FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/22/2016 01:39 PM INDEX NO. 155249/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2016 BAKER, LESHKO, SALINE & DRAPEAU, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs One North Lexington Avenue White Plains, New York 10601-1712 914.681.9500 mbaker@bakerleshko.com SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK 136 FIELD POINT CIRCLE HOLDING COMPANY, LLC and PUTNAM BRIDGE FUNDING III, LLC, -against- Plaintiffs, ALEXANDER RAZINSKI, TANYA RAZINSKI, XENIA RAZINSKI, INVAR INTERNATIONAL HOLDING, INC. and INVAR INTERNATIONAL, INC., Date Purchased: SUMMONS Index No. Defendant. TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S): YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance, on the plaintiffs attorneys within twenty (20) days of service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within thirty (30) days after the service is complete if this summons is not -1-1 of 24
personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. Plaintiffs designate New York County as the place of trial. The basis of venue is the residence of certain defendants and certain contractual provisions provide for venue in New York County. Plaintiffs have an address at 1511 Ave Ponce De Leon, Ciudadela Suite C, San Juan, PR 00909. Dated: White Plains, New York June 22, 2016 BAKER, LESHKO, SALINE & DRAPEAU, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs By: Mitchell J. Baker One North Lexington Avenue White Plains, New York 10601 914.681.9500 To: Alexander Razinski 136 Field Point Circle Greenwich, Connecticut 06830 Tanya Razinski 136 Field Point Circle Greenwich, Connecticut 06830 Xenia Razinski 136 Field Point Circle Greenwich, Connecticut 06830-2- 2 of 24
Invar International Holding, Inc. 600 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10022 Invar International, Inc. 600 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10022-3- 3 of 24
BAKER, LESHKO, SALINE & DRAPEAU, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs One North Lexington Avenue White Plains, New York 10601-1712 914.681.9500 mbaker@bakerleshko.com SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK 136 FIELD POINT CIRCLE HOLDING COMPANY, LLC and PUTNAM BRIDGE FUNDING III, LLC, -against- Plaintiffs, Index No. COMPLAINT ALEXANDER RAZINSKI, TANYA RAZINSKI, XENIA RAZINSKI, INVAR INTERNATIONAL HOLDING, INC., and INVAR INTERNATIONAL, INC. Defendants. Plaintiffs, 136 Field Point Circle Holding Company, LLC and Putnam Bridge Funding III, LLC by their attorneys, Baker, Leshko, Saline & Drapeau, LLP, complaining of the defendants, allege upon information and belief as follows: Introduction 1. This is an action by Plaintiff, 136 Field Point Circle Holding Company, LLC (hereinafter sometimes 136 FPC ), as holder of a $1,000,000 judgment (the Judgment ) against Invar International Holding, Inc. (hereinafter sometimes Invar ), to pierce the 1 4 of 24
corporate veil of said shell corporation and recover the Judgment, issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, from its controlling principals, Alexander Razinski, Tanya Razinski, and Xenia Razinski, and subsidiary corporation, Invar International, Inc. 2. Plaintiff 136 FPC also seeks recovery of the of the Judgment due to a fraudulent conveyances conceived and implemented by defendants in violation of the New York Debtor and Creditor Law. 3. Plaintiff Putnam Bridge Funding III seeks recovery on a breach of contract for the intentional, improper and illegal transfer of monies directed by defendant Alexander Razinski in violation of his written agreement regarding the deposit of said monies. 4. The action underlying the judgment arose from a written guarantee of Invar, a close corporation, wherein it guaranteed the provisions of a certain transaction between 136 FPC and the Razinskis related to the personal residence of its only officers, directors, and shareholders, Mr. Razinski, Ms. Razinski, and Xenia Razinski. 5. Mr. Razinski signed the guaranty on behalf of Invar, transacting personal business under the corporate guise in an effort to avoid paying for his and Ms. Razinski s personal expenses, namely their continued residence in a multi-million dollar, luxury, waterfront mansion located at 136 Field Point Circle, Greenwich, Connecticut (hereinafter sometimes the Property ). 6. 136 FPC entered into the transaction in reliance upon material statements made by the Razinskis and Invar regarding Invar s financial prospects and Invar s 2 5 of 24
representation that it would receive the proceeds of a pending multi-million-dollar arbitration. 7. Specifically, Mr. Razinski, Mrs. Razinski, and Invar directed their attorneys to disburse certain proceeds of the arbitration to or for the benefit of Putnam Bridge Funding III, LLC (hereinafter sometimes Putnam ), an affiliate of 136 FPC. 8. Yet, when the arbitration proceeds were disbursed, Invar and the Razinskis, who wholly owned and controlled Invar, disbursed the settlement amount to a shell corporation, Invar International, Inc., (hereinafter sometimes International ) thereby unjustly depriving 136 FPC and/or Putnam of recovery of the Judgment as well as other monies that were due to the plaintiffs. Parties 9. Plaintiff, 136 Field Point Circle Holding Company, LLC is a limited liability company organized under and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Delaware. Plaintiff 136 FPC is engaged in the business of owning and managing the property located at 136 Field Point Circle, Greenwich, Connecticut 06830. 10. Putnam Bridge Funding III, LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Delaware. 11. Defendant, Invar International Holding, Inc. ( Invar ) is a corporation formed under and existing pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 12. Upon information and belief, Invar has its principal place of business in New York, New York. 3 6 of 24
13. Defendant Invar, through its subsidiaries, is in the business of investing in and developing energy infrastructure projects. 14. Defendant, Invar International, Inc. ( International ) is a subsidiary of Invar and was in the business of commissioning two power plants in Moscow, Russia. 15. Defendant, Alexander Razinski (hereinafter Mr. Razinski ), is a natural person and a resident and citizen of the State of Connecticut. 16. Mr. Razinski is Chairman of Invar. 17. Defendant, Tanya Razinski (hereinafter Ms. Razinski ), is a natural person and a resident of and citizen of the State of Connecticut. 18. Ms. Razinski is President of Invar. 19. Defendant, Xenia Razinski, is a natural person and a citizen of the State of Connecticut. 20. Xenia Razinski is an Executive of Invar. Background 21. Mr. Razinski, Ms. Razinski, and Xenia Razinski are the sole officers, directors and shareholders of Invar and International. 22. At all relevant times, judgment debtor Invar, which is ultimately controlled by defendants Mr. Razinski, Ms. Razinski, and Xenia Razinski, wholly controlled and continue to control the actions, activities and policies of International. 23. Invar exists as a shell, agency, conduit, for International and has never had, and does not now have any genuine or separate corporate existence, but has been used and 4 7 of 24
exists for the sole dominant purpose of permitting Invar and its sole shareholders, Mr. Razinski, Ms. Razinski, and Xenia Razinski (i) to unjustly attempt to shield themselves from prospective liability; and (ii) to fund their personal expenses and transact a portion of their personal business under a corporate guise. 24. Prior hereto, Mr. and Ms. Razinski leased a certain premises located at 136 Field Point Circle, Greenwich Connecticut from a third party. 25. Upon information and belief, Mr. and Ms. Razinski have resided at the Property since 2007. 26. Prior hereto, Mr. Razinski obtained an option to purchase the Property in exchange for an initial $1,000,000 deposit and an additional $9,000,000 initial option payment. The option payment gave him the right to purchase the property for an additional $9,000,000, or a total price of $19,000,000. The term of the initial option payment was later extended and required payment of an additional $13,372,045.14 by May 30, 2012 to purchase the home. 27. Mr. Razinski signed both the option to purchase and the extension of the option to purchase the Property in his individual capacity. 28. By early 2012, due to the poor financial condition of Mr. Razinski, Mr. Razinski did not have the monies to exercise the option to purchase the Property. 29. To gain financing to fund the purchase of the Property as well as to provide International with sufficient funds to support an unrelated arbitration, Mr. Razinski approached a principal of 136 FPC. 5 8 of 24
30. 136 FPC entered into a Master Agreement with Mr. Razinski, Ms. Razinski, and Invar. 31. The Master Agreement was signed by each Mr. and Ms. Razinski twice, once in their individual capacity and once in their capacity as Chairman and President of Invar, respectively. 32. 136 FPC entered into the Master Agreement in reliance on material statements made by the Razinskis and Invar regarding Invar s financial prospects and the Arbitration, including Invar s representation that it would receive the proceeds of a pending multi-million-dollar arbitration. 33. Contemporaneous with the Master Agreement, Mr. and Ms. Razinski leased the Property pursuant to a written Residential Lease Agreement, dated May 17, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the Lease Agreement ). 34. Section 8(c) of the Lease Agreement provided for a $1,000,000 cash payment as a result of Defendants failure to vacate the premises immediately upon the termination of the rental term. 35. Mr. and Ms. Razinski signed the Lease Agreement in their individual capacity. 36. In the Master Agreement, Mr. and Ms. Razinski, individually, and Invar agreed to provide a direction letter to the attorneys representing International, Invar s subsidiary (hereinafter sometimes the Direction Letter ). 37. The Direction Letter directs the law firm to promptly (and in any event within five business days) after receipt, disburse the balance of the Arbitration Proceeds 6 9 of 24
directly to Putnam on my behalf by wire transfer of immediately available funds to Putnam s account set forth in Schedule B hereto, which Putnam will apply to my obligations under the Contract and remit the balance to me, accompanied by a statement prepared by your firm showing the amount of Arbitration Proceeds received and the resulting amount disbursed to Putnam after applying any arbitration proceeds to outstanding legal fees and expenses. 38. The Direction Letter further provides: We agree that this instruction letter is a valid and legally enforceable contract among Invar International Inc., myself, and Putnam and, accordingly, Putnam is entitled to enforce it against Invar International Inc. and myself. 39. The Direction Letter is signed by Mr. Razinski both individually and as President of Invar International Inc. 40. Xenia Razinski signed a Stockholder Acknowledgement in which she acknowledge[d], consent[ed] and agree[d] to Invar s entering into the Master Agreement with 136 FPC and Mr. and Ms. Razinski, the Real Estate Lease, and the Guarantee Agreement. The Arbitration Proceeds 41. International, a subsidiary of Invar, was engaged in an arbitration with a company named Zorlu. 42. Under the Master Agreement and Direction Letter, the Arbitration Proceeds were to be disbursed to 136 FPC and/or Putnam prior to any disbursement of the 7 10 of 24
Arbitration Proceeds to Mr. Razinski, Ms. Razinski, Xenia Razinski, Invar, International and/or any other affiliate corporations or limited liability companies associated with Invar. 43. Mr. Razinski and Invar represented to 136 FPC and/or Putnam that the Arbitration Proceeds were the property of Invar. 44. International settled the Arbitration for a substantial sum of money. 45. The proceeds of the arbitration and the settlement were not disbursed to 136 FPC and/or Putnam. 46. The Arbitration Proceeds were not disbursed to Invar. 47. Instead, the Arbitration Proceeds were disbursed, in part, to International and/or to the Razinskis directly. 48. The Arbitration Proceeds were disbursed to International in an unjust and unlawful attempt to shield Mr. Razinski, Ms. Razinski, and Invar from prospective liability and in breach of the Direction Letter. The Razinskis Failure to Vacate and the $1,000,000 Judgment 49. Mr. and Ms. Razinski failed to act in accordance with the lease agreement with 136 FPC by their failure to vacate the Property at the end of the term thereof. 50. 136 FPC commenced an action against Invar in the Southern District of New York to recover a $1,000,000 hold-over payment against Invar, provided for in the Master Agreement and Guaranty Agreement. 51. Pursuant to the Master Agreement and the Guaranty Agreement, Invar agreed to absolutely, unconditionally and irrevocably guaranty the full, complete and 8 11 of 24
timely payment performance and satisfaction of each and every one of the liabilities and obligations of either or both of the Razinskis under the Transaction Documents. 52. The Guarantee further states: The Razinskis, together with their daughter Xenia Razinski ( X. Razinski ), hold all of the outstanding capital stock of the Guarantor and, therefore, the Guarantor will receive substantial direct and indirect benefits from Purchaser s consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Master Agreement and the Real Estate Lease and is therefore willing to enter into this Guaranty. 53. Ms. and Mr. Razinski signed the Guaranty Agreement on behalf of Invar. 54. Ms. Razinski signed the Guaranty Agreement as President of Invar. 55. Mr. Razinski signed the Guaranty Agreement as Chairman of Invar. 56. Thereafter, 136 FPC moved for summary judgment against Invar for the sum of $1,000,000. 57. The Southern District of New York issued a decision and order, dated March 19, 2015, granting 136 FPC s Motion for Summary Judgment and directing the entry of judgment in plaintiff s favor and against Invar in the principal amount of $1,000,000. See 136 Field Point Holding Company LLC v. Invar International Holding, Inc., No. 1:13-cv- 6285-GHW (S.D.N.Y. March 19, 2015). 58. There, the Court stated: The Defendant s argument is akin to a dishonest Child s claim that her fingers were crossed behind her back when she made a promise. As noted above, the Guaranty expressly states that it is and shall be absolute under any and all circumstances without regard to the validity or enforceability of the Transaction Documents. Guaranty at 1.1. This language clearly and unambiguously requires Invar 9 12 of 24
to make payment regardless of whether or not the primary obligation is enforceable ( without regard to the validity or enforceability of the primary obligation). [T]he express language of the Guaranty waives the defense that Invar asserts here. 59. Invar has not honored the judgment. 60. Invar appealed the judgment of the United States District Court to the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals. 61. The United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court and affirmed the judgment against Invar. Efforts to Collect the Judgment and Mr. Razinski s Admissions 62. In an effort to collect on the Judgment, 136 FPC availed itself of the procedures and remedies under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable New York State rules and law. 63. As part of the judgment enforcement procedures used, 136 FPC deposed Invar through Alexander Razinski. 64. During such deposition, Mr. Razinski admitted that Invar did not file its 2014 New York State and/or Federal Income Tax Returns. 65. During such deposition, Mr. Razinski admitted that Invar did not file is 2013 New York State and/or Federal Income Tax Returns. 66. During such deposition, Mr. Razinski stated that the address of International and Invar was 600 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10022. 10 13 of 24
67. Restraining notices sent to International and Invar at 600 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10022 subsequent to the deposition were returned by the United States Postal Service as addressee unknown. 68. At such deposition, Mr. Razinski admitted under oath that Invar did not receive any income for 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015, and he did not believe it had received any income for 2011. 69. At such deposition, Mr. Razinski admitted under oath that Invar did not have any assets in 2013, 2014 and 2015, and he did not believe it had any assets in 2011. 70. However, Mr. Razinski admitted under oath that Invar was supposed to have an asset, namely the Arbitration Proceeds. He was asked the following question and gave the following answer: Q. In 2012, did the debtor have any assets? A. It was supposed to be one asset, which was a settlement of a legal procedure that was going on between Invar and Zorlu. That was the only asset. 71. Regarding the Arbitration Proceeds, Mr. Razinski was asked the following questions and gave the following answers at this deposition: Q. You testified earlier that the asset of the debtor was the arbitration in which you would get out it. Invar International, Inc., you just testified received a portion of those funds. Is that correct? A. That s correct. 11 14 of 24
Q. Do you what, if anything, the debtor received in consideration of the monies going to Invar International, Inc.? A. No. Q. Was there any consideration? A. No. There was no consideration. 72. At his deposition, Mr. Razinski was asked the further following questions, and gave the following answers: Q. When you said that the arbitration was settled, the monies went to Invar International even though it was, you testified it was an asset of the debtor [Invar], who made the decision the decision of where the money went? A. The decision was made collectively between Zorlu, Fresh Fields and Invar Inc. Q. Your lawyers had a decision making in where the monies would go? A. Yes, because they had to take quite a lot out of the portion of the money. Q. I understand the money would go the lawyers. A. First. Q. The question is: you stated the settlement of the Zorlu Arbitration was an asset of the debtor but the monies after the attorneys were paid and all of the expenses were paid, went to Invar International Inc. A. Yes. 12 15 of 24
Q. My question is: Who made that decision? Was it you, sir, that made that decision? A. Yes. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Piercing the Corporate Veil) 73. Defendants Mr. and Ms. Razinski have engaged in a purposefully complex and evasive course of self-dealing through the beneficial ownership of judgment debtor Invar and International for the purpose of: (a) permitting defendants Mr. and Ms. Razinski to transact to provide for their personal residence under a corporate guise; (b) unjustly attempt to shield themselves from prospective liability for Invar s liability and their personal liability under the Master Agreement and Transaction Documents; (c) avoid payment of judgment debts; and (d) to hide assets. 74. Invar and International have been at all relevant times herein undercapitalized. 75. Upon information and belief, Invar and International have not had a shareholders and/or director s meetings during the relevant times herein. 76. For the purpose of personally defrauding 136 FPC, hiding assets, and avoiding payment to 136 FPC, defendants Mr. and Ms. Razinski and Xenia Razinski have used and are using the defendant corporations as mere instrumentalities to effectuate their fraudulent purposes. 13 16 of 24
77. Defendants Mr. Razinski, Ms. Razinski, Xenia Razinski and International are the alter ego of the judgment debtor Invar. 78. Mr. Razinski, Ms. Razinski and Xenia Razinski dominate the affairs of defendants Invar and International. 79. Defendants Mr. Razinski, Ms. Razinski, and Xenia Razinski are the sole officers, directors, and shareholders of judgment debtor Invar and its wholly owned subsidiary, defendant International. 80. Defendants Mr. Razinski, Ms. Razinski, Xenia Razinski, Invar, and International act as one entity. 81. Defendants, Mr. Razinski, Ms. Razinski, Xenia Razinski, Invar and International are merely the alter ego of one another. 82. The owners of the corporate defendants, Mr. Razinski, Ms. Razinski and Xenia Razinski exercised complete domination of the corporation. 83. The owners of the corporate defendants, Mr. Razinski, Ms. Razinski and Xenia Razinski have exerted complete domination of the corporation to commit a fraud or wrong against 136 FPC and Putnam which has resulted in the inability of 136 FPC to collect on the Judgment and any other monies due it. 14 17 of 24
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraudulent Conveyance New York Debtor and Creditor Law 273) 84. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations and statements contained in all previous paragraphs herein as if more fully set forth herein. 85. Defendants transferred the property of Invar, the funds attained from settlement of the arbitration proceeding, without fair consideration and Invar was insolvent or was rendered insolvent by the transfer of said funds in violation of New York Debtor and Creditor Law 273. 86. Defendants are liable to 136 FPC for the judgment. AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraudulent Conveyance New York Debtor and Creditor Law 274) 87. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations and statements contained in all previous paragraphs herein as if more fully set forth herein. 88. Defendants transferred the property of Invar, the funds attained from settlement of the arbitration proceeding, without fair consideration. 89. It was engaged in said business transaction for which its remaining property constituted unreasonably small capital in violation of New York Debtor and Creditor Law 274. 90. Defendants are liable to 136 FPC for the judgment. 15 18 of 24
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraudulent Conveyance New York Debtor and Creditor Law 275) 91. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations and statements contained in all previous paragraphs herein as if more fully set forth herein. 92. Defendants transferred the property of Invar, the funds attained from settlement of the arbitration proceeding, without fair consideration when it knew or believed it would incur debtors beyond its ability to pay as they matured in violation of New York Debtor and Creditor Law 275. 93. Defendants are liable to 136 FPC for the judgment. AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraudulent Conveyance New York Debtor and Creditor Law 276) 94. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations and statements contained in all previous paragraphs herein as if more fully set forth herein. 95. Master Agreement Section 8.1 states: The Razinskis and Invar Holdings shall not (and shall cause the other Invar Affiliates to not) by any reorganization, transfer of assets, consolidation, merger, dissolution, issue or sale of securities, or other act or omission avoid or allow any of the Invar Affiliates to avoid the observance or performance of any of the terms of Invar Guaranty or otherwise impair or diminish the value of the Invar Guaranty to Purchaser, but the Razinskis and Invar Holdings each will (and each will cause the other Invar Affiliates to), at all times in good faith carry out a of all the provisions of 16 19 of 24
the Invar Guaranty and take any action as may be reasonably requested by Purchaser in order to protect the rights of Purchaser under the Invar Guaranty against impairment or diminution in value, consistent with the purpose of the Invar Guaranty. 96. Mr. Razinski admitted under oath that he caused the transfer of property of Invar to be transferred to International without consideration and at his direction. 97. Mr. Razinski failed to carry out in good faith all of the provision of the Invar Guaranty and to take actions consistent with the purposes therein. 98. Indeed, the direction that the arbitration proceeds be paid over to International without consideration was made for the express purpose of hindering, delaying and to defraud 136 FPC. 99. Defendants transferred the property of Invar, the funds attained from settlement of the arbitration proceeding with actual intent to hinder, delay and defraud 136 FPC and payment of the Judgment in violation of New York Debtor and Creditor Law 276. 100. Defendants are liable to 136 FPC for the Judgment. 17 20 of 24
AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Contract Direction Letter) 101. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations and statements contained in all previous paragraphs herein as if more fully set forth herein. 102. The Direction Letter is a valid and enforceable obligation. 103. Mr. Razinski and International breached its obligations under the Direction Letter by directing that the monies go to other parties and/or entities. 104. Due to the breach of such agreement, Putnam Bridge Funding III, LLC has been damaged. 105. Mr. Razinski and International are liable to Putnam Bridge Funding III, LLC in the amount of $1,000,000.00. AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Contract Master Agreement) 106. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations and statements contained in all previous paragraphs herein as if more fully set forth herein. 107. The Direction Letter is a valid and enforceable obligation. 108. Section 7.2 (b) (ii) of the Master Agreement provides that the Razinskis shall not amend, modify, waive or terminate the Direction Letter. 109. Section 7.2 (b) (iii) of the Master Agreement provides that the Razinskis and/or Invar s providing of any other instruction or direction to its law firm (Freshfields) concerning the funds from the arbitration shall constitute a breach thereof and for which 18 21 of 24
136 FPC is entitled to an immediate cash payment of $1,000,000.00, which shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other remedies available to 136 FPC regarding such breach. 110. Mr. Razinski, Mrs. Razinski and Invar breached its obligations under the Direction Letter. 111. Due to the breach of such agreement, Plaintiffs 136 FPC and Putnam has been damaged. 112. Mr. Razinski, Mrs. Razinski and Invar are liable to 136 FPC and Putnam in the amount of $1,000,000.00. AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Attorneys Fees New York Debtor and Credit Law 276-a) 113. Plaintiffs 136 FPC and Putnam repeat and reallege the allegations and statements contained in all previous paragraphs herein as if more fully set forth herein. 114. 136 FPC is entitled to its reasonable attorneys fees and disbursements in connection with this action pursuant to New York Debtor and Creditor Law 276-a. AS AND FOR A NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Attorneys Fees Master Agreement) 115. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations and statement contained in all previous paragraphs herein as if more fully set forth herein. 116. The subject matter of this action is related to the Master Agreement. 19 22 of 24
117. The Master Agreement provides that 136 FPC is entitled to its reasonable attorneys fees and expenses in relation to the instant action. 118. Defendants, except for International, are all liable to 136 FPC for its reasonable attorneys fees and expenses incurred in connection with the prosecution of this action. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment as follows: 1. On the first cause of action, a judgment against all defendants in the amount of $1,000,000.00, plus interest thereon; 2. On the second cause of action, a judgment against all defendants in the amount of $1,000,000.00, plus interest thereon; 3. On the third cause of action, a judgment against all defendants in the amount of $1,000,000.00, plus interest thereon; 4. On the fourth cause of action, a judgment against all defendant in the amount of $1,000,000.00, plus interest thereon; 5. On the fifth cause of action, a judgment against all defendants in an amount of not less than $1,000,000.00, plus exemplary damages and interest thereon; 6. On the sixth cause of action, a judgment against Mr. Razinski and International in an amount of $1,000,000, plus interest thereon; 7. On the seventh cause of action, a judgment against Mr. Razinski, Mrs. Razinski and Invar in an amount of $1,000,000, plus interest thereon; 8. On the eighth cause of action, a judgment against all defendants, except for 20 23 of 24
defendant International, in an amount to be determined by this Court. 9. On the ninth cause of action, a judgment against all defendants, except for defendant International, in an amount to be determined by this Court. 10. Costs and disbursements of this action; and 11. For such other, further and different relief this Court deems just. Dated: White Plains, New York June 22, 2016 BAKER, LESHKO, SALINE & DRAPEAU, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs By: Mitchell J. Baker One North Lexington Avenue White Plains, New York 10601-1712 914.681.9500 21 24 of 24