that requested them in order to advance and hide the ongoing fraud.
http://www.antidefamationusa.com
Nachshon Draiman is also the subject of a special investigation conducted by the Israeli government Investigating Nachshon Draiuman’s fraudulent and deceptive documents provided for favorable financing for his Hotel project (The Jerusalem Pearl). Israel Discount Bank has initiated in January 2007 a lawsuit of $45 million against Nachshon Draiman for fraud and deception relating to his hotel financing in Jerusalem. See “IDB vs Nachshon Draiman”. Nachshon Draiman deceived the Illinois Nursing Home Administrators licensing’s board in providing him with a license No. NACHSHON DRAIMAN 44001323 Terminated 1995.
Nachshon Draiman lied on his application of his Administrators license that he has a college degree, when he had no such degree and provided the agency with a fraudulent College Diploma.
In these instances, as well as the recent litigation, Nachshon Draiman's tactic has been to invent illegalities to accuse his victims of, in order to shift the focus of attention away from him. The records are replete with Nachshon Draiman’s crimes and wrongdoings.
Other lawsuits and litigations for fraud are pending against Nachshon Draiman et al.
The only way to finance Multiut and Nachshon Draiman litigation is by over-billing customers and blackmail.
http://www.antidefamationusa.com
Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian W. Ellis Claims he has DNA forensic evidence that Nachshon Draiman - Multiut forged and modified documents presented to the Court in his lawsuit against his brother Yehuda J. Draiman
The Supposed 1991 IMA Agreement Put Into Evidence by Multiut – Nachshon Draiman Is a Fraud
The evidence overwhelmingly favors Yehuda Draimans' account of events. There are at least eight separate, independent indicators that Nachshon Draiman deceptively modified an IMA Agreement that Yehuda received and signed in 1989, added terms to which Yehuda never agreed, including the incorporation of an unsigned Employee Confidentiality Agreement, and inserted a false date of execution to create the document introduced as Plaintiff's Exhibit 10. First, Defendants' expert forensic ink analyst, Erich Speckin, testified that he found manufacturer date tags in the ink for the disputed writings on Plaintiff's Exhibit 10, and that the sequence of those date tags establishes without question that the ink was manufactured in 1993, two years after Nachshon Draiman said he made the writings. (8/14/02 Tr., at 2214-25) That testimony is undisputed.
Nachshon Draiman – Multiut also submitted false and inflated receivables reports to Success Bank/Bank Financial (where he was one of the largest stockholder) in order to receive an inflated receivable financing by the Bank.
It Is Nachshon Draiman and his alter ego entities that are currently involved in litigations in State and Federal Courts and overseas of fraud deception, inflated billing, contempt of Court etc. See www.antidefamationusa.com
The current posting is just another example of Nachshon Draiman's intimidation tactics.
For more information about defamation attempts by Nachshon Draiman, see www.antidefamationusa.com or www.antidefamation.us
For more information about Yehuda Draiman, see www.usgaselectric.net or www.renewableenergy2.com
For more information about Energy Savers dba Yehuda Draiman, see www.energysavers2.com
Nachshon Draiman Conviction for the death of a patient and abuse
Nachshon Draiman Conviction for the death of a patient and abuse in his Mill View nursing homes in Niles, Illinois. R1
Nachshon Draiman - Multiut Corp. – Future Associates Fraud
You will note that State and Federal Court records in Illinois and elsewhere are replete with lawsuits, judgments and wrongdoing by Nachshon Draiman and his companies. Causing the death of patients in the Nursing homes and a lawsuit by the State of Illinois with civil and criminal conviction People v. Gurell, Nachshon Draiman (1983), 98 Ill.2d 194, 207, 74 Ill.Dec. 516, 456 N.E.2d 18.). Abusing nursing home patients see State of Illinois records.
See People of the State of Illinois vs. Gurell, Nachshon Draiman et al – 456 N.E.2d 18 there has been numerous patient abuse and deaths due to that abuse. In 127 Ill.App.3d 1165, 483 N.E.2d 731, 91 Ill.Dec. 385 Sonnenberg v. Mill View Associates, Nachshon Draiman where millions of dollars had to be paid as damages for abuse and death of a patient, not to mention numerous patients who died falling down an elevator shaft.
Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian W. Ellis Claims he has DNA forensic evidence that Nachshon Draiman - Multiut forged and modified documents presented to the Court in his lawsuit against his brother Yehuda J. Draiman
The Supposed 1991 IMA Agreement Put Into Evidence by Multiut – Nachshon Draiman Is a Fraud
The evidence overwhelmingly favors Yehuda Draimans' account of events. There are at least eight separate, independent indicators that Nachshon Draiman deceptively modified an IMA Agreement that Yehuda received and signed in 1989, added terms to which Yehuda never agreed, including the incorporation of an unsigned Employee Confidentiality Agreement, and inserted a false date of execution to create the document introduced as Plaintiff's Exhibit 10. First, Defendants' expert forensic ink analyst, Erich Speckin, testified that he found manufacturer date tags in the ink for the disputed writings on Plaintiff's Exhibit 10, and that the sequence of those date tags establishes without question that the ink was manufactured in 1993, two years after Nachshon Draiman said he made the writings. (8/14/02 Tr., at 2214-25) That testimony is undisputed.
It is a known fact that justice in Chicago can be swayed in your favor with proper incentives. The trial judge left the bench after this case when the court ignored overwhelming evidence against Multiut and Nachshon Draiman and other cases were investigated by the government.
Nachshon Draiman’s intimidation of witnesses, blackmail and other scare tactics will not work.
Nachshon Draiman defrauds Israel Discount Bank in Hotel financing to the tune of $45 million dollars.
Utilizing modified and fabricated sales contract of units in the Jerusalem Pearl purchased and totally paid for by 1. Nachshon Draiman, 2. Elitzur Draiman, 3. Irwin Katz a former Federal Judge and part owner of Multiut, 4. Barry Ray, 5. Danny Shabat, 6. Gershon Bassman, 7. Dr. Sam Lipschitz, 8. It seems presenting false and deceptive documents is a way of life for Nachshon Draiman
Nachshon Draiman presented a forged College Diploma to the Illinois Department of Registration in order to receive his Nursing Home Administrator’s license No. 44001323.
See: www.antidefamationusa.com
Jay Drai AKA Yehuda Draiman and the REAL TRUTH...
Jay Drai AKA Yehuda Jay Draiman THE REAL FRAUD...AND ADJUDICATED FACTS...His claims are malicious, false, meritless,misrepresentations of the REAL FACTS and contrived. These baseless accusations are the fabrications of a disgruntled former employee, Yehuda "Jay" Draiman, a CONVICTED FELON who has been FOUND GUILTY of charges leading to millions of dollars in judgments by the Illinois and federal court system.
Left with no legal or rational alternative, "Jay" has resorted to conjuring up false stories and contrived meritless accusations on the internet and public forums, to attempt to smear his former employee.
These facts can be verified by court records available from a Google search for "Multiut v. Yehuda".
Yehuda Jay Draiman is a former employee who was terminated in 2001 from Multiut Corporation when he was discovered diverting clients and funds of the company. He was subsequently FOUND GUILTY of breaches of fiduciary duty, consumer FRAUD and deceptive trade practices and CONSPIRACY, and a judgment in excess of $1.5 million was entered against him, in addition to several findings of contempt, by the Cook County Circuit Court & upheld by the Appellate court (ruling 1-03-0857).
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2005/1stDistrict/July/Html/1030857.htm
Federal courts have also entered subsequent judgments against Yehuda and his wife Miriam for committing false bankruptcy filings in yet another attempt to defame his former employer. Federal courts declared the judgments to be non-dischargeable due to the fraud involved by Yehuda Draiman, for abusing the court system in a manner similar to the way he now attempts to abuse the internet. These FACTS can be verified by federal court records available from a Google search for "Doyle Draiman".
http://www.ilnb.uscourts.gov/JudgeDoyle/Opinions/Draiman_Yehuda.pdf
Public documents verify that 'Jay' was also CONVICTED OF 10 COUNTS of wire and mail FRAUD during the 1980's. Nachshon, Yehuda’s brother, originally provided Yehuda with a job in the Multiut company subsequent to general assistance he provided to help Yehuda and his family following Yehuda‘s first stint of a FOUR YEARS sentence to the FEDRAL PENITENTIARY for that conviction in the 80's. See United States v. Draiman, 784 F.2d 248 (7th Cir. 1986)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/023922p.pdf
Yehuda Draiman was also the subject of a special investigation conducted by the Illinois Legislative Investigating Commission for the Illinois General Assembly (see:4/22/75 Illinois Nursing Homes: A Report to the Illinois General Assembly). “Jay” was barred from serving in the nursing home field after HE DEFRAUDED A RESIDENT under his care of more than $40,000. The report cites testimony from a resident stating that Yehuda offered to return her money if she took a ride with him to his “bank”, and instead LEFT HER STRANDED in a deserted cornfield in the DEAD OF WINTER in 8 degree weather. Only by luck was she spotted by a passerby who reported the incident to the MCHENRY COUNTY SHERIFF'S Department. When the sheriff’s office interviewed Yehuda, he claimed “when they got out into the country she asked to be let out. He let her out and drove back to Chicago…and found her purse in the back seat.” In these instances, as well as the recent litigation, Yehuda Jay Draiman's tactic has been to invent illegalities to accuse his victims of, in order to shift the focus of attention away from him.
http://multiut.com/responses_to_YJD /IL_Assembly_Report_04_75.pdf
The current posting is just another example of Yehuda Jay Draiman's tactics.
For more information about defamation attempts by Yehuda Jay Draiman, see www.Illinoisantidefamation.com or www.IllinoisDefamationProtection.com
Dynegy vs Multiut, Nachshon Draiman, Future Associates et al - 0
Dynegy vs Multiut, Nachshon Draiman, Future Associates et al - 02 C 7446
(A $22 million dollar lawsuit for fraud and insolvency) (Numerous contempt of court)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DYNEGY MARKETING and TRADE, a
Colorado Partnership, )
Plaintiff, )
)No. 02 C 7446
v. )
) Judge Nordberg
MULTIUT CORPORATION, an Illinois
Corporation and NACHSHON DRAIMAN, )
an Illinois Resident, FUTURE ASSOCIATES, )
an Illinois General Partnership, )
Defendants. )
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
Dynegy Marketing and Trade ("Dynegy"), by its attorneys, complains of Multiut Corporation ("Multiut"), Nachshon Draiman ("Draiman"), and Future Associates, as follows:
THE PARTIES
1. Dynegy is a Colorado general partnership with its principle place of business in Houston, Texas. The only partners of the partnership are Dynegy GP, Inc., a Delaware corporation which maintains its principle place of business in Texas, and DMT Holdings, LP, a Delaware limited partnership (f7k/a NGC GP, Inc.).
2. The only partners of DMT Holdings LP are (1) DMT G.P., LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and (2) DMT L.P., LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation.
3. The sole member of DMT G.P., LLC is DMT Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation which maintains its principle place of business in Texas.
4. The sole member of DMT L.P., LLC is DMT Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation which maintains its principle place of business in Texas.
5. Multiut is an Illinois corporation with its principle place of business located in Cook County, Illinois.
6. Future Associates has its principal place of business located in Cook County, and is, upon information and belief, an Illinois general partnership.
7. Draiman is an individual residing in Cook County, Illinois.
JURISDICTION
AND VENUE
8. This Court has jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(l), because the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states.
9. Venue is proper, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), because the defendants reside in and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this judicial district.
COUNTI (Breach of Agreement)
10. On or about January 1, 1994, Multiut signed a Natural Gas Sales Agreement with Natural Gas Clearinghouse ("NGC") for the purchase and sale of natural gas (the "Agreement"). A true and correct copy of the Agreement, with Exhibits A and B, is attached as Exhibit 1.
11. On July 7, 1998, NGC changed its name to Dynegy Marketing and Trade.
12. Under the Agreement, Multiut "[acted] as the duly authorized agent and representative of ultimate consumers and users of natural gas delivered to Multiut under the Agreement." (Agreement, page 1.)
13. Under the Agreement, Multiut is "responsible for collecting payment from its principals. The payment to [Dynegy] by Multiut on behalf of Multiut's principals shall be due on
-2-
the twentieth (20th) day of the month, or as to statements delivered after the tenth (10th), within ten (10) days after receipt of such statements." (Agreement, page 5, Article V-A (2).)
14. For natural gas Dynegy delivered to Multiut through December 2000, there existed an outstanding balance owed to Dynegy by Multiut of $1,664,501.06 (after offsets for payments made by Multiut through March 1, 2001).
15. Dynegy sent and/or Multiut received monthly invoices for the purchase and sale of natural gas under the Agreement from January 1, 2001 through December 31,2002 (the "Invoices").
16. Multiut breached the Agreement by failing and/or refusing to pay the Invoices in full when due.
17. As of April 30,2003, the unpaid principal balance due to Dynegy under the Invoices, after application of payments in accordance with Article V-A(3) of the Agreement, is $12,504,912.51 (the "Unpaid Principal Balance").
18. Under the Agreement, "Should Multiut fail to pay all of the amount of any bill when the same becomes due, Multiut shall pay [Dynegy] a late charge on the unpaid balance that shall accrue on each calendar day from the due date at a rate equal to two percent (2%) above the then-effective monthly prime commercial lending rate per annum announced by The Federal Reserve Bulletin from time to time . . . . " In addition, "the late charge . . . shall compound monthly." (Agreement, page 5, Article V-A (3).)
19. Under the-Agreement, "If either principal or late charges are due, any payments thereafter received shall first be applied to the late charges due, then to the previously outstanding principal due and lastly, to the most current principal due." (Agreement, page 5, Article V-A (3).)
-3-
20. As of April 30, 2003, the amount of interest due, in accordance with Article V-A(3) of the Agreement, is $593,997.74 (the "Interest").
21. Dynegy has performed all of its obligations under the Agreement.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of a judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgment, in an amount in excess of 5593,997.74, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
COUNT II
(Breach of Guaranty)
22. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as paragraph 22.
23. On or about October 31,1995, Draiman and Multiut executed a Guaranty (the "Guaranty"). A true and correct copy of the Guaranty is attached as Exhibit 2.
24. Under the Guaranty, Draiman and Multiut, jointly, severally, and unconditionally "[guaranteed] the payment to NGC promptly when due, or upon demand thereafter, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, the full amount of all obligation or indebtedness due to NGC under the Agreement."
25. Draiman and Multiut are jointly and severally liable for their obligations under the Guaranty.
26. Draiman and Multiut breached the Guaranty by failing to pay after demand, when due, the Unpaid Principal. Balance and the Interest.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of a judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgement, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
-4-
COUNT III
(Fraudulent Transfer In Law- Multiut)
27. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 26, inclusive, as paragraph 27.
28. At all relevant times, Draiman has been a director, officer and/or control ling shareholder of Multiut.
29. At all relevant times, Draiman has been a general partner in Future Associates or otherwise had authority and/or control over the business affairs of Futures Associates or an entity that had authority over the business affairs of Futures Associates.
30. Since at least January 1999, Multiut failed to make timely payment, when due, for some or all of the natural gas delivered by Dynegy.
31. On March 7, 2001, Ginger Wright of Dynegy and Lenore Kamien of Multiut ' agreed that Multiut owed Dynegy approximately $11,000,000, excluding interest.
32. On September 5, 2001, Dynegy representatives Pete Pavluk and Mark Ludwig met with Multiut representatives Lenore Kamien and/or Nachshon Draiman at Multiut's offices to discuss the amount owed by Multiut.
33. At that meeting, Mr. Draiman said that Multiut did not have funds sufficient to pay the debt owed and that Multiut would propose a payment plan by September 17, 2001.
34. In a September 17, 2001 letter, Multiut proposed a payment plan by which it would make monthly payments, from October 2001 through March 2002, in order to pay down the amount owed to Dynegy. The proposed payments ranged from $600,000 in some months to $1,800,000 in other months. According to Mr. Draiman, Multiut was, "insurefd] [sic] an additional annual profit of $2,000,000" and that, "in the meantime, [Multiut] was working on bank financing as well as funds from private sources for capital infusion."
-5-
35 . In an October 4, 2001 letter to Multiut, Dynegy responded to Multiut's September 17, 2001 proposal by asking for "a detailed formal plan by no later than Wednesday, October 10, 2001 that outlines bringing your account balance current by no later that [sic]-January 15, 2002."
36. In an October 12, 2001 letter, Multiut responded to Dynegy's October 4, 2001 letter by proposing "weekly payments for October through January." The weekly payments proposed by Multiut totaled $7,700,000.
37. Multiut did not make all the weekly payments described in its October 12, 2001
letter.
38. Multiut's check , dated August 23, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $300,000, was returned for insufficient funds.
39. Multiut's check, dated October 26, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $150,000, was returned for insufficient funds.
40. Multiut's check, dated November 9, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $200,000, was returned for insufficient funds.
41. Multiut check no. 1946, made payable to Dynegy for $200,000 and deposited on December 7, 2001, was returned twice due to insufficient funds.
42. On January 8, 2002, Multiut claimed it could not pay the amounts owed to Dynegy because of slow payment by the government in connection with Mr. Draiman's nursing homes.
43. On January 31, 2002, Multiut told Dynegy that it would make a $200,000 payment while it worked to raise cash through a factoring company and while it attempted to arrange a line of credit with Bank Leumi.
44. Multiut never raised cash through a factoring company or arranged a line of credit with Bank Leumi in 2002 or 2003.
45. In 2002 and 2003, Multiut did not have cash sufficient to pay the Invoices when due.
46. During 2000 and 2001, Multiut had creditors, in addition to Dynegy, to whom it did not make payments when due in the normal course of its business.
47. On June 19, 1998, Multiut entered into a Natural Gas Sales Agreement with WPS Energy Services, Inc. (“WPS”) for the purchase and sale of natural gas.
48. By June 2000, Multiut was indebted to WPS in the amount of $1,625,472 for natural gas delivered to Multiut prior to May 2000.
49. On September 27, 2000, Multiut gave WPS its promissory note in the amount of $1,570,337.87 (the “WPS” Promissory Note).
50. The WPS Promissory Note was a reaffirmation by Multiut of its debt to WPS incurred under the terms of the Natural Gas Sales Agreement between WPS and Multiut.
51. In the summer and fall of 2001, Multiut did not make payments, when due, in accordance with the WPS Promissory Note.
52. On September 27, 2001, WPS filed a lawsuit against Multiut alleging that Multiut defaulted on its obligation under the WPS Promissory Note by failing to make the required payments due on July 10, 2001, August 10, 2001 and September 10, 2001.
53. According to Multiut’s 2002 tax return, Multiut transferred approximately $2,000,000 (or more) to Future Associates, Draiman and/or other entities, including Draiman’s nursing home, hotel and/or other business ventures, at some time during 2001 when Multiut was indebted to Dynegy.
-6-
54. Multiut did not receive reasonably equivalent value for the transfer described in paragraph 53.
55. In the years 1999 through 2003, Multiut transferred cash or other assets to Future Associates, Draiman and/or other entities, including Draiman's nursing home, hotel or other business interests when Multiut was indebted to Dynegy.
56. Multiut did not receive reasonably equivalent value for the transfers described in paragraph 55.
57. When Multiut made the transfers described in paragraphs 53 and 55 (the "Transfers"), Multiut was insolvent and/or became insolvent as a result of the Transfers.
58. The Transfers were fraudulent conveyances in violation of applicable laws.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of an order granting judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgment, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74; voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the Transfers to Multiut to be used to satisfy the debt to Dynegy; and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.
COUNT IV (Fraudulent Transfer In Fact- Multiut)
59. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 58, inclusive, as paragraph 59.
60. The Transfers were made with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud Dynegy, a creditor of Multiut and as-such constituted fraudulent conveyances in violation of applicable laws.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of an order granting judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgment, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74; voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the money to Multiut to be
-8-
used to satisfy the debt to Dynegy; punitive damages and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.
COUNT V
(Fraudulent Transfer in Law- Future Associates)
61. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 thorough 58, inclusive, as paragraph 61.
62. Future Associates accepted the Transfers of the assets without having provided adequate consideration for the Transfers.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of order granting judgment in. its favor and against Future Associates, voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the money to Multiut to be used to satisfy the debt to Dynegy; and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.
COUNT VI (Fraudulent Transfer in Law- Diraiman)
63. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 58, inclusive, as paragraph 63.
64. Draiman accepted the Transfers without having provided adequate consideration or reasonably equivalent value for the Transfers.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of order granting judgment in its favor and against Nachshon Draiman, voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the money to Multiut to be used to satisfy the debt to Dynegy; and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.
COUNT VII
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty)
65. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 58, inclusive, as paragraph 65.
-9-
66. When Multiut purchased natural gas from Dynegy in 2001 and 2002, Multiut was insolvent.
67. Because Multiut was insolvent, Draiman, as a director and officer of Multiut, owed a fiduciary duty to Dynegy, as a creditor of Multiut.
68. Draiman breached his fiduciary duty to Dynegy by causing Multiut to take natural gas from Dynegy when Draiman knew that Multiut did not intend to and/or could not pay for it. Draiman also breached his fiduciary duties to Dynegy by making and/or authorizing the Transfers.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of an order granting judgment in its favor and against Draiman, for $ 12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgment, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74, and for punitive damages and any further relief that this Court deems appropriate.
DYNEGY MARKETING and TRADE
Barry S. Hyman (#6188142)
Helen Wilson
SCHIFF HARDIN & WATTE
6600 Sears Tower
Chicago, IL 60606
-10-
(312)258-5500
IDB vs Nachshon Draiman - 2007 Israel Discount Bank Fraud Lawsui
IDB vs Nachshon Draiman - 2007 Israel Discount Bank Fraud Lawsuit – filed Jan. 2007 in Jerusalem, Israel. from Globes Financial, in Israel
The charges are that the developers of the hotel Nachshon and Elitzur Draiman committed illegal acts that brought the debt of the hotel to be about $45 million dollars, most of it to Israel Discount Bank (The hotel Jerusalem Pearl is located outside the Jaffa Gate - the old city of Jerusalem)
The court appointed trustees of the Jerusalem Pearl Hotel claim in the municipal court in Jerusalem, to charge the developers in damages of over $20 million dollars - according to the lawsuit filed by the court appointed trustees, the lawyers Yair Green, Yaron Feinshtein and Nitzan Shemueli, claim that the developers of the hotel, the brothers Nachshon Draiman and Elitzur Draiman, committed illegal acts that brought the debt of the hotel to over $45 million dollars, most of it to Israel Discount Bank.
The trustees claim that they are in the process of selling the property, at the asking price of $20 million dollars, and after the sale there will be a debt of about $25 million dollars.
The difference of about $25 million dollars they hold against the brothers Nachshon Draiman and Elitzur Draiman, they developed the hotel with a foreign company that is incorporated in Illinois. (Jerusalem Enterprises)
The Hotel which has 88 rooms and 22 suites, was operated by the Dan Hotels chain, and according to the trustees, the previous owners Nachshon Draiman and Elitzur Draiman owe the Dan Hotel Chain about $250,000.
According to them Nachshon Draiman and Elitzur Draiman committed transfers of funds between various accounts, gave various guarantees in a form of checks that one of the accounts the check was drawn on was closed, presented exhibits and fictitious and false documents as to substantiate their investment in the hotel - which is false and fraud, transferred funds overseas from the funds belonging to the hotel project without explanation or reasoning and inflated the amount of cost of construction (about $2,500 per square meter) amounts that are way greater than any reasonable estimates that would cost to build the hotel.
Additional claim is that Nachshon Draiman and Elitzur Draiman presented false and deceptive documentation to the Israeli government division of development and investment, in order to obtain loans with government guarantees and government grants. (January 15, 2007)
Possible criminal charges may be initiated.
???? ???? ????? ?? ????????: ????? ?? ?????? ?-20 ?????? ???
?????? ?? ???? ???? ?????, ????? ??????? ??????, ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?-45 ?????? ????, ???? ????????
????? ?????
16:18 15/1/07
??????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????????? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ???????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ?-20 ?????? ?????. ?????? ?????? ???????, ???"? ???? ???? ???? ????????? ????? ??????, ?? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ?????, ????? ????? ??????? ??????, ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?-45 ?????? ????, ???? ???? ???????
( 904 -0.66% )
.
??????? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ????? ????, ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?-20 ?????? ????, ????? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ??-25 ?????? ????.
??
?????
????? ?? ?????? ?????? ??????, ?????? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ???????.
?????, ??? 88 ????? ?-22 ???????, ????? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ??, ?????? ??????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?-900 ??? ???.
???????, ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ????????? ??? ???????; ???? ?????? ??????? ?'??? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??'??? ????; ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?????; ?????? ????? ???"? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ????? (?-2,500 ???? ????) ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ????? ?????.
??? ????, ?? ?? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ?????? ????? ??????
Energy Billing Fraud Charges
Energy Billing Fraud Charges vs Multiut owned by Nachshon Draiman!
Admitted to holding money belonging to customers
In a Class Action proceeding initiated in November 2001 - The case after numerous delays by Multiut, is now proceeding.
Gore vs Multiut - IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS Case No. 01 CH 19688
Posted on August 29th, 2007:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT - CHANCERY DIVISION
FILED
JACK GORE on behalf of himself and all ) NOV 28, 2002
other persons or entitles similarly situated, |
•
vs. No. 01 CH 19688
DOROTHY 8ROWN CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT
MULTIUT CORP, an Illinois corporation, } Judge Stephen A, Schiller
Defendant ) Courtroom 2402
RESPONSE TO §2-619.1 MOTION TO DISMISS J/
Plaintiff JACK GORE (“Gore”). by his attorneys LARRY D DRURY LTD., hereby responds to the Motion to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-615 and 619, brought as a combined 2-619.1 motion by defendant MULTIUT CORP. (“Multiut”).
Introduction
Multiut is trying to time-bar this case by transforming express a written agency-service contract drafted by Multiut into a contract for sale of goods, and by disputing Gore's allegations as to concealment and discovery of the wrong – but without submitting any Rule 191 affidavit or documentation. This is a class action arising out
of a written contract drafted by Multiut, attached here and to the 2nd Amended Complaint as Exhibit A and B collectively referred to herein as the "contract" or "agreement “ unless otherwise indicated by context): (1)
(A) A service contract to act as Gore's "purchasing representatives" in obtaining natural gas from “off system" suppliers. This contract, entered into on or about December 1990, was titled “Agreement," Exh. A 1, 3-6, 10. And,
{B} A series of supplemental agency contracts to act as Gore’s agent, in so doing with respect to various Properties. These were entered into contemporaneously with the service contract and thereafter, and titled "Natural Gas Purchasing and Agency Agreement.” Exh.-B. (2)
(1) Similarly Multiut refers to them collectively as “the agreement” in its brief (Mem. p. 2, fn. 1). Although the documents are on separately filed pages, they are mutually inclusive and one could not be entered into without the other; e.g. the service contract refers to and incorporates the agency contracts, wherein Multiut refers to itself as Gore's 'exclusive natural gas purchasing agent'. See Exh. A, third introductory paragraph and 16-17; Exh. B 1,
(2) Exh. 8 one of the series, is dated 1998, Exh. C is Gore’s §2-806 affidavit as to the others. Gore has stated he does not have a copy of each, they are inaccessible to him i.e. no longer in his possession, whether missplaced or otherwise, and cannot be located or returned. 2nd Amd.. Compl. {4; Exh, C, in the 1st Amd. Complaint, Count 4 for breach of oral contract was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after Gore's deposition of May 8,- 2002, when the service contract and the 1998 agency contract were produced by Multiut and adequately established, Exhs, A-B are the same Exhs. 1-2 attached to the Gore transcript, excerpts of which are attached herein as Exh. D, Similarly the missing agency agreements are likely in Multiut’s possession and will be produced in discovery.
The contract was drafted by Multiut, it unequivocally defines Multiut's role in the transactions, and shows that this case is not governed by the UCC. What is at issue here is not the "good" that Multiut obtained for Gore, but the service Multiut provided as his purchasing agent. Gore is suing upon the service and agency contract – not the natural gas - and has alleged that Multiut breached its duties in two respects;
{1} By falsely and intentionally charging and retaining for its own use funds that were to be applied to a City of Chicago 8% gross receipts tax (“Tax”), which it had promised would be placed in escrow and forwarded to the City. Between December 1990 and January 1995 (after the City of Chicago changed the Tax), Multiut collected approximately $14,000 from Gore and at least $1 million to $1.5 million from the Class, for this Tax that was not actually imposed upon Multiut. 2nd Amd. Compl. 7-9, '3! Multiut not only failed to inform Plaintiff and
the Class that the money collected was not so applied or escrowed, but also failed to escrow, account for, and refund the funds with interest.
(2) By overcharging for the service of providing natural gas. Multiut was to charge for natural gas actually supplied to Gore and the Class on a set per therm cost basis, plus an amount equal to 1/2 of their respective per therm cost savings per month, instead, Multiut overcharged and billed Gore at least $100.000 and the class millions of dollars and refuses to provide an accounting and refund with interest. Id. 10-11.
Gore has further alleged that Multiut prevented him from discovering the wrongs by intentionally concealing them until at least December 2000, when he discovered the truth and could not reasonably have done so earlier. (Gore testified at his deposition on May 8, 2002 that he first discovered the discrepancies in his bills, the overcharges, the taxes, and failure to escrow the taxes, in December 2000. See Exh, D, pp. 25-28,) Thereafter he was unable to obtain any refund and based thereon, terminated Multiut’s services on or about June 2001, However, the wrongful acts are continuing to date, in that Multiut continues to 'refuse to provide an accounting and refund with interest to Gore and the Class, all to their detriment and damage. They seek imposition of constructive trust (id. 22), an accounting and damages in not less than the foregoing amounts plus interest (id, 9-13, 23).
Gore filed the original Class Action Complaint on Nov. 20, 2001, and in lieu of responding to a motion to dismiss, filed the 1st Amended Class Action Complaint Feb. 14, 2002, setting forth 4 counts for (1) breach of
3-: The City did not and will not collect the 8% Tax, presumably because of U.S. constitutional restrictions as to the interstate commerce clause and exceptions for interstate pipelines and out-of-state suppliers. As a result in 1994 the City changed the tax from an 8% gross receipts tax to a flat rate tax of 1.4 to 1.5 cents per therm. 2nd Amd. Comp. P 8. in Multiut’s response to First Request to Admit {attached hereto as Exh. F), it has admitted the following statements about this Tax; (8) that Multiut collected approximately $14,000 in Tax from Gore between 1991-1994; and (9) that Multiut spent its customers Tax payments on business expenses.. Yehuda Draiman testified to the same effect in his deposition 1-10-02 See transcript excerpts attached hereto as Exh. E, at pp, 36-37,40, 68, and Exh, 6 thereto.
Activity Date: 8/15/2007 Participant: GORE JACK
CASE SET ON STATUS CALL
Court Date: 8/29/2007
Court Time: 0930
Court Room: 2402
Judge: BRONSTEIN, PHILIP L.
August 30th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
RE: MULTIUT CORP. FORMER CUSTOMERS!
Multiut owner is Nachshon Draiman of Cook County, Illinois
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT YOU ARE PROBABLY DUE A REFUND PLUS INTEREST FOR SALES TAX ON NATURAL GAS WHICH WAS COLLECTED FROM YOU AND WITHHELD BY MULTIUT CORP. TEL # 847-982-0030 at 7514 N. Skokie Bl. Skokie, Illinois.
MULTIUT IS HOLDING APPROXIMATELY OVER ONE MILLION DOLLARS THAT MAY BELONG TO CUSTOMERS.
MULTIUT HAS OVERBILLED CUSTOMERS ON SHARED SAVINGS FOR THE PAST 14 YEARS.
THERE IS CURRENTLY A CLASS ACTION SUIT AGAINST MULTIUT.
I STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT YOU HAVE ALL YOUR BILLS THAT WERE ISSUED BY MULTIUT CORP. AUDITED THOROUGHLY THERE MAY BE STORAGE CREDITS DUE YOU AND ERRORS IN BILLING WHICH CREDITS MAY BE DUE YOU.
Multiut has admitted in Court that they are holding the money.
Gore vs Multiut 01 CH 19688 Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
A concerned citizen
For honesty in billing
Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al
On August 16th, 2007:
Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al 1:02-cv-07446.
Multiut Corp and Nachshon Draiman dba Future Associate of Skokie, IL. are withholding evidence of fraudulent activities in the Energy industry and inflated Medicaid billing to the government for Nursing Home patients. Also Bank fraud against their bank by presenting fraudulent and inflated receivable reports in order to get and keep a credit line, Nachshon Draiman was a large stock holder of the bank. Draiman Nachshon • SC 13G • Success Bancshares Inc • On 2/17/98
Filed On 2/17/98 • SEC File 5-53545 • Accession Number 950137-98-586
Court: United States District Court Northern District of Illinois -
Case Title: Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman Future Associates et al
Case Number: 1:02-cv-07446
Judge: Hon. John A. Nordberg
Filed On: 10/16/2002
SUMMARY
Case Number: 1:02-cv-07446
Referred To: Honorable Michael T. Mason
Jury Demand: Defendant
Demand: $9999000
Nature of Suit: Contract: Other (190)
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Case Updated: 01/20/2005
NAMES
Party Name: Multiut Corporation an Illinois Corporation,
Party Type: Defendant
Attorney(s): Paul Thaddeus Fox
(312) 456-8400
Firm Name: Greenberg Traurig, LLP.
Firm Address: 77 West Wacker Drive
Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Alan Jay Mandel
847-329-8450
Firm Name: Alan J Mandel Ltd
Firm Address: 7520 North Skokie Blvd
Skokie, IL 60077
03/30/2007 225
NOTICE of Motion by Ira P. Gould for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney224 before Honorable John A. Nordberg on 4/19/2007 at 02:30 PM. (Gould, Ira) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
04/18/2007 226
MINUTE entry before Judge John A. Nordberg: Motion of Ira Gould to withdraw his appearance on behalf of Multiut Corporation 224 is granted. The motion will not be heard on 4/19/07 as noticed. Mailed (vmj, ) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
See: www.antidefamationusa.com
Energy Billing Fraud Charges vs Multiut owned by Nachshon Draima
Energy Billing Fraud Charges vs Multiut owned by Nachshon Draiman!
Admitted to holding money belonging to customers
In a Class Action proceeding initiated in November 2001 - The case after numerous delays by Multiut, is now proceeding.
Gore vs Multiut - IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS Case No. 01 CH 19688
RE: MULTIUT CORP. FORMER CUSTOMERS! -Refund due
RE: MULTIUT CORP. FORMER CUSTOMERS!
Multiut owner is Nachshon Draiman of Cook County, Illinois
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT YOU ARE PROBABLY DUE A REFUND PLUS INTEREST FOR SALES TAX ON NATURAL GAS WHICH WAS COLLECTED FROM YOU AND WITHHELD BY MULTIUT CORP. TEL # 847-982-0030 at 7514 N. Skokie Bl. Skokie, Illinois.
MULTIUT IS HOLDING APPROXIMATELY OVER ONE MILLION DOLLARS THAT MAY BELONG TO CUSTOMERS.
MULTIUT HAS OVERBILLED CUSTOMERS ON SHARED SAVINGS FOR THE PAST 14 YEARS.
THERE IS CURRENTLY A CLASS ACTION SUIT AGAINST MULTIUT.
I STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT YOU HAVE ALL YOUR BILLS THAT WERE ISSUED BY MULTIUT CORP. AUDITED THOROUGHLY THERE MAY BE STORAGE CREDITS DUE YOU AND ERRORS IN BILLING WHICH CREDITS MAY BE DUE YOU.
Multiut has admitted in Court that they are holding the money.
Gore vs Multiut 01 CH 19688 Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
A concerned citizen
For honesty in billing
Jay Drai's Continued Rantings But for the TRUE ADJUDICATEDFACTS
His claims are malicious, false, meritless,misrepresentations of the REAL FACTS and contrived. These baseless accusations are the fabrications of a disgruntled former employee, Yehuda "Jay" Draiman, a CONVICTED FELON who has been FOUND GUILTY of charges leading to millions of dollars in judgments by the Illinois and federal court system.
"Jay" has resorted to conjuring up false stories and contrived meritless accusations on the internet and public forums, to attempt to smear his former employer.
These facts can be verified by court records available from a Google search for "Multiut v. Yehuda".
Yehuda Jay Draiman is a former employee who was terminated in 2001 from Multiut Corporation when he was discovered diverting clients and funds of the company. He was subsequently FOUND GUILTY of breaches of fiduciary duty, CONSUMER FRAUD and deceptive trade practices and conspiracy, and a judgment in excess of $1.5 million was entered against him, in addition to several findings of contempt, by the Cook County Circuit Court & upheld by the Appellate court (ruling 1-03-0857).
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/Appella ...
Federal courts have also entered subsequent judgments against Yehuda and his wife Miriam for committing false bankruptcy filings in yet another attempt to defame his former employer. Federal courts declared the judgments to be non-dischargeable due to the fraud involved by Yehuda Draiman, for abusing the court system in a manner similar to the way he now attempts to abuse the internet. These facts can be verified by federal court records available from a Google search for "Doyle Draiman".
http://www.ilnb.uscourts.gov/JudgeDoyle/Opini ...
Public documents verify that 'Jay' was also CONVICTED of 10 COUNT OF wire and mail FRAUD during the 1980's. Nachshon, Yehuda’s brother, originally provided Yehuda with a job in the Multiut company subsequent to general assistance he provided to help Yehuda and his family following Yehuda‘s first stint of a four year sentence to the federal penitentiary for that conviction in the 80's. See United States v. Draiman, 784 F.2d 248 (7th Cir. 1986)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th ...
Yehuda Draiman was also the subject of a special investigation conducted by the Illinois Legislative Investigating Commission for the Illinois General Assembly (see:4/22/75 Illinois Nursing Homes: A Report to the Illinois General Assembly).“Jay” was barred from serving in the nursing home field after HE DEFRAUDED a RESIDENT under his care of more than $40,000. The report cites testimony from a resident stating that Yehuda offered to return her money if she took a ride with him to his “bank”, and instead left her STRANDED in a DESERTED cornfield in the DEAD OF WINTER in 8 degree weather. Only by luck was she spotted by a passerby who reported the incident to the MCHENRY COUNTY SHERIIF"S Department. When the sheriff’s office interviewed Yehuda, he claimed “when they got out into the country she asked to be let out. He let her out and drove back to Chicago…and found her purse in the back seat.” In these instances, as well as the recent litigation, Yehuda Jay Draiman's tactic has been to invent illegalities to accuse his victims of, in order to shift the focus of attention away from him.
http://multiut.com/responses_to_YJD /IL_Assembly_Report_04_75.pdf
The current posting is just another example of Yehuda Jay Draiman's tactics.
For more information about defamation attempts by Yehuda Jay Draiman, see www.Illinoisantidefamation.com or www.IllinoisDefamationProtection.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.
Response to Multiut - Nachshon Draiman rebuttle about his fraud
Response to Multiut - Nachshon Draiman rebuttle about his fraud – rev.
Nachshon Draiuman - Multiut Corp. Fraud
You will note that State and Federal Court records in llinois and elsewhere are replete with lawsuits, judgments and wrongdoing by Nachshon Draiman and his companies. Causing the death of patients in the Nursing homes and a lawsuit by the State of Illinois and conviction People v. Gurell – Nachshon Draiman (1983), 98 Ill.2d 194, 207, 74 Ill.Dec. 516, 456 N.E.2d 18.). abusing nursing home patients see State of Illinois records.
Multiut Corp and Nachshon Draiman dba Future Associate of Skokie, IL. are withholding evidence of fraudulent activities in the Energy industry and inflated Medicaid billing to the government for Nursing Home patients. Also Bank fraud against their bank by presenting fraudulent and inflated receivable reports in order to get and keep a credit line, Nachshon Draiman was a large stock holder of the bank. Draiman Nachshon • SC 13G • Success Bancshares Inc • On 2/17/98
Filed On 2/17/98 • SEC File 5-53545 • Accession Number 950137-98-586
Just because he was able to cheat the system with political contributions and expired statute of limitations does not make him any less guilty.
Everything stated previouly by me against Nachshon Draiman, Multiut, Future Associates and his Nursing Homes can be very easily verified.
Where there is smoke - there is fire.
Several courts and administrative bodies have found Nachshon Draiman culpable in providing fraudulent documents and the intentional abuse and negligence of Nursing Homes patients in Illinois – in every case Nachshon tried to blame others for his misdeeds. See People of the State of Illinois vs. Gurell, Nachshon Draiman et al – 456 N.E.2d 18 there has been numerous patient abuse and deaths due to that abuse. In 127 Ill.App.3d 1165, 483 N.E.2d 731, 91 Ill.Dec. 385 Sonnenberg v. Mill View Associates, Nachshon Draiman where millions of dollars had to be paid as damages for abuse and death of a patient, not to mention numerous patients who died falling down an elevator shaft.
Nachshon Draiman former partner from Lydia Healthcare Arnold Simenson will testify that Nachshon has been breaking and entering and stealing his personal financial records which is recorded on video tape. Nachshon therefore lost his ownership interest in that home. Numerous Nursing Homes operated by Nachshon Draiman have been closed down by the State due to abuse and deaths of patients – Numerous judgments are entered against Nachshon Draiman’s entities for overcharges. Not to mention the over 20 litigations that are currently pending. (Such as Dynegy v Nachshon Draiman w 6 contempt of court orders – Multiut, Israel Discount Bank vs. Nachshon Draiman, State Financial Bank vs. Nachshon Draiman and others). Inflated gas bill to his own nursing home and his friends and associates in order to increase the expenses and bill Medicaid fraudulently
Not to mentioned that he is represented by a Law Firm with attorneys who pleaded guilty to criminal conduct with Jack Abramoff as one of the partners – to say the least and has numerous ethical and criminal transgressions (Greenberg Traurig).
PS – THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
States: “All men are created equal” I state (except those with money, power and influence – who are more equal than others)
NEWSMEAT - NACHSHON DRAIMAN's federal campaign contribution search ...NACHSHON DRAIMAN » IL » 60077 ... Receive an alert every time new records are added to this search for NACHSHON DRAIMAN. Your Email ...
Political Campaign Contributors415777. Paulette Dragul ... Contribution Count/Amount - 1 / $2000 415778. Nachshon Draiman ... Contribution
Count/Amount - 2 / $2000 415779. ...
Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al 1:02-cv-07446.
Court: United States District Court Northern District of Illinois -
Case Title: Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al
Case Number: 1:02-cv-07446
Judge: Hon. John A. Nordberg
Filed On: 10/16/2002
128 01/10/2005 MINUTE ORDER of 1/10/05 by Honorable Michael T. Mason : As stated on the reverse of this order, plaintiff's motion to compel financial documents [124-1] and for sanctions is granted in part and denied in part. [124-2] Defendant's request for reconsideration is denied. (See reverse of minute order.) Notices mailed by judge's staff (hp) (Entered: 01/10/2005)
Multiut Nachshon Draiman lawsuits
2001-CH-19688
GORE JACK MULTIUT CORPORATION 11/20/2001
2002-CH-21586
KSJ CORPORATION TAM FITNESS TENNIS CLUB/ Nachshon Draiman 12/02/2002
2007-L-006471
MADDY MELISSA ADAIR THOMAS, Nachshon Draiman 06/22/2007
2006-L-005786
COWANS ISABELLE BURNHAM HEALTHCARE PROPER, Nachshon Draiman 06/02/2006
2004-L-013384
FEDDELER VIRGINIA PETERSON PARK HEALTH CARE, Nachshon Draiman 11/29/2004
2004-L-008129
STATE FINANCIAL BANK EMBASSY CARE ASSOCIATES, Nachshon Draiman 07/20/2004
2004-L-000663
ISRAEL DISCOUNT BANK LTD DRAIMAN NACHSHON Z 01/20/2004
2006-M1-129654
WEIS DUBROCK DOODY DRAIMAN NACHSHON 04/19/2006
1987-M1-168987
ILLINOIS PUBLIC AI DRAIMAN NACHSON D 09/09/1987
Case Number Plaintiff Defendant Date Filed
2004-M2-001804
LUBIN ROBERT MULTIUT CORPORATIO 08/02/2004
2004-M1-134094
MCCLURE WILLIAM MULTIUT 06/02/2004
1999-M2-000227
RABIN SCOTT R MULTIUT CORP 01/28/1999
Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al 1:02-cv-07446.
Draiman and Multiut breached the Guaranty by failing to pay after demand, when due, the Unpaid Principal. Balance and the Interest.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of a judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgement, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
-4-
COUNT III
(Fraudulent Transfer In Law- Multiut)
27. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 26, inclusive, as paragraph 27.
28. At all relevant times, Draiman has been a director, officer and/or control ling shareholder of Multiut.
29. At all relevant times, Draiman has been a general partner in Future Associates or otherwise had authority and/or control over the business affairs of Futures Associates or an entity that had authority over the business affairs of Futures Associates.
30. Since at least January 1999, Multiut failed to make timely payment, when due, for some or all of the natural gas delivered by Dynegy.
31. On March 7, 2001, Ginger Wright of Dynegy and Lenore Kamien of Multiut ' agreed that Multiut owed Dynegy approximately $11,000,000, excluding interest.
32. On September 5, 2001, Dynegy representatives Pete Pavluk and Mark Ludwig met with Multiut representatives Lenore Kamien and/or Nachshon Draiman at Multiut's offices to discuss the amount owed by Multiut.
33. At that meeting, Mr. Draiman said that Multiut did not have funds sufficient to pay the debt owed and that Multiut would propose a payment plan by September 17, 2001.
34. In a September 17, 2001 letter, Multiut proposed a payment plan by which it would make monthly payments, from October 2001 through March 2002, in order to pay down the amount owed to Dynegy. The proposed payments ranged from $600,000 in some months to $1,800,000 in other months. According to Mr. Draiman, Multiut was, 'insurefd] [sic] an additional annual profit of $2,000,000' and that, 'in the meantime, [Multiut] was working on bank financing as well as funds from private sources for capital infusion.'
-5-
35 . In an October 4, 2001 letter to Multiut, Dynegy responded to Multiut's September 17, 2001 proposal by asking for 'a detailed formal plan by no later than Wednesday, October 10, 2001 that outlines bringing your account balance current by no later that [sic]-January 15, 2002.'
36. In an October 12, 2001 letter, Multiut responded to Dynegy's October 4, 2001 letter by proposing 'weekly payments for October through January.' The weekly payments proposed by Multiut totaled $7,700,000.
37. Multiut did not make all the weekly payments described in its October 12, 2001
letter.
38. Multiut's check , dated August 23, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $300,000, was returned for insufficient funds.
39. Multiut's check, dated October 26, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $150,000, was returned for insufficient funds.
40. Multiut's check, dated November 9, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $200,000, was returned for insufficient funds.
41. Multiut check no. 1946, made payable to Dynegy for $200,000 and deposited on December 7, 2001, was returned twice due to insufficient funds.
42. On January 8, 2002, Multiut claimed it could not pay the amounts owed to Dynegy because of slow payment by the government in connection with Mr. Draiman's nursing homes.
43. On January 31, 2002, Multiut told Dynegy that it would make a $200,000 payment while it worked to raise cash through a factoring company and while it attempted to arrange a line of credit with Bank Leumi.
-6-
54. Multiut did not receive reasonably equivalent value for the transfer described in paragraph 53.
55. In the years 1999 through 2003, Multiut transferred cash or other assets to Future Associates, Draiman and/or other entities, including Draiman's nursing home, hotel or other business interests when Multiut was indebted to Dynegy.
56. Multiut did not receive reasonably equivalent value for the transfers desciibed in paragraph 55.
57. When Multiut made the transfers described in paragraphs 53 and 55 (the 'Transfers'), Multiut was insolvent and/or became insolvent as a result of the Transfers.
58. The Transfers were fraudulent conveyances in violation of applicable laws.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of an order granting judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgment, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74; voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the Transfers to Multiut to be used to satisfy the debt to Dynegy; and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.
COUNT IV (Fraudulent Transfer In Fact- Multiut)
59. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 58, inclusive, as paragraph 59.
60. The Transfers were made with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud Dynegy, a creditor of Multiut and as-such constituted fraudulent conveyances in violation of applicable laws.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of an order granting judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgment, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74; voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the money to Multiut to be
-8-
used to satisfy the debt to Dynegy; punitive damages and such other relief as this Court deems
•
appropriate.
Ken Ditkowsky
wrote on May 16, 2007 9:52 AM:
' Read your story with interest. In my opinion we apparently have not learned from the Resko transactions. While Government cannot plan and execute a 'one car funeral' it should not delegate its responsibilites 'helter skelter.' The Illinois Court records are replete with information concerning the people involved in the transaction. '
Jerald Dims
wrote on May 16, 2007 8:52 AM:
' See Illinois Court documents federal and state regarding Nachshon Draiman, Future associates, Multiut corp. being involved in fraudulent actions and inflated billing, defrauding partners of $8 million dollars, fraudulent documents to the illinois department of Registration to obtain a Nursing Home License, defrauding the banks in Israel - currently pending a lawsuit and a criminal investigation 02c7446 '
This is just a small sample of the various actions and criminal and fraudulent acts by Nachshon Draiman and his alter ego companies.
Yehuda Draiman 8/15/2007
INCREASING COST OF ENERGY and INFLATED FRAUDULENT BILLING
INCREASING COST OF ENERGY and INFLATED FRAUDULENT BILLING
It is not enough that consumers are paying higher cost for energy – Gas, Electric, Tel., Etc.
Due to the market volatility and the increase demand for energy worldwide and the manipulation of market conditions by various corporation.
Deregulation, which was designed to save the consumer on the cost of energy. Many new companies have started selling gas and electric in the past 20 years, as a result of this deregulation. We now have numerous deregulated third party suppliers of Gas and Electric that are gouging the consumers – billing prices higher than the regulated utility companies, inflating the bill, billing for product never delivered, billing phantom tax on the product, reneging on fixed price contract – when market prices go beyond the fixed contract. In short any way they can cheat, deceive and defraud the consumer is fair game.
Among the companies that practice such tactics is MULTIUT CORP or Multiut LLC of Skokie, Illinois the owner of the company is well connected, one of the previous owners was a federal judge and therefore has gotten away with numerous over billing and deceptive practices, there are numerous lawsuits for fraud pending against Multiut Corp and its owner among them a Class Action Suit and Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al 1:02-cv-07446 The Federal Court has imposed numerous contempt orders against Multiut and its owner and its owner is involved in numerous other fraud in the Nursing Home business (defrauding the state Nursing License with false documents to obtain a Nursing Home License) and a hotel project where he committed a fraud of $45 million dollars and numerous other fraud and deception too numerous to mention. (Especially since Multiut is represented by Jack Abramoff Law Firm – which has clout).
Another Company is Santana Energy out of Texas. Some utility companies were forced to refund the consumers hundreds of million of dollars due to manipulation of pricing and billing – many of those shenanigans stem from the Enron debacle some precede it and continue on to date.
Corporate CEO and other higher ups in the corporate world have been convicted of fraud and sentenced/fined (WorldCom, Enron, Adelphia, Etc.). But it seems that some companies can continue to defraud the public without being hindered by the authorities.
Other frauds by Gas Electric suppliers are: Centerpoint Energy Inc.,
Presented by Citizen for Honest and Fair Billing
Reply to Jay Drai (Yehuda Draiman) July23,2007
All of these claims are malicious, false, meritless, and contrived. These baseless accusations are the fabrications of a disgruntled former employee, Yehuda "Jay" Draiman, a conv