Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 1 of 170

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
(SOUTHERN DIVISION)
)
RUDERSDAL, EOOD, )
By: Erik Bresling )
Director ) Case No. 18-cv-11072
Sømarksvej 17 )
2900 Hellerup, Denmark ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
ALL SEAS PROPERTY 2, OOD, )
By: Yordanka Zhekova Georgieva )
Manager )
15 Seliolu Street )
Floor 1, Apartment 2 )
Varna Center )
Varna, Bulgaria 9002 )
)
ASSET MANAGEMENT, EAD, )
By: Svetlozar Kasabov )
Tzar Ivan Assen 1 )
Ground/Parter Floor )
Turgovishte, Bulgaria 7700 )
)
ZAHARI TOMOV, )
Individually and as )
Special Counsel to U.S. Trustee )
In U.S. Bankruptcy Court, )
Beli Lilii Street, No. 30 )
Floor 3, Suite 13 )
Varna, Bulgaria 9000 )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
PHILIP ROBERT HARRIS, )
459 Chippendale Drive )
Rockwall, TX 75032 )
)
)
)

1
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 2 of 170

AYR LOGISTICS LIMITED, INC., )

By: Philip Robert Harris )
President and General Manager )
459 Chippendale Drive )
Rockwall, TX 75032 )
)
ANTHONY DENNIS HARRIOTT, )
21 Foxcroft Drive )
Princeton, NJ 08540 )
)
GRANT CAPITAL )
INVESTMENTS, LTD. )
By: Anthony D. Harriott )
Director )
21 Foxcroft Drive )
Princeton, NJ 08540 )
)
FIRST INVESTMENT BANK, AD, )
By: Nedelcho Vasilev Nedelchev )
Director )
37 Dragan Tzankov Boulevard )
Municipality Stolichna )
Sofia, Bulgaria 1797 )
)
TSEKO TODOROV MINEV, )
20 Dospat Str. )
Fl. 4, Ap. 12 )
Sofia, Bulgaria 1463 )
)
IVAILO DIMITROV MUTAFCHIEV, )
26 Krushova Gradina Str. )
Sofia, Bulgaria 1415 )
)
CHAVDAR ANGELOV ANGELOV, )
Tourist Lodge in the )
Aladzha Manastir locality )
Primorski District )
Varna, Bulgaria 9007 )
)
)
)
)

2
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 3 of 170

ALL SEAS MANAGEMENT, LTD. )

By: Registered Agent )
Marshall Islands Management Company )
Trust Company of the Marshall Islands, Inc. )
Trust Company Complex, Suite 206 )
Aljeltake Road, Ajeltake Island )
P.O. Box 3055 )
Majuro, MH 96960 )
)
BLUE FINANCE LIMITED )
By: Registered Agent )
Marshall Islands Management Company )
Trust Company of the Marshall Islands, Inc. )
Trust Company Complex, Suite 206 )
Aljeltake Road, Ajeltake Island )
P.O. Box 3055 )
Majuro, MH 96960 )
)
DELYAN SLAVCHEV PEEVSKI, )
6 Atanas Dalchev Street )
Sofia, Bulgaria 1113 )
)
NSN INVESTMENT, EOOD, )
By: Alexander Kirilov Georgiev )
119 Ekzarh Yosif Street )
Oborishte District )
Sofia, Bulgaria 1527 )
)
BULGARTABAC HOLDING, AD, )
By: Radoslav Vasilev Rahnev )
Director )
62 Graf Ignatiev Street )
Sofia, Bulgaria 1000 )
)
BULGARIAN NATIONAL BANK, )
By: Dimitar Radev )
Governor )
1 Knyaz Alexander I Square )
Sofia, Bulgaria 1000 )
)
)
)

3
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 4 of 170

STANISLAV GEORGIEV LYUTOV, )

Individually and as BNB Conservator )
22 Anton Chehov Street )
1 Floor Apt 16 )
Sofia, Bulgaria 1113 )
Conservator of Corporate Commercial Bank )
)
ELENA ZDRAVKOVA )
KOSTADINCHEV, )
Individually and as BNB Conservator )
District Lager )
Building 12, Entrance B, Floor 1 Apt. 1 )
Sofia, Bulgaria 1612 )
Conservator of Corporate Commercial Bank )
)
TABAK MARKET, AD, )
By: Victor Nikolaev Nalbantov )
Director )
161 Knyaz Boris I Street )
Vazrajdane District )
Sofia, Bulgaria 1202 )
)
CIBOLE SERVICES INCORPORATED, )
BULGARIA, EOOD, )
By: Gergana Kirilova Angelova )
Manager )
11 Antim I Street )
Vazrajdane District )
Sofia, Bulgaria 1303 )
)
ASTERIA BG, EOOD )
a/k/a DROSLIAN BULGARIA, EOOD, )
By: Borislav Ivanov Borisov )
Manager )
10 Doyran Street )
Krasno Selo District )
Sofia, Bulgaria 1700 )
)
)
)
)
)

4
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 5 of 170

VILI VIST, EAD, )

By: Nikolai Milev Milev )
Director )
47 Industrialna Street )
Burgas, Bulgaria 8000 )
)
PROMISHLENO STROITELSTVO )
HOLDING, EAD, )
By: Kamen Stoyanov Kanev )
Director )
1 Zavodska Street )
Village of Yana )
Sofia, Bulgaria 1895 )
)
THE BANK OF NEW YORK )
MELLON CORPORATION, )
One Wall Street )
New York, New York 10286 )
By: Registered Agent )
New York State Secretary of State )
New York Dept. of State )
One Commerce Plaza )
99 Washington Avenue )
Albany, NY 12231 )
)
EATON VANCE STRUCTURED )
EMERGING MARKETS )
EQUITY FUND, LLC, )
By: Eaton Vance Management )
New York State Secretary of State )
New York Dept. of State )
One Commerce Plaza )
99 Washington Avenue )
Albany, NY 12231 )
)
THE BANK FOR FOREIGN TRADE OF )
THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, )
a/k/a VTB BANK )
By: Anton G. Siluanov )
Chairman of the Supervisory Council )
Or )
By: Andre L. Kostin )
President and Chairman of VTB Bank )

5
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 6 of 170

Registered Address: )
29 Bolshaya Morskaya Street )
St. Petersburg, Russia 190000, )
)
Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs RUDERSDAL, EOOD (hereinafter “Rudersdal”), ALL SEAS PROPERTY 2,

OOD (hereinafter “ASP2”), ASSET MANAGEMENT, EAD (hereinafter “Asset Management”),

and ZAHARI TOMOV (hereinafter “Tomov” or “Tomov-Special Counsel”), by and through their

undersigned counsel, based on both their direct claims and their purchase and assignment of claims

arising out of defendant AYR LOGISTICS LIMITED, INC.’s (hereinafter “Ayr”) (a U.S. entity)

U.S. Bankruptcy proceeding in Dallas, Texas (fashioned as “In re: Ayr Logistics Limited Inc.,”

Case No. 14-34940-bjh-7) assigned to plaintiffs by the U.S. Trustee, as and for their Complaint

against the above-named Defendants, allege as follows:

NATURE OF CLAIM

1. The U.S. bankruptcy asset of approximately $65 million brought together the defendants

in varying acts of tortious and illegal conduct for self-dealing, profit and ancillary benefit,

defrauding plaintiffs of their claims to the asset as investors and creditors. It all began

when Ayr acquired the Bulgarian Silver Beach Project (hereinafter “SBP”), a development

project of 1048 hectares expanding the town of Balchik, Bulgaria, from APD2, in 2009 for

€89 million which initially included the assumption of €88 million in FIB loans with

performance in and through New York City. The sale of the Ayr SBP real property created

the $65 million asset through its wholly own subsidiary Ayr Property Development, AD

(hereinafter “APD”). The conspiratorial course of conduct was intentionally designed by

defendants, individually and in two identifiable groups, to obscure their tortious conduct

6
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 7 of 170

and demonstrate a new species of concerted global scheming by gaining access to and

profit in privatization mechanisms.

2. Plaintiffs seek to vindicate these wrongdoings in New York because this venue was integral

and pivotal to defendants’ acts and harm to plaintiffs; in addition, in various contracts

between the parties they agreed to subject themselves to venue, personal, and subject matter

jurisdiction in New York. Plaintiffs seek recovery in claims sounding in civil Racketeer

Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (hereinafter “RICO”), civil conspiracy, breach

of contract, tortious interference with contracts, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and

abetting of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, fraud, aiding and

abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, conversion, and fraudulent transfer

of bankruptcy assets.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 18. U.S.C. § 1964(c) and has

supplemental jurisdiction over the state common law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants Philip Robert Harris (hereinafter

“Harris”), Anthony Dennis Harriott (hereinafter “Harriott”), and Chavdar Angelov

Angelov (hereinafter “Angelov”), and Ayr both in its own capacity and against its

executive officers and shareholders, pursuant to N.Y. CPLR §§ 301 and 302(a)(1)–(3). Not

only do Harris, Harriott, Angelov and Ayr transact substantial business in New York State,

the causes of action asserted in this lawsuit arise directly out of Harris, Harriott, and

Angelov’s tortious acts both within New York and outside of New York partly on behalf

of Ayr which caused injury to persons and property within New York. Additionally, the

agreements upon which this claim in part arises specifically provide for venue in the State

of New York as well as subject matter and personal jurisdiction in the State of New York.

7
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 8 of 170

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over First Investment Bank (hereinafter “FIB”), on its

own and against its executive officers and shareholders, pursuant to N.Y. CPLR § 302(a)(3)

because FIB was a co-conspirator with, inter alia, Harris, Harriott, and Angelov to divest

plaintiffs of their investment in the U.S. company, Ayr, through its Bulgarian-registered

subsidiary, APD. FIB’s acts, on its own and through its shareholders, had a direct effect in

the United States, and FIB knew or should have known that its acts would have an effect

in the United States. Specifically, Defendant FIB, by its acts, either expected or should

have reasonably expected to have a consequence in New York and FIB derived substantial

revenue from interstate and/or international commerce arising from those acts.

Additionally, the agreements upon which FIB’s acts arise in part specifically provides for

venue in the State of New York as well as subject matter and personal jurisdiction in the

State of New York. FIB may be served pursuant to the requirements of the Hague

Convention on Service of Process.

6. The Court has personal jurisdiction over all other defendants pursuant to N.Y. CPLR §

302(a)(3). The causes of action asserted in this lawsuit arise directly out of Harris, Harriott

and Angelov’s New York acts, and the acts committed by Harris, Harriott and Angelov as

co-conspirators with all other defendants, as well as by other participants in the conspiracy

and/or enterprise, are imputable to all other defendants in this case. Defendants, by their

acts, either expected or should have reasonably expected to have a consequence in New

York and they derived substantial revenue from interstate and/or international commerce.

All foreign defendants may be served pursuant to the requirements of the Hague

Convention on Service of Process.

7. In the alternative, this Court has personal jurisdiction over the foreign defendants pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2).

8
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 9 of 170

8. Defendant Bulgarian National Bank (hereinafter “BNB”) is the central bank of Bulgarian,

organized under the laws of Bulgarian and owned by the Republic of Bulgaria. Therefore,

this Court has personal jurisdiction over BNB pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1602(a)(2) because

the Republic of Bulgaria through BNB committed acts outside the territory of the United

States in connection with its commercial activity and those acts caused a direct effect in

the United States. BNB may be served pursuant to the requirements of the Hague

Convention on Service of Process.

9. Defendant The Bank for Foreign Trade of the Russian Federation (hereinafter “VTB”) is

an investment bank registered in St. Petersburg, Russia. VTB Bank wholly owns and

controls VTB Capital, AD, and wholly owns and controls Russian Commercial Bank with

a branch in the Republic of Cyprus. The Russian Federation is a majority shareholder of

VTB. Therefore, this Court has personal jurisdiction over VTB pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1602(a)(2) because the Russian Federation through VTB committed acts outside the

territory of the United States in connection with its commercial activity and those acts

caused a direct effect in the United States. VTB may be served pursuant to the requirements

of the Hague Convention on Service of Process.

10. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and (3).

11. Venue is also proper under 18 U.S.C. § 1965(b). The ends of justice require that those

defendants who reside in other jurisdictions and countries be brought before this Court in

this civil action under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)-(c) to

account for their wrongful acts.

THE PARTIES

Plaintiffs

9
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 10 of 170

12. Plaintiff Rudersdal, EOOD (hereinafter “Rudersdal”) is a company incorporated in

Bulgaria with its principal place of business at Sofia, Bulgaria. Rudersdal is a wholly-

owned subsidiary of Rudersdal, A/S, a company incorporated in Denmark with its principal

place of business in Birkerod, Denmark. Rudersdal consists of shareholder/investors from

the United Kingdom and Denmark who invested million of Euros in the SBP. Rudersdal

is also an assignee of the claims of the Trustee in the Ayr U.S. bankruptcy proceedings in

Dallas, Texas and a creditor of Ayr in the amount of approximately $14,908,580.20 the

underlying agreements of which specifically provides for venue in the State of New York

as well as subject matter and personal jurisdiction in the State of New York.

13. Plaintiff All Seas Property 2, OOD (hereinafter “All Sea” or “ASP2”) is a company

incorporated in Bulgaria with its principal place of business in Varna, Bulgaria, and an

assignee of the claims of the Trustee in the Ayr bankruptcy proceedings in Dallas, Texas

and a creditor of Ayr in the amount of approximately $37,897,480.61 the underlying

agreements of which specifically provides for venue in the State of New York as well as

subject matter and personal jurisdiction in the State of New York.

14. Plaintiff Asset Management, EAD (hereinafter “Asset Management”) is a company

incorporated in Bulgaria with its principal place of business in Targovishte, Bulgaria, and

an assignee of the claims of the Trustee in the Ayr bankruptcy proceedings in Dallas, Texas

and a creditor of Ayr in the amount of approximately $1,938,115.43 the underlying

agreements of which specifically provides for venue in the State of New York as well as

subject matter and personal jurisdiction in the State of New York.

15. Plaintiff Zahari Tomov (hereinafter “Tomov”) is a citizen of Bulgaria, and an assignee of

the claims of the Trustee in the Ayr bankruptcy proceedings in Dallas, Texas and a creditor

of Ayr in the amount of approximately $10 million arising from Ayr and Harris’ breach of

10
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 11 of 170

contract and failure to pay legal fees for completed work, the underlying agreement of

which provides for venue in the State of New York as well as subject matter and personal

jurisdiction in the State of New York.

16. Plaintiff Zahari Tomov (hereinafter “Tomov-Special Counsel”) is a citizen of Bulgaria, a

U.S. Bankruptcy Court appointed Special Counsel and an assignee and owner of the claims

of the Trustee in the Ayr bankruptcy proceedings in Dallas, Texas, claims of which provide

venue in the State of New York as well as subject matter and personal jurisdiction in the

State of New York.

Defendants

17. Upon information and belief, Defendant Philip Robert Harris (hereinafter “Harris”) is a

citizen of the United States and operates and is President and General Manager of Ayr, a

company incorporated on or about 1995 majority-owned, upon information and belief, by

Harris, and having offices in Texas, as well as other Ayr subsidiary companies. Ayr

coordinated overseas business projects including as a joint partner in various international

manufacturing and infrastructure projects. He also served as the sole Executive Director of

Ayr’s subsidiary Ayr Property Development, AD (hereinafter “APD”).

18. Upon information and belief, Defendant Ayr Logistics Limited, Inc. (hereinafter “Ayr”) is

a company organized under the laws of the United States, incorporated in Texas with its

principal place of business in Texas. Ayr is subject to bankruptcy proceedings in the U.S.

Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas) (fashioned as “In re: Ayr

Logistics Limited Inc.,” Case No. 14-34940-bjh-7), and, upon information and belief, Ayr

is majority-owned by Harris with Harris as its President and General Manager. The

corporate veil between Ayr and Harris should be pierced to hold Harris personally liable

for Ayr’s wrongdoings as Harris treated Ayr as an alter ego at all times relevant herein.

11
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 12 of 170

19. Upon information and belief, Defendant Anthony Dennis Harriott (hereinafter “Harriott”)

is a permanent resident of the United States, is a citizen of Canada and the United Kingdom,

a close business associate of Harris, owns Grant Capital Investments Limited incorporated

in Malta, and is the Director of Wallace Companies, Inc., incorporated and with offices in

Texas.

20. Upon information and belief, Grant Capital Investments Limited (hereinafter “Grant

Capital”) is a company organized under the laws of the Malta, with its principal place of

business in Malta, and, upon information and belief, Grant Capital is owned by Harriott.

The corporate veil between Grant Capital and Harriott should be pierced to hold Harriott

personally liable for Grant Capital’s wrongdoings as Harriott treated Grant Capital

Investors as an alter ego at all times relevant herein.

21. Upon information and belief, Defendant First Investment Bank, AD (hereinafter “FIB”) is

a bank organized under the laws of the Republic of Bulgaria, operating therein and in the

United States, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Bulgaria, and the European Union

(hereinafter “EU”). FIB is registered and operates in the United States pursuant to its

Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (hereinafter “FATCA”) registration. FIB is licensed

and transacts business in the United States pursuant to its Diner’s Club franchise

agreement. FIB conducted business in the United States through a Mortgage Receivable

Sale and Purchase Agreement executed in the United States. In addition, at least two United

States entities are minority shareholders in FIB: Defendants The Bank of New York Mellon

Corporation in New York, N.Y., and Eaton Vance Structured Emerging Markets in Boston,

M.A.

22. Upon information and belief, Defendant Tseko Todorov Minev (hereinafter “Minev”) is a

citizen of the Republic of Bulgaria and a majority shareholder of FIB. The FIB corporate

12
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 13 of 170

veil should be pierced to hold Minev personally liable for FIB’s wrongdoings because

Minev completely controlled FIB and failed to treat it as a separate business identity, and

Minev used his complete control of FIB to commit fraud and unjust acts against the

plaintiffs, and personally profited thereby.

23. Upon information and belief, Defendant Ivailo Dimitrov Mutafchiev (hereinafter

“Mutafchiev”) is a citizen of the Republic of Bulgaria and a majority shareholder of FIB.

The FIB corporate veil should be pierced to hold Mutafchiev personally liable for FIB’s

wrongdoings because Mutafchiev completely controlled FIB and failed to treat it as a

separate business identity, and Mutafchiev used his complete control of FIB to commit

fraud and unjust acts against the plaintiffs, and personally profited thereby.

24. Upon information and belief, Defendant Chavdar Angelov Angelov (hereinafter

“Angelov”) is a citizen of the Republic of Bulgaria and a permanent resident of the United

States, and a close business associate of Harris and Harriott. Upon information and belief,

Angelov maintains a residence in the state of New York.

25. Upon information and belief, Defendant All Seas Management, Ltd. (hereinafter “All Seas

Management”) is a company organized under the laws of the Marshall Islands with its

principal place of business in Malta, and, upon information and belief, All Seas

Management is owned by Angelov. The corporate veil between All Seas Management and

Angelov should be pierced to hold Angelov personally liable for All Seas Management’s

wrongdoings as Angelov treated All Seas Management as an alter ego at all times relevant

herein.

26. Upon information and belief, Defendant Blue Finance Limited (hereinafter “Blue

Finance”) is a company organized under the laws of the Marshall Islands, with its principal

place of business in Malta, and, upon information and belief, Blue Finance is owned by

13
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 14 of 170

Angelov. The corporate veil between Blue Finance and Angelov should be pierced to hold

Angelov personally liable for Blue Finance’s wrongdoings as Angelov treated Blue

Finance as an alter ego at all times relevant herein.

27. Upon information and belief, Defendant Delyan Slavchev Peevski (hereinafter “Peevski”)

is a citizen of the Republic of Bulgaria and politician and a key figure in the Movement for

Rights and Freedoms political party (hereinafter “MRF”) in the Republic of Bulgaria.

28. Upon information and belief, Defendant NSN Investment, EOOD (hereinafter “NSN”), is

a corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of Bulgaria, operating therein and

in the Middle East, Republic of Turkey, and European Union, and is wholly owned by

Peevski.

29. Upon information and belief, Defendant Bulgartabac Holding, AD (hereinafter

“Bulgartabac or BTH”) is a corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of

Bulgarian. Bulgartabac is the Bulgarian monopoly which holds 22 subsidiaries in a world

wide tobacco manufacturing and distribution business. Bulgartabac routinely transacts

business in the United States. Bulgartabac has been subject to U.S. jurisdiction in multiple

previous lawsuits in various U.S. jurisdictions and state and federal courts. In addition,

Mellon Bank, and Eaton Vance are all United States entity minority shareholders of

Bulgartabac. Bulgartabac additionally maintains operations and conducts business in the

United States, the Middle East, the Republic of Turkey, the Arab Republic of Egypt,

Republic of Indonesia, EU, Federative Republic of Brazil, the Republic of Guatemala, the

Republic of Kenya, the Republic of Zimbabwe, the Republic of Uganda, the Republic of

Malawi, the Argentine Republic, India, the Republic of Belarus, and the Russian

Federation.

14
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 15 of 170

30. Upon information and belief, Defendant Bulgarian National Bank (hereinafter “BNB”) is

the central bank of the Republic of Bulgaria responsible for, inter alia, issuing banknotes

and coins, overseeing and regulating the banking sector (requires and holds private bank

reserves for banks with credit issues), and keeping the Republic of Bulgaria reserves. It is

the sole owner of the Bulgarian Mint and routinely transacts business in U.S. dollar

currency, including, through the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial

Telecommunication (hereinafter “SWIFT”).

31. Upon information and belief, Defendant Stanislav Georgiev Lyutov (hereinafter “Lyutov”

or “BNB Conservator”) is a citizen of Bulgaria, appointed by BNB as conservator over

the BNB takeover of CCB.

32. Upon information and belief, Defendant Elena Zdravkova Kostadinchev (hereinafter

“Kostadinchev” or “BNB Conservator”) is a citizen of Bulgaria, appointed by BNB as

conservator over the BNB takeover of CCB.

33. Upon information and belief, Defendant Tabak Market, AD (hereinafter “Tabak Market”),

is a corporation created in 2006 and organized under the laws of the Republic of Bulgaria,

operating therein and in the Middle East, Republic of Turkey, EU, and is a wholly owned

subsidiary of Bulgartabac Holding. It distributes primarily tobacco and tobacco products

under the brand name Lafka in conjunction with Bulgartabac cigarette products in Bulgaria.

Tabak Market obtained CCB loans to expand its infrastructure.

34. Upon information and belief, Defendant Cibole Services Incorporated Bulgaria, EOOD

(hereinafter “Cibole”) is a corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of

Bulgaria, operating therein and in the Middle East, the Republic of Turkey, EU, and the

Republic of Panama, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cibole Services Incorporated, a

Panama-registered entity. Cibole was created in 2012 to participate in the privatization deal

15
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 16 of 170

of the Bulgarian Government owned entity Technoexportstroy, AD, and to participate in

Russia Federation Gazprom’s southern pipeline project consortium sanctioned by the EU

and the United States. Technoexportstroy, AD engaged in construction in 20 countries:

Europe, Middle East, Africa, well as for international financial and investment institutions

such as the World Bank and the Arab Fund. Technoexportstroy has branches and affiliated

firms, and is operating in the Republic of Bulgaria, Federal Republic of Germany, Russian

Federation, The State of Libya, Federal Republic of Nigeria, Kingdom of Morocco,

Republic of Iraq, Republic of Zimbabwe, Republic of Yemen and Syrian Arab Republic.

These deals were funded by a CCB bank loan.

35. Upon information and belief, Defendant Asteria BG, EOOD a/k/a Droslian Bulgaria

EOOD (hereinafter “Droslian”), is a corporation created in 2013, organized under the laws

of the Republic of Bulgaria, operating therein and in the Middle East, the Republic of

Turkey, and the EU, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Droslian Limited, a Belize-

registered entity. Droslian Limited purchased 100 % of Baranco EOOD, which Bulgarian

company is owner on 49% of Yurii Gagarin AD. This deal was a funding by a Droslian

Bulgaria CCB bank loan.

36. Upon information and belief, Defendant Vili Vist, EAD, (hereinafter “Vili Vist”) is a

corporation created in 2013 and organized under the laws of the Republic of Bulgaria and

controlled by MRF. It was established to buy the already privatized construction company

Transstroy Burgas, AD which engages in the construction and renovation of ports, airports,

railroads, roads, other transport infrastructure, reinforcing facilities, hydro technical and

irrigation infrastructure, industrial and residential buildings, electrical supply, and pipeline

networks and to participate in Russia Federation Gazprom’s southern pipeline project

16
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 17 of 170

consortium sanctioned by the EU and the United States. These deals were funded by a

CCB bank loan.

37. Upon information and belief, Defendant Promishleno Stroitelstvo Holding, EAD

(hereinafter “Promishleno Stroitelstvo”) is a corporation organized under the laws of the

Republic of Bulgaria, created on 1952. Promishleno Stroitelstvo Holding provides

industrial construction services. In 2011, based on a privatization deal with the Bulgarian

Government, Promishleno Stroitelstvo was privatized by Vodstroi 98, AD, a Bulgarian

company operating and controlled by MRF. In August 2013, Promishleno Stroitelstvo

was the primary Bulgarian partner in the Russian Federation Gazprom’s southern pipeline

project consortium sanctioned by the EU and the United States. These deals were funded

by a CCB bank loan.

38. Upon information and belief, Defendant The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation

(hereinafter “Mellon Bank”) is a bank organized under the laws of the United States and

operating therein, incorporated in Delaware, domesticated in New York with its principal

place of business in New York City, N.Y. Mellon Bank is a minority shareholder of FIB,

Bulgartabac Holding, AD, and Commercial Corporate Bank, AD (hereinafter “CCB”), a

Bulgarian bank.

39. Upon information and belief, Defendant Eaton Vance Structured Emerging Markets, Inc.

(hereinafter “Eaton Vance”) is a corporation organized under the laws of the United States

and operating therein, with its principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts and

with operations in New York City, New York. Upon information and belief, Eaton Vance

comes under the management of Eaton Vance Management in New York, New York.

Eaton Vance is a minority shareholder of FIB, Bulgartabac Holding, and CCB.

17
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 18 of 170

40. Upon information and belief, Defendant The Bank for Foreign Trade of the Russian

Federation (hereinafter “VTB”) is a Russian Federation investment bank organized under

the laws thereunder and registered in St. Petersburg, Russia in 1990, operating therein and

in the United States, Commonwealth of Independent States (hereinafter “CIS”), Middle

East, Asia, Africa and the EU. VTB is a 10% shareholder in CCB.

FACTS RELEVANT TO ALL COUNTS

41. The Ayr Silver Beach construction development project (hereinafter “SBP”) was to be a

$542,976,244 (€404,000,000) expansion of the town of Balchik, Bulgaria on the Black Sea

with a new multi-use and multi-purpose 259-acre neighborhood consisting of 2480 mixed

housing, retirement community, hospital, shopping mall complex, parking, waterfront

fishing village, cultural center, amphitheater, marina, religious facilities, solar power park,

water greenery complex, all utilities, including, water purification and sewer treatment. On

or about September 2008, zoning had been approved as well as design and construction

contracts executed.

42. Upon information and belief, in or about July 2007 Angelov, through his company,

purchased the SBP land which was to become the SBP, thereby commencing the

orchestrated mechanism which resulted in the fraudulent taking of approximately

$65,209,976 (97,500,000 BGN), the proceeds of the eventual sale of the SBP land

(hereinafter “the Funds”). Angelov, through his company, procured two FIB construction

loans in 2007 $32,261,224(€24,320,000) and 2008 $3,316,326(€2,500,000) collateralizing

the SBP land.

43. Thereafter, Harris and Angelov entered into a contract on September 15, 2009, which

provided in pertinent part that Angelov’s company would provide the licensing, in-country

support, operational support, and marketing for the SBP, and that Ayr committed to provide

18
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 19 of 170

the financing as well as design, engineering, construction, and construction management

of the SBP (See Exhibit A September 15, 2009 contract attached hereto and incorporated

herein by reference).

44. The September 15, 2009, agreement further bound the parties to English as the operative

language (See Article 3.4 of Exhibit A); and “to abide by the United States Law prohibiting

the bribing, favor-giving, or any other financial inducement provided to a foreign

government official or any other party for the purpose of obtaining business within the

foreign nation.” (See Article 6 of Exhibit A).

45. On June 4, 2010, Ayr, APD and FIB enter into an agreement whereby Ayr assumed the

two Angelov previously procured FIB SBP construction loans (See Exhibit B attached

hereto and incorporated by reference herein).

46. Harris, Angelov and FIB, falsely, maliciously, and with intent to damage plaintiffs and

disrupt plaintiffs’ benefit of the bargain, used the September 15, 2009 and the June 4, 2010

agreements as a basis to divert funds from the two pre-existing FIB loans in the SBP, for

which the SBP land was collateral.

47. Harris and Angelov thus breached the terms of the September 15, 2009 and the June 4,

2010 agreements with the participation of FIB when they failed to invest the two pre-

existing FIB SBP construction loans funds into the SBP and instead transferred said funds

to Bank of Valletta in Malta to purchase Mexican bonds for their own economic gain. The

recipient of the Malta transfer was Angelov’s company All Seas Management, a company

registered in the Marshall Islands. Angelov and All Seas Management in collusion with

Harriott then transferred the funds converting them to U.S. dollars to Grant Capital, a

company registered in Malta, with offices in the United States and conducting business in

the United States, of which Harriott was the director and knowing these funds were illicitly

19
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 20 of 170

diverted because he was the orchestrator of the Mexican bond scheme, purchased in U.S.

dollars and ultimately are titled in his name. Harriot thereby was the alter ego of Grant

Capital by using Grant Capital as a mere instrumentality to further his own personal

activities and gain, and used the corporation to perpetrate a fraud on the plaintiffs. Angelov

also was the alter ego of All Seas Management in that he used All Seas Management as a

mere instrumentality to further his own personal activities and gain, and used the

corporation to perpetrate a fraud on the plaintiffs. These activities were not a part of the

contract and violated the terms of the September 15, 2009 and the June 4, 2010 agreements

as well as the terms of the two FIB SBP loans.

48. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of their breach, plaintiffs suffered damages

in the ultimate loss of the Funds to defendants’ scheme.

49. Angelov, Harris and FIB knew their actions breached the contracts, were fraudulent, self-

serving, done in bad faith, and purposefully designed to ultimately defraud the plaintiffs

and violate the law which recent became known to plaintiffs.

50. In furtherance of these bad acts, Harris, Angelov, and FIB on December 29, 2009 entered

into a third FIB SBP construction loan, which funds were used to pay the interest payments

on the previous two FIB SBP construction loans of 2007 and 2008 (See Exhibit C attached

hereto and incorporated by reference herein). This action was designed to hide from

Bulgarian bank regulators the illegality of the purposeful diversion of funds from the 2007

and 2008 loans.

51. The diversion of the Funds from the SBP to Malta by Harris, Angelov, and FIB was made

possible only with the necessary participation by FIB as FIB fraudulently authorized the

release of the construction loan funds to Malta. These loan funds could not be transferred

to Malta unless the bank specifically approved the transfers. FIB authorized and enabled

20
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 21 of 170

the proceeds by way of FIB-authorized and -issued payment orders sent through the SWIFT

banking communications system on the following dates: November 26, 2007; November

29, 2007; November 30, 2007; December 3, 2007; October 8, 2008; December 31, 2009;

and January 20, 2010.

52. Ayr failed to fund SBP, which ultimately compelled Harris to file for bankruptcy for Ayr’s

subsidiary, ADP, in Bulgaria in February, 2011, through which the SBP property was sold

on December 15, 2012 for $65,209,976 (97,500,000 BGN) (“the Funds”) and the Funds

from that sale on January 14, 2013 ($66,506,142) (97,500,000 BGN) were placed in ADP’s

interest-bearing bank accounts in CCB. The Funds in the CCB accounts were an Ayr asset

which the defendants, inter alia, wrongfully and deceitfully divested from the plaintiffs

through conspiracy.

53. Upon information and belief, two groups participated in a coordinated conspiracy which

resulted in the theft of the Funds to which the Ayr Logistics creditors in the U.S Bankruptcy

proceeding in Dallas, Texas are entitled to as claimants.

54. Upon information and belief, the First Group consisted of Ayr, Harris, Harriott, Angelov,

and FIB, and FIB’s shareholders Minev, Mutafchiev, Mellon Bank, and Eaton Vance

(hereinafter “First Group”). These defendants conspired to create fraudulent loans against

the Ayr Silver Beach property through Ayr’s wholly owned Bulgarian subsidiary, APD,

which ultimately enabled Harris, Harriott, and Angelov in conjunction with FIB and FIB

shareholders to abscond with the money from the SBP construction loans for personal gain

in Mexican bonds and opened the door for FIB to gain control and become the title owner

over the Funds and steal them for its own benefit and that of other defendants in the Second

Group, Peevski, BNB, VTB, NSN, BT, Lyutov, Kostadinchev, Tabak Market, Cibole,

Asteria, Vili Vist, and Promishleno Stroitelstvo Holding (hereinafter the “Second Group”).

21
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 22 of 170

55. From October 2009 through December 2014, Harris, Harriott, Angelov, and FIB devised a

scheme, colluded, and acted intentionally and concertedly to disguise the money transfers

to All Seas Management Ltd., an entity owned and controlled solely by Chavdar Angelov

and Blue Finance Limited, an entity owned and controlled solely by Chavdar Angelov,

both Marshall Island registered entities, to look like legitimate investments in a large

property development project by Ayr, the Silver Beach project. When FIB failed through

court action to become a creditor in APD’s bankruptcy, on October 10, 2014 Harris

fraudulently filed a no asset bankruptcy proceedings in the U.S. by virtue of Ayr’s position

as parent company of APD and did not disclose the Funds held in the CCB accounts,

thereby allowing FIB to circumvent the automatic stay on all of Ayr’s assets and effectuate

the stealing of the Silver Beach land sale funds for FIB and others benefit.

56. Upon information and belief, the second group consisted of Ayr, Harris, FIB (along with

its minority shareholders: The Bank of New York Mellon, and Eaton Vance Structured

Emerging Markets, and majority shareholders: Minev and Mutafchiev), Peevski, BNB,

Lyutov, Kostadinchev, Tabak Market, Cibole, Droslian, Vili Vist, Promishleno Stroitelstvo

Holding, and VTB (hereinafter “the Second Group”). The Second Group engaged in fraud,

conspiracy and coordinated actions to steal the Funds held in Ayr’s subsidiary CCB bank

accounts in favor of FIB and Peevski and the call option participants: VTB; EFV

International Financial Ventures Ltd (hereinafter “EFV”); Livero Establishment

(hereinafter “Livero”); TGI Middle East FZE (hereinafter “TGI”); Salam Qader Faraj

(hereinafter “Faraj”); Bulgartabac Holding; and Bulgartabac Holding’s subsidiaries.

57. EFV International Financial Ventures Ltd, (hereinafter “EFV”) is a company registered in

the British Virgin Islands (hereinafter “BVI”). Upon information and belief, EFV is owned

by Tsvetan Radoev Vassilev (hereinafter “Vassilev”).

22
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 23 of 170

58. EFV financed two call options: the Bulgartabac Holding, AD and Vivacom, AD (the largest

mobile telecommunication company in Bulgaria). EFV was established by two

shareholders of CCB: VTB and Vassilev (the majority shareholder and Chairman of the

Supervisory Board of CCB) for the sole purpose of obtaining CCB’s bank loans to finance

the two call options. The CCB call option loans were in the amount of €70 M representing

79.83% of Bulgartabac and in the amount of €50M representing 33% of Vivacom.

59. Upon information and belief, TGI Middle East FZE (hereinafter “TGI”), is a company

registered in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. TGI gained its interest in the Bulgartabac

Holding call option by purchasing Livero’s, a registered foundation in Liechtenstein,

Bulgartabac Holding call option rights for €45 million. Peevski’s mother, Irena Krusteva,

is the owner of Livero.

60. Vassilev’s EFV, based on a CCB loan between EFV and Livero, was a party to the

Bulgartabac Holding call option with VTB. TGI bought Livero’s EFV debt and as part of

that debt extinguishment became the sole owner of Livero. Based on this transaction, VTB,

based on the call options provisions and Peevski’s instructions through Livero, transferred

BT Invest GmbH, an Austrian registered company (owner of the privatized share of BTH)

which held 79.83% of BTH, to Livero.

61. Upon information and belief, VTB conspired with these parties to effectuate the

privatization of BTH in order to receive and distribute commissions based on the Funds, in

which it had no ownership interest.

62. Upon Information and belief, Faraj, a citizen of the Republic of Iraq, personally and

through his company, Tobacco EMEA Trade Limited, registered in Dubai, UAE,

participated in the payment structure of VTB’s BTH call option exercised in November

2014 in favour of TGI. Upon information and belief, Faraj personally and through his U.S.

23
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 24 of 170

company, Caledon Invest Inc, registered in the State Delaware, between 2000-2011,

engaged in the sale of and controlled the contraband channels of Bulgartabac cigarettes in

Middle East, Iran and Syria in violation of U.N., U.S. and EU sanctions resulting in

financing of ISIS. Based on the exercise of VTB’s BTH call option, Faraj was enabled to

take and did take full control over the distribution channels of Bulgartabac cigarettes in the

Middle East markets.

63. Upon information and belief, the end beneficiaries of these coordinated efforts were all the

defendants and EFV, Livero, TGI and Faraj. They participated in the conspiracy for, inter

alia, personal gain, corporate consolidation, access to contraband cigarette channels in the

Middle East, and political influence.

64. BTH, albeit a recently publicly traded company, once privatized its value on the stock

market is in direct relation to whether it owned the entire cycle of production and

manufacturing of cigarettes, namely, whether it owned Tabak Market and Yurii Gagarin,

which it did debt-free.

Theft of The Funds

65. On June 20, 2014, BNB took over the Corporate Commercial Bank AD (CCB) in Sofia,

Bulgaria.

66. On June 25, 2014 BNB appointed to CCB two Conservators, Lyutov and Kosdadinchev.

67. Upon information and belief, in turn, FIB, BNB, BNB’s Conservators, and Peevski

colluded so that the defendants would benefit from FIB’s scheme with Harris, Harriott, and

Angelov (the First Group). Peevski, BNB and the BNB Conservators made it possible for

FIB to use the Funds in APD’s accounts by granting FIB written authorization through a

“Payment Order” dated October 24, 2014. FIB was therefore able, between November 13,

2014 and December 1, 2014, to transfer the Funds over to the five companies TM, Cibole,

24
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 25 of 170

Droslian, Vili Vist, and Promishleno Stroitelstvo (hereinafter collectively “Five

Companies”) whose debts to CCB were paid and discharged with the Funds.

68. On November 17, 2014, APD’s Bankruptcy Trustee Martin Apostolov declared to the

Bulgarian ADP bankruptcy judge that the Funds were in the four APD CCB banks

accounts. This was additionally confirmed by the CCB bank statement for these accounts

dated November 10 and 13, 2014, reflecting a non-interest bearing balance of $65,576,106,

respectively.

69. Upon information and belief, on November 18, 2014, APD’s Bankruptcy Trustee Martin

Apostolov, under threat and duress from FIB, the confirmed “Payment Order on October

24, 2014” that FIB submitted to CBB under his falsified signature.

70. On or about July 11, 2014, the APD bankruptcy judge issued an order to the BNB

conservators ordering them “to open a new special bank account on behalf of the bankrupt

debtor with Bulgarian Development Bank (BDB) and cause a transfer of the money

currently on deposit in the special account with CCB to such new bank account.”

71. In anticipation of BNB’s public statement that it would resume normal banking relations

on July 21, 2014, the Bulgarian court issued this order in advance of the July 21 date so

that the Funds, which was the largest deposit in the country, could be further protected at

a non-distressed banking institution namely, Bulgarian Development Bank, a government

financial institution.

72. As of July 2014 the Funds were held in a Bulgarian bankruptcy bank account in CCB

subject to the above court order. To move those funds or change the Funds’ status or

ownership, BNB and the BNB CCB conservators first needed court authority which they

did not obtain, and they knew that all matters arising through the APD CCB accounts had

to proceed through the court. BNB and BNB CCB conservators, by October 22, 2014, knew

25
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 26 of 170

or should have known that Ayr had filed bankruptcy on October 10, 2014 and that the

automatic stay of any potential Ayr assets was in place precluding moving of the Funds,

an Ayr asset. And that is further the case because APD and Harris’s attorney in the APD

bankruptcy proceeding, Nakova, advised the committee of creditors and APD and the

trustee that Ayr had filed for bankruptcy in the U.S. in conjunction with cross-

communication with the U.S. Ayr bankruptcy trustee.

73. Long after the fact, the creditors learned that FIB used a letter dated October 24, 2014,

which erroneously and deceitfully recognized FIB as the sole signatory to APD’s accounts

with CCB to achieve access to the Funds to pay off the CCB debts of the Five Companies.

74. After the CCB debts of the Five Companies were paid off with the Funds, the balance in

APD’s account should have been $11,094,780 (BGN 17,307,857).

75. Upon information and belief, on or after December 1, 2014, the defendants absconded with

the remaining balance of $11,094,780 (BGN 17,307,857) and, in acquiescence and

pursuant to the joint conspiracy, BNB and the BNB CCB Conservators without justification

or right closed the ADP bank accounts at CCB, and with the closing of the Ayr owned ADP

CCB bank accounts the final balance of $11,094,780 (BGN 17,307,857) disappeared and

has not been located to date. All inquiries as to the location of the Funds to the First and

Second Groups have gone unanswered with total silence and unresponsiveness to both the

Bulgarian trustee and U.S. Trustee, as well as Plaintiffs as Ayr’s creditors.

76. Upon information and belief, BNB and/or the BNB CCB Conservators fraudulently

accepted FIB as the new title holder to the Funds in CCB as well as approved the CCB debt

extinguishment of the Five Companies.

77. Neither FIB, the BNB Conservators overseeing CCB, nor the Five Companies which owed

debts to CCB, had the legal authority or power to dispose of any of the Funds that were

26
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 27 of 170

being held in the CCB accounts. All of the defendants wrongly and without authorization

stole and distributed the Funds for their sole personal benefit and gains, breaching their

fiduciary duties to Ayr and the plaintiffs as ultimate beneficiaries thereof and fraudulently

failing to disclose material facts and failing to act to protect the Funds.

78. As of October 10, 2014, based on the automatic stay in the Ayr U.S. Bankruptcy

proceedings, the Funds were and are due and payable to the Ayr bankruptcy creditors, the

plaintiffs in this matter.

79. As a result of the seizure of the Funds in APD’s bank accounts with CCB, Ayr’s Estate and

its creditors, the plaintiffs: Rudersdal; All Seas Property 2; Asset Management; and Zahari

Tomov in his individual capacity and in his capacity as Special Counsel in the U.S.

Bankruptcy proceedings, suffered loss of funds in the amount no less than approximately

$65,576,106 (BGN 102,966,946).

Ayr was the owner of the Funds, $65,576,106, held in the CCB Accounts.

80. Harris, through Ayr and Ayr’s various subsidiaries, sought to develop SBP, which was the

expansion of the town of Balchik, Bulgaria on the Black Sea.

81. To that end, Harris through Ayr created Ayr Property Development, AD, its wholly owned

Bulgarian-subsidiary which held the property for the SBP. Bulgaria law at the time required

a non-European entity to have a domestic subsidiary to directly own land in Bulgaria. Ayr

created APD as a shell subsidiary solely for that purpose; APD had no office, no

employees, no business activities of its own, not even its own website or email address. All

Harris’s activities, liabilities, responsibilities, undertakings, earnings, dealings,

negotiations, agreements, and any and all operations in pursuit of SBP are solely imputable

to Ayr in the United States, where Ayr is incorporated, situated, and operates in Texas and

New York. Ayr fully own APD and performed all of its managerial and financial decisions

27
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 28 of 170

from the United States of America. Moreover, Harris treated both APD and Ayr as mere

instrumentalities in furtherance of his own personal activities and gain, and ultimately used

them to commit fraud on the plaintiffs. Ayr and Harris were the orchestrators and stood to

benefit from any and all activity connected to the creation of APD. Ayr and Harris made

all corporate decisions regarding every aspect of the Silver Beach Project in the United

States of America, including, specifically as to funding in the State of New York.

82. Therefore, while it existed, APD was merely an empty shell company and a vehicle of

convenience for Ayr and Harris, given that Bulgarian law at that time precluded foreigners

and non-EU registered companies from owning real property.

83. In or about the end of 2007 through the end of 2008, FIB made two loans in the amount of

$46,907,243.69(€32,500,000) allegedly for development of the Silver Beach Project. Of

that amount, $33,417,656 (€26,820,000) was transferred to the Angelov’s Marshall Island

All Seas Management’s bank account in Bank of Valletta in Malta. Angelov and FIB

conspired to steal these funds, for this transfer necessarily required FIB’s authorization.

84. In order for FIB to show on its books that the loans were active and properly serviced by

the borrower, so as to remain under the radar and avoid the appearance of money laundering

in Bulgaria and prevent BNB regulatory oversight, FIB had to show monthly interest

payments on the loans.

85. On October 2, 2009, FIB, conspiring with Angelov, sent a letter to Harris stating its

knowledge that Harris wanted to take over the development of SBP. FIB thereafter

conspired with Harris, Harriott and Angelov to divest the plaintiffs of their investment

through, inter alia, acts ultimately committed in New York.

28
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 29 of 170

86. FIB told Harris that it had already invested $46,907,243.69 (€32.5 million) into the project

by way of two project development loans and therefore had a lien against the property, and

if Ayr was going to develop it then it had to buy these FIB’s debt positions.

87. On or about December 17, 2009, Ayr, by and through Harris, sent a first letter of

commitment to FIB stating that it would provide the financial backbone for SBP through

its subsidiary company APD “for the purpose of acquiring and development of the Silver

Beach Investment Project,” and that pursuant thereto Ayr Logistics would purchase the

two pre-existing debts owed at that time to FIB for the project.

88. FIB agreed to Harris’ buyout offer, but conditioned it on Harris paying interest on the FIB

debts.

89. To that end, FIB, Harris, and Angelov agreed that FIB would provide a loan of $11,646,640

(€8,000,000) which was used to make interest payments on the two pre-existing 2007 and

2008 loans.

90. In December 2009, FIB issued its third loan related to the SBP. It gave the $11,646,640

(€8,000,000) loan to Asset Management. Asset Management was the company Harris and

Angelov designated to be the front organization for the $11,646,640 (€8,000,000) interest

loan.

91. Upon information and belief, FIB, Harris, and Angelov conspired to extract further funds

for their enterprise when they further agreed to create fake coal delivery invoices from

Angelov’s Marshall Island company, Blue Finance, to be the basis on FIB’s books for the

$11,646,640 (€8,000,000) interest payment loan. Angelov also was the alter ego of Blue

Finance in that he used Blue Finance as a mere instrumentality to further his own personal

activities and gain, and used the corporation to perpetrate a fraud on the plaintiffs.

29
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 30 of 170

92. FIB issues the $11,646,640 (€8,000,000) loan to Blue Finance, with this underlying

agreement.

93. Upon information and belief, the coal invoices were fake, any coal contracts inferred were

false, and there never were any coal deliveries based on the fake contracts or invoices. This

mechanism was also used and true for the FIB 2007 and 2008 loans as well.

94. Harris, Angelov, Harriott and FIB conspired in the creation of the escrow agreement

arrangements related to the purchase of ancient Mexican bonds to be sold in the U.S. so

that approximately $39,823,594 (€31,938,000) of all three loans was diverted from SBP

and transferred to Malta for purchase of the Mexican bonds.

95. On or about December 29, 2009 through June 30, 2010, Angelov, using Blue Finance as a

corporate instrumentality for his own personal gain and fraudulent activities, transferred

approximately $7,916,241 (€5,516,000) to FIB to pay interest on the 2007 and 2008 FIB

loans and $2,905,587 (€2,000,000) was transferred from FIB in Varna, Bulgaria to Blue

Finance. Angelov, through Blue Finance, wired those funds to FIB’s Cypress Adorna

Management Ltd. bank account. Upon information and belief, this was done either as a

commission to FIB or Harris.

96. The balance of the loan, roughly $2,086,074 (€1.7 million), went towards the June 2010

interest payment to keep up FIB’s regulatory productive loan requirements.

97. On the surface, FIB designated this $11,546,398 (€8,000,000) loan and the $46,907,243

(€32.5 million) loan as both having gone into SBP. None of these monies were actually

used to develop SBP in any way. No steps were ever taken to begin construction of the

SBP.

30
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 31 of 170

98. The agreement was for FIB to recover the principal of the three loans through the value in

the real property asset of the SBP. To this end, FIB, Angelov, Harris, and Harriott, through

Ayr agreed in 2010 for Ayr to purchase the three 2007, 2008, and 2009 loans from FIB.

99. Ayr acquired the SBP property through APD, and the comprehensive project with all its

existing approvals, for example, zoning and design from ASP2, in December 2009 for

$123,941,834 (€89 million).

100. On or about June 4, 2010, Harris and FIB agreed that Ayr and APD shall enter into

a “Mortgage Receivables Sale and Purchase Agreement” for the Silver Beach funds, which

was executed in the United States and notarized by Sara Deanne Feazell, Notary Public of

the State of Texas (see Exhibit B attached hereto).

101. In or about June 2010, Harris offered to buy out FIB’s debt in SBP. For that

purpose, Harris arranged for the buyout funds to originate in New York City, New York

through Oriana Capital Partners’ New York HSBC bank account. Further, upon

information and belief, Harris communicated on multiple occasion in New York with

HSBC Bank via email and/or telephone to create the transaction and deal to effectuate the

buyout funds.

102. On or about October 13, 2010, Harris and FIB exchanged emails confirming Ayr’s

commitment to pay the liabilities of the three loans, including that of borrower Asset

Management, and that Ayr would perform the borrower’s obligations and assume the rights

of the creditor.

103. On or about November 1, 2010, in a letter to HSBC Bank and Investbank, AD in

Bulgaria, Harris confirmed that the first stage of financing through Ayr for SBP had been

completed in New York. The letter further stated that HSBC New York would be

31
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 32 of 170

responsible for getting Ayr’s board of directors to release from New York the first payment

of $27,852,097 (€20,000,000) out of the total $123,941,834 (€89,000,000) for SBP.

104. However, ultimately Ayr failed to repay the loans secured on SBP, and FIB

threatened to foreclose on the property despite FIB knowingly never having transferred the

loan proceeds for SBP development.

105. On or about December 29, 2010, at a meeting of the General Shareholders of Ayr

Property Development, at which Angelov was present as was Harris as shareholder,

President, and General Manager, the shareholders voted to initiate voluntary bankruptcy

proceedings and to prepare a recovery plan for the company.

106. APD, therefore, through Harris acting in Ayr’s parent company capacity, filed

bankruptcy in Bulgaria in February 2011 to prevent foreclosure. APD, FIB, and Harris had

no business or legal basis to obligate Ayr’s asset in the SBP to repay FIB’s loans.

107. The Bulgarian counsel of Ayr, through Harris, filed bankruptcy proceedings as to

APD so to require all payment claims against Ayr’s assets in SBP to be declared and proven

to the Bankruptcy Court that any such claim warranted creditor designation or status.

108. On February 13, 2012 the Bulgarian Bankruptcy court ruled the FIB had no valid

payment claims to be a creditor against Ayr’s assets in SBP or APD, and reconfirmed this

finding on September 4, 2013, when it ruled that there could be no set of circumstances

under which FIB could be a creditor in the case.

109. As part of the reorganization plan in the ADP bankruptcy proceedings, Ayr’s Board

of Directors in the United States, on February 14, 2011, issued a letter confirming that “Ayr

had ‘designated $537,600,241 [€400,000,000] for the SBP in Bulgaria.’”

32
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 33 of 170

110. On or about October 26, 2011, Ayr Logistics’ Board of Directors, in the United

States, passed a resolution approving Ayr’s reorganization plan which was submitted with

regard to SBP.

111. On or about March 28, 2012, the majority stakeholders of APD—Rudersdal, All

Seas Property 2, and Asset Management—approved the Ayr reorganization plan for APD.

(See Exhibit D attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein). These majority

stakeholders entered into a written agreement supporting Ayr’s reorganization plan for

APD.

112. Pursuant to those conditions, Ayr agreed to undertake the following actions: “(a)

pay the creditor ASP2 the agreed value of ASP2's rights in the Reorganization Plan

amounting to EUR 10,000,000 (ten million euros) [$12,420,382] to the special bank

account opened by ASP2 with Deutsche Bank, New York, no later than 36 months after

the Bankruptcy court has made its final decision on the Reorganization Plan proposed for

APD; (b) Pay the creditor Asset the agreed value of Asset's rights in the Reorganization

Plan amounting to EUR l,300,000 (one million and three hundred thousand Euros)

[$1,625,000] to the special bank account opened by ASP2 with Deutsche Bank, New York,

no later than 36 months after the Bankruptcy court has made its final decision on the

Reorganization Plan proposed for APD.”

113. The “Agreement” stipulated Rudersdal EOOD’s reserved the right to join the

“Agreement” by entering into and exercising ASP2’s rights thereto. On December 27,

2013, Rudersdal exercised this right and joined the Agreement.

114. Rudersdal had this right and exercised this right arising from its July 16, 2007

contract with Angelov to purchase the SBP land and development project with the

Bulgarian Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works approval for the permit

33
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 34 of 170

and right to commence construction (See Exhibit E attached hereto and incorporated

herein). Though the approval was granted by the ministry, the BGN 16.5 million permit

fee was not and could not be paid by Angelov. The right-to-build permit could not issue

and Angelov thereby breached his contract with Rudersdal. The the BGN 16.5 million

permit fee could not be paid because the SBP FIB construction loans funds had been

diverted to Malta for Mexican bond purchases for Angelov, Harriott and Harris’ benefit.

When Rudersdal learned of this breach, it demanded a return of the €19 million it had paid

to Angelov’s FIB, UniCredit Bulbank and Corporate Commercial Bank accounts per their

June 2007 SBP purchase and development agreement. Further, Rudersdal learned that

Angelov had designated accounts at these banks whereby the terms allowed the banks to

immediately and automatically garnish the assets in those bank accounts to extinguish

Angelov designated debts or loans. Angelov failed to return Rudersdal’s €19 million

which ultimately is the basis of Rudersdal’s claims against Ayr. After extensive

negotiations Angelov did return to Rudersdal approximately €6 million, reducing its Ayr

creditor claim $14,908,580.20.

115. ASP2 sold the Silver Beach Project and the land for €89 million to Ayr on

December 10, 2009. Based on this transaction ASP2 is creditor of Ayr in the amount of

approximately $37,897,480.61.

116. Asset Management was the vehicle used by Angelov, Harris and FIB to obtain the

December 8, 2009 FIB loan, the goal of which was to pay the interest payments on the

2007 and 2008 loans which were a non performing FIB asset. Based on this transaction

Asset Management is creditor of Ayr in the amount of approximately $1,938,115.43.

34
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 35 of 170

117. On November 27, 2013, Ayr, All Seas Property 2, and Asset Management entered

into a “Supplemental Agreement” to the March 28, 2012 Agreement (See Exhibit F

attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference).

118. The Supplemental Agreement states in relevant part: Ҥ4. The parties agree that

each and any dispute or claim arising from any of the money transfers servicing the

fictitious transactions made by All Seas Management or Blue Finance Limited, or any

controversy over any property right stemming from the payment claims FIB lodged against

the property of APD's Estate where such controversy or right or claim concerns any of the

rights or liabilities of the parties hereto, or any of the rights or liabilities of the parties to

the March 28th 2012 Agreement shall be governed by:

• The U.S. laws concerning financial fraud, money laundering and corrupt

activities, as well as to the provisions set forth in Art.34 and Art.35 of the United

Nations Convention Against Corruption, attached hereto;

• The Parties agree that the March 28, 2012 Agreement and any supplements

thereto shall have its effect in the State of New York and therefore shall be

domiciled in the State of New York.

• The U.S. Federal District Court in New York, State of New York shall have

subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over all the parties hereto. The

choice of law shall be New York State Law.

• The Parties purposefully subject themselves to the laws, courts and jurisdictions

of the State of New York, because they question the effectiveness of the rule of law

in Bulgaria, and because the principle performance of the Agreements and any

supplements thereto is in the State of New York.

35
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 36 of 170

• The Parties agree that the U.S. Federal District Court in New York, the State

of New York shall have jurisdiction over any dispute or controversy and/or shall be

the one to make a determination or a decision on any rights and/or a claim

concerning the exercise of any rights or meeting any liability of any of the parties

hereto. More particularly, Ayr Logistics Limited, Inc. has chosen and designated

Deutsche Bank, New York, the State of New York as the place of performance

under the Agreements and any supplements thereto. Ayr Logistics Limited, Inc. is

obligated to open accounts in favour of Asset Management EAD and All Seas

Property 2 OOD and make the payments it owes to the said two companies in

Deutsche Bank, New York.”

119. Furthermore, pursuant to § 6 of the Supplemental Agreement, the parties explicitly

agreed that nothing in this agreement or any previous or concurrent agreements between

the parties “may be construed or enforced in a fashion that might give rise to a breach of

or be in conflict with the provisions of Art.34 and Art. 35 of the United Nations Convention

Against Corruption, or the U.S. laws combating financial fraud . . . .”

120. Rudersdal subsequently adopted this Supplemental Agreement on December 27,

2013, and Ayr was therefore to make payments to Rudersdal at Deutsche Bank in New

York.

121. Ayr’s reorganization plan was supported by Oriana Capital Partners LLC with

$123,941,834 (€89,000,000) through a trust bank account in HSBC, New York; Syndicated

Holdings, LLC with $100,000,000; Seek Foundation, LLC, a Missouri registered company,

with $4,875,000 (€3,500,000); and Harriott’s base on the Mexican bonds put in the escrow

agreement to sell them in the U.S. This reorganization plan, however, was never funded

36
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 37 of 170

and the bankruptcy proceedings moved forward and the court ordered the sale of all of

APD’s assets, including the main asset: the SBP land.

122. Pursuant to that sale, FIB purchased the SBP land at auction for $65,209,976 (BGN

97.5 million).

123. On January 14, 2013, the Bulgaria bankruptcy trustee placed the Funds from the

sale of the SBP land into accounts with CCB in Bulgaria.

124. The bank accounts holding the Funds were the largest deposits in CCB at the time.

125. On May 27, 2013, one year after the March 28, 2012 Agreement, APD confirmed

in a letter to Ayr that none of the assets in SBP, which was then subject to liquidation in

the course of APD’s bankruptcy case in Bulgaria, would be involved in any activity that

would violate U.S. law honoring the terms of the March 28, 2012 Agreement.

126. Also on May 27, 2013, APD and Ayr signed an agreement under which APD

accepted and agreed to be bound by “the Clause for choise [sic] of an applicable law and

jurisdiction, included in Art. 5 (b) of the March 28, 2012 Agreement” that Ayr and the

majority stakeholders had previously entered into.

127. In his report dated June 26, 2013, Tomov voiced his concerns about FIB funneling

money into an account in Malta to Harris at Ayr and asked whether Ayr had knowledge of

any such transfers.

128. In an email response to Tomov’s report on or about June 26, 2013, Harris denied

knowledge of FIB transferring funds to All Seas Management in a bank account in Valletta,

Malta.

129. Again, in an email of June 28, 2013, Tomov reiterated his concerns about FIB

funneling money into the Malta account.

130. In an email response dated June 29, 2013, Harris again denies any knowledge.

37
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 38 of 170

131. But Harris, in fact, knew that FIB’s claims originated in the money transfers to All

Seas Management and Blue Finance; that the money was used to purchase the Mexican

bonds which were to be sold in the United States; and that Harris had a personal pecuniary

interest in the sale of these bonds.

132. On December 31, 2013, Tomov sent APD and Ayr, through Harris, notice of an

audit by the Bulgarian Tax Administration. Tomov further informed Harris in Harris’s

capacity as General Manager for Ayr that FIB’s claims against the Funds in the amount of

$65,209,976 (BGN 97,500,000.00), being the proceeds from the liquidation sale of the SBP

lands, were in breach of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; the United Nations

Convention Against Corruption; and of the U.N. Convention Against Transnational

Organized Crime.

133. Knowing these violations, Harris willfully and intentionally agreed to and did

conspire with FIB’s plan as evidenced by the June 4, 2010 agreement between Ayr and

FIB for the sale and purchase of accounts receivable, notarized in Texas. Harris, moreover,

was aware that such activity was a breach of U.S. law and U.N. Conventions.

134. FIB made several other attempts to gain ownership and control over Ayr’s CCB

bank account with the Funds: FIB, Angelov, and Harris attempted unsuccessfully to have

the funds which were transferred to Valletta Bank in Malta deemed one of APD’s debts

held by FIB arising from the SBP, but the Bulgarian court ruled FIB was not an APD

creditor over that asset either.

135. After which, FIB attempted, through Torier Partners Limited, a company registered

in the BVI, to gain control over Ayr’s ownership of the Funds.

136. FIB’s actions through Torier Partners Limited, to acquire the claims Ayr had

acquired under the March 28, 2012 Agreement gave the Ayr Trustee Jeffrey H. Mims cause

38
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 39 of 170

to file the Complaint and obtain default judgment and a writ of execution against APD and

Torier Partners Limited in Case No. 16-03140-bjh in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the

Northern District of Texas in the amount of $80,315,254.61 (BGN 136,203,427.69) on July

19, 2017, denying FIB and Torier’s claim. Torier and its subsidiary are companies which

in 2006 were financed by FIB to participate in the privatization of 67 % of Yurii Gagarin,

AD, at this time a subsidiary of Bulgartabac Holding. In 2015, Bulgartabac Holding and

Peevski, based on the repayment of the debts of Tabak Market and Droslian to CCB, were,

respectively, listed as owners of 49% and 18% of Yurii Gagarin, AD.

Ayr Through APD Loses Control Over the Funds: BNB Conservators Gain Control
Over the Funds on June 20, 2014

137. Harris and FIB colluded to and successfully did exchange their debt positions

regarding the three loans with ownership in the Ayr SBP money in the amount of

$65,576,106.

138. This was effectuated by the following actions by Harris and FIB:

a. On October 10, 2014, Harris fraudulently files for No Asset bankruptcy on behalf

of Ayr, despite Ayr in fact having an asset in the Funds held in CCB.

b. This fraudulent filing by Harris purposefully caused the Funds—what later the U.S.

Bankruptcy Court would find to be an Ayr asset—to be for a critical time period

outside the reach of the automatic stay of the U.S. Bankruptcy proceedings.

c. By this action, Harris purposefully opened the door for FIB to fraudulently list itself

as the owner of the four Ayr bank accounts at CCB which held the Funds (there

was initially a principal account, and subsequently three spin-off accounts to hold

the interest payments pursuant to the terms of CCB’s successful bid to house the

Funds).

39
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 40 of 170

d. FIB, knowing it was not the rightful owner of the four Ayr CCB bank account

funds, fraudulently and purposefully asserted itself as the owner of said accounts.

139. The Funds should have been an asset of Ayr’s SBP and available to pay plaintiffs;

however, forces behind the scene caused CCB to be seized and put in receivership.

140. On June 20, 2014, in the wake of the raid on Bulgarian banks, BNB appointed two

Conservators over CCB’s bank assets, and on June 25, 2014, Stanislav Georgiev Lyutov

and Elena Sdravkova Kostadinchev. We appointed by BNB as replacement CCB

Conservators.

141. On June 22, 2014, BNB announced in a press release that CCB would open for

business on July 21, 2014.

142. Starting in June 2014, the bank was closed for four months despite BNB having

stated on April 30, 2014 that CCB was in deed in good financial condition exceeding the

general capital requirements mandated by the Bulgarian banking system at that time. BNB

and the BNB Conservators marshalled all CCB assets based on BNB’s direction, including

the Funds. They forbade transfer of any assets to external persons, but permitted internal

CCB offsetting transfers.

143. On July 11, 2014, the Bulgarian bankruptcy court in APD’s proceedings ordered

that the Funds as an asset of Ayr be transferred to Bulgarian Development Bank, AD, a

government bank.

144. On September 25, 2014, APD’s Trustee informed the court that BNB and the BNB

conservators refused to effectuate the court’s July 11, 2014, order to transfer APD’s CCB

accounts to the Bulgarian Development Bank, AD.

145. On August 15, 2014, BNB directed the Conservators to, in a limited fashion, make

payments on CCB account holders’ outstanding CCB loans.

40
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 41 of 170

146. APD had no such loan with CCB.

147. On October 22, 2014, FIB creates on its server a payment order that APD’s CCB

bank accounts be titled in favor of FIB. FIB had no CCB loan.

148. APD’s trustee refused to sign or consent to the payment order.

149. Therefore, on October 24, 2014, upon information and belief, FIB forged the

signature of ADP Trustee Apostolov and submitted it to the BNB CCB Conservators to

authorize the release of the Funds.

150. CCB then applied the Funds to satisfy the debts of the Five Companies, and Ayr

lost its only bankruptcy asset.

151. On November 7, 2014, the BNB CCB Conservators issued Order No. 3-2785

freezing the CCB accounting system as of November 6, 2014.

152. On November 10 and 13, 2014, BNB issued two conforming APD Bank Account

statements at the request of the ADP Trustee reflecting an account balance of $65,576,106

(BGN 102,966,946).

153. On November 17, 2014, BNB through its BNB Conservators over CCB issued a

false recording of accounting event as “Reference: 0” dated October 30, 2014 which

recorded a transfer of accounts receivables dated October 30, 2014 between FIB as

transferor and Cibole Services Incorporated Bulgaria, EOOD, as transferee in the amount

of $10,897,435 (BGN 17,000,000); between FIB (transferor) and Droslian Bulgaria,

EOOD (transferee) in the amount of $10,776,856 (BGN 16,811,896); between FIB

(transferor) and Tabak Market, AD (transferee) in the amount of $22,051,282 (BGN

34,400,000); between FIB (transferor) and Promishleno Stroitelsvo Holding, EAD

(transferee) in the amount of $2,934,739 (BGN 4,578,163.30) and $1,578,413 (BGN

41
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 42 of 170

2,462,325.60); and between FIB (transferor) and Vili Vist, EAD (transferee) in the amount

of $6,671,153 (BGN 10,407,000).

154. After the above deductions, the balance in ADP’s account should have been

approximately $11,094,591 (BGN 17,307,563).

155. As the bank account had a positive balance there was no basis for the BNB or the

BNB Conservators to close the account. However, upon information and belief, on

December 1, 2014, the BNB Conservators closed the ADP account, presumably took the

balance for themselves or otherwise transferred the funds, and falsely reflected the APD

accounts as having a zero balance.

156. On December 1, 2014, BNB issued an APD Bank Account statement reflecting an

October 24, 2014 transfer to FIB, despite the November 6, 2014 freeze order.

157. Also on December 1, 2014, BNB issued an “Exposition of APD Bulgaria’s” CCB

accounts which reflected a balance of zero, with an accounting date of November 6, 2014.

158. Upon information and belief, Ayr’s asset APD CCB bank accounts were closed

because there were no longer any CCB loans to be paid off.

159. All of these actions with ADP’s accounts holding the Funds were done without the

consent or authorization of U.S. Bankruptcy Court Ayr Trustee, which proceedings had

commenced on October 10, 2014 and subject to the automatic stay provision of U.S.

Bankruptcy law.

160. BNB and the conservators owed the highest standard of care as fiduciaries to

plaintiffs in their capacity of supervising receivership organization and appointed

conservators, all of whom oversaw the payment orders related to the Funds.

161. Based on this activity, FIB ultimately became the title holder in the CCB bank

accounts which held The Funds.

42
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 43 of 170

FIB Steals the Funds from Ayr to Relieve Debt of the Five Bulgarian Companies
Owned or Controlled by Politician Delyan Peevski

162. As previously stated, on October 22, 2014, FIB created on its server a payment

order that APD’s CCB account be titled in favor of FIB.

163. Upon information and belief, FIB did not have a CCB loan. Therefore, FIB needed

a debt holder in order to transfer the Funds because of the pre-existing BNB order which

restricted the BNB Conservators to only making payments on the CCB account holders’

outstanding CCB loans.

164. Upon information and belief, Petrol, AD, was a Bulgarian registered company

operating a gas station chain business in Bulgaria. The scheme to obtain the Funds from

CCB to pay off the debts of the Five Companies was initially to be effectuated through

Petrol, AD as a CCB debt holder.

165. Enter Peevski. Delyan Slavchev Peevski is a politician, oligarch, entrepreneur and

media mogul. He has a sketchy history as a politician popping in and out of parliament

and several administrations since 2004. He has been a Member of the Bulgarian Parliament

representing the MRF. In June 2013, Peevski was appointed and confirmed as President

of the State Agency for National Security. He was removed after months of street protests

across the entire country of Bulgaria, and NATO States lodged objections to his

appointment, which culminated in the fall of the Bulgarian government over his

appointment.

166. Upon information and belief, Peevski operates through his companies registered in

his mother’s name and a variety of shell companies, which serve to disguise his operational

direction of those entities. Consequently, he effectively controls 90% of Bulgaria’s print

and television media.

43
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 44 of 170

167. Upon information and belief, Peevski and members of his family were heavily

indebted to CCB: by November 2013, they had borrowed more than $268,000,000

(€200,000,000) to acquire media properties and other companies in Bulgaria.

168. Upon information and belief, Peevski orchestrated and joined the conspiracy in the

exercise of the VTB call option for a 79.83 % consolidated interest of Bulgartabac in favor

of TGI and Faraj.

169. The call option was created to allow the privatized shares of Bulgartabac to be

transferred to specific entities or persons. These recipients are the hidden beneficiaries of

the privatization.

170. Upon information and belief, three specific forces drove the privatization of

Bulgartabac: Peevski, TGI and Faraj.

171. In 2015, Peevski through his company NSN Investment EOOD, became, within a

few month, the official owner in the following Bulgarian companies: 5% ownership of

Bulgartabac Holding, and 18% of Yurii Gagarin, AD. Upon information and belief, this

was his commission for the orchestration of the VTB Bulgartabac call option and the

removal of corporate debts, ultimately in favour TGI and Faraj.

172. Bulgarian cigarette filter and packaging producer Yurii Gagarin BT was established

in 1964 as part of the then communist state-owned tobacco monopoly Bulgartabac. It was

transformed into a unit of the state tobacco firm in November 1993 when Bulgartabac was

split into a holding structure with 22 subsidiaries. Its product range features cigarette filters,

paper boxes, tobacco manufacturing equipment and facilities as well as printing of box

labels. Yurii Gagarin BT serves mainly the cigarette-making subsidiaries of Bulgartabac

Holding—85% of its 2005 revenue came from deals within the group.

44
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 45 of 170

173. In October 2006, Baranko EOOD, a Bulgarian company, was created to participate

in the privatization of Yuri Gagarin BT. Baranko EOOD is fully-owned by Westwood

Invest Limited, a company registered in the BVI and a wholly owned subsidiary of Torier

Partners Limited. Baranko EOOD acquired a 67% stake in Yurii Gagarin BT for

$18,704,000(€14.1 million) base on privatization deal with Bulgarian Government. This

purchase was funded by FIB.

174. A week after acquiring control of Yurii Gagarin BT, Baranko sold an 18% stake in

the company to newly-registered local firm Comso Tabacco, EOOD for $4,918,776 (€3.78

million).

175. On May 8, 2009 the shareholders changed the company name of Yurii Gagarin BT

to Yurii Gagarin, AD which operates a 26,000 square meters manufacturing and

administration facilities in the industrial zone of Plovdiv, Bulgaria.

176. In 2006, FIB financed the privatization of 67% of Yurii Gagarin. In 2014, this debt

was still outstanding on FIB books.

177. In June 2014 the Bulgarian bank system fell into crisis, affecting CCB and FIB.

178. It was critical for FIB to resolve non-performing old debts in light FIB’s request to

Bulgarian Government for financial support in the amount of $833,692,284 (BGN 1.2

billion) to bail it out of its financial crisis and cash flow deficit as a result of the run on

Bulgarian banks.

179. Upon information and belief, BNB’s supervisory inspection of FIB during the

Bulgarian banking crisis did not accept as being compliant FIB accounting records and

bank books. BNB criticized FIB’s overexposure on bad debt and old, non-performing

loans—the three SBP loans.

45
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 46 of 170

180. Upon information and belief, FIB solved its bad debt and old, non-performing loan

problems in part by paying off the Five Companies’ CCB debt positions in the amount of

$65 million.

181. Thereby, FIB gained $65 million in current loans with the Five Companies at CCB

for although the CCB debt was extinguished with CCB, the Five Companies became FIB

debtors in the amounts equal to their extinguished CCB debts.

182. Vassilev from 2000–2003 held the positions of Chairman of the Managing Board

and Executive Director of CCB, was the majority shareholder of CCB, and from 2003 until

June 20, 2014, when the bank was taken over by BNB, he served as Chairman of the

Supervisory Board of CCB.

183. Vassilev was pressuring Peevski to repay his debts to CCB. Peevski refused and

instead demanded Vassilev grant him a share of the businesses that CCB owned. Vassilev

refused.

184. As a result, using his control over many of the Bulgarian media companies, Peevski

launched a publicized smear campaign against Vassilev and CCB, alleging that Vassilev

had stolen $1 billion from CCB and conspired to have Peevski murdered. His motivation

was to avoid repaying the debts the Five Companies owed to CCB, three of which Peevski

owned or controlled (Tabak Market, Cibole and Droslian), and the other two of which were

owned or controlled by the MRF, the political party in Bulgaria that Peevski led and which

was a member of the governing coalition.

185. Upon information and belief, the ensuing smear campaign was part of a larger

campaign to destabilize Bulgarian banks in order to enable government takeover of bank

assets, which was accomplished in the Bulgarian bank crisis in 2014. In CCB’s case, the

attack against CCB had economic and political underpinnings. Namely, the two VTB call

46
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 47 of 170

options for Bulgartabac and Vivacom ownership interests: 79.83% of Bulgartabac Holding,

AD including its 22 subsidiary tobacco companies and 33% of Vivacom, AD.

186. As a result of the smear campaign, in June 2014, depositors withdraw more than

$833,692,284 (BGN 1.2 billion) in three days from CCB. Large sums were also drawn

from FIB.

187. Upon information and belief, when Peevski realized that the Funds would be stolen

through Petrol’s debt with CCB, he instructed FIB to conduct the transaction with the

Funds through the Five Companies.

188. Pointing to the run on CCB and its subsequent fallout, Peevski threatened that he

would use his political power to make FIB suffer the same fate.

189. In fact, FIB had already suffered substantially as a result of the CCB fallout. FIB’s

lack of capital commenced in 2012 based on a BNB audit from this time period and BNB

deemed the 2007, 2008, and 2009 loans to Ayr as risky and problematic. Thus FIB’s

interest in stealing the Funds was to solve FIB’s monetary crisis.

190. Thus, in or around June 2014, FIB requested from BNB a cash infusion due to its

shortfall in the economic crisis. It also approved the use of the Funds according to Peevski’s

plan, and received more than $833,692,284 (BGN 1.2 billion) in aid from the Bulgarian

government, which eliminated the financial problems FIB faced. Nevertheless, FIB still

arranged to eliminate the Five Companies’ debts through conversion and deceit.

191. Shortly thereafter, as stated above, FIB used the forged authorization from APD’s

Bulgarian bankruptcy trustee to approve the transfer of the Funds to FIB which then

extinguished the Five Companies’ debts. FIB thus acquired approximately $65 million

without paying any fair consideration.

47
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 48 of 170

192. FIB engaged in an illegal course of conduct using the SBP which enabled it to

unjustly and unlawfully benefit over and over again from the SBP transactions. Namely,

from the purchase transactions of the SBP land three times through: 1) Rudersdal; 2) Ayr;

and 3) when FIB bought the land back itself out of the APD bankruptcy auction. FIB

benefitted from diverting SBP loan proceeds to Malta. FIB then recaptured its purchase

loan money when it stole the Funds and FIB benefitted when Ayr purchased the SBP three

loans from 2007, 2008 and 2009 which extinguished the non-performance and staleness of

those loans with Ayr becoming the fresh FIB debtor, enhancing its regulatory position as a

viable bank.

193. Defendants thereby, without authority, exercised unlawful control and dominion

over the Funds, which were rightfully property of the Plaintiffs. Defendants’ unlawful

dominion and control over the Funds altered its condition because they changed the

ownership of the CCB bank accounts where the Funds were housed from APD, and

excluded plaintiffs from exercising their rights to the Funds as SBP investors and Ayr U.S.

bankruptcy proceedings creditors.

194. Defendants owed plaintiffs fiduciary duties arising out of the terms, conditions,

policies, understandings, and instructions of the Loans Contracts, Agreements, and

reorganization plans to act in good faith, with diligence and fair dealing, and were

precluded from self-dealing, which duties the defendants materially breached.

195. Mellon Bank and Eaton Vance each and all owed plaintiffs a duty arising out of

their position as minority shareholders who knew or should have known of the fraudulent

scheme to defraud the plaintiffs and upon information and belief were appraised through

shareholder reports. As financial institutions, they had the expertise and were in the best

position to assess information received. Upon information and belief, they were not merely

48
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 49 of 170

passive shareholders and they owned a substantial interest, albeit minority interest of at

least ten percent (10%) interest, at least as to Mellon.

Ayr’s Money Extinguishes the Five Companies’ CCB Loans as Orchestrated by

Peevski, FIB, BNB, and the BNB Conservators of CCB.

196. The ultimate goal of the fraud and conspiracy between the First Group and the

Second Group was to realize the exercise of the VTB-controlled call options for

Bulgartabac Holding and Vivacom. FIB played a pivotal role for it was the bridge between

the First Group and the Second Group. FIB, based on the Harris, Harriott, Angelov, Ayr

and APD banking and other relationships was privy to the Ayr money movement arising

from its role with the First Group and conspired with Peevski to design and effectuate the

fraudulent taking of Ayr U.S. asset—The Funds. The mechanism for this fraud and

conspiracy was the extinguishment of the Five Companies’ CCB debts with the

participation of BNB and BNB Conservators.

197. The First Group agreed to used the 2007, 2008 and 2009 loans obtained by FIB for

the SBP for self-enrichment in Mexican bonds.

198. The First Groups’ actions necessarily precluded the realization of the SBP and

precluded the issuance of the right-to-build permit required prior to construction or further

development.

199. The First Group colluded and engaged in a deliberately coordinated effort to use

SBP for self-gain, used the SBP as the instrument of self-dealing and personal profit, and

made it possible for FIB specifically to profit three times: loans, becoming the owner of

the SBP land purchased in APD bankruptcy, and benefitting from the stealing of the Funds

from CCB trustee APD bank accounts.

200. The ultimate theft is only made possible by the concerted and coordinated

teamwork of both Groups, with FIB and Harris as the key links: First Group’s use of SBP

49
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 50 of 170

as an instrument to effectuate their fraud and self-profit combined with the Second Group’s

coordinated efforts in stealing the Funds by, inter alia, payment of the Five Companies’

non-related CCB loans, with its sights on the multi-million dollar VTB call options for

BTH and Vivacom.

201. The First Group, by its actions turned the SBP into a vehicle for fraud and profited

from with the Second Group to the detriment of Plaintiffs.

202. Three of the Five Companies (Tabak Market; Droslian Bulgaria; and Cibole) were

part of the VTB-held call option related to the privatization of Bulgartabac Holding and

Cibole was part of the VTB-held call option related to Vivacom (33%). The fraudulent

satisfaction and extinguishment of their debt increased their value when the call options

was exercised, at no cost to the politicians who controlled them (MRF and Peevski), and

Peevski increased their value further to his benefit after the privatization of Bulgartabac.

203. Upon information and belief, the call option was intended to benefit TGI at a fixed

agreed-upon price. However, failure to discharge The Five Companies’ debts would put

the call options at risk due to forced collection of the companies’ assets held by CCB as

collateral which would have, inter alia, negatively impacted the prices of BTH’s shares

and the integrity of its corporate structure. As Peevski declined to pay CCB The Five

Companies CCB loans after Vassilev made demand for same, CCB had already

commenced in this time period collections actions against the non performing loans.

204. The elimination of the Five Companies’ debts, and the release of the shares held as

CCB loan collateral, ultimately opened the door for TGI to acquire unencumbered and

thereby otherwise unavailable for acquisition, two of the Peevski-controlled Bulgartabac

subsidiaries (Tabak Market and Yurii Gagarin) and consolidate its control over

50
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 51 of 170

Bulgartabac. The press has reported that TGI and Faraj has been a source of financing for

ISIS.

205. Tabak Market benefited the most from the Ayr funds when its CCB debt was

extinguished in the amount of $22,051,282 (BGN 34,400,000) on December 1, 2014,

through Peevski’s orchestrated conduct and conspiracy with the defendants.

206. Upon information and belief, Cibole Bulgaria had no corporate activity other than

being created by its parent company to serve as the vehicle to purchase and privitize

Technoexportstroy, EAD, a Bulgarian registered company, and to procure the funds for

this privatization so to participate in the consortium for the Russian Federation Gazprom

southern pipeline project sanctioned by the EU and the United States, purchase with a CCB

loan.

207. Cibole Bulgaria benefited from the Funds when its CCB debt was extinguished in

the amount of $10,897,435(BGN 17,000,000) on December 1, 2014, through Peevski’s

orchestrated conduct and conspiracy with the defendants.

208. Droslian Belize by corporate resolution dated February 26, 2013, authorized the

purchase of Baranko EOOD, a company registered in Bulgaria, as well as the taking-over

of Baranko’s debt with FIB in the amount of $12,748,715 (€9,748,987.79).

209. Upon information and belief, Droslian Bulgaria has no corporate activity other than

being the vehicle to secure the CCB loan for its parent company to purchase Baranko.

210. Upon information and belief, The funds Droslain Belize used to purchase Baranko

came from its subsidiary company Drosliann Bulgaria which obtained a CCB loan.

Droslian Bulgaria benefited from the Ayr funds when its CCB debt was extinguished in

the amount of $10,776,856 (BGN 16,811,896) on December 1, 2014, through Peevski’s

orchestrated conduct and conspiracy with the defendants.

51
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 52 of 170

211. Droslian’s loan was collateralized with Baranko’s 49% shares in Yurii Gagarin,

AD.

212. Upon information and belief, Vili Vist secured a CCB loan to purchase Transstroy

Burgas AD, in Burgas, Bulgaria, an already-privatized port construction company, so to

participate in the consortium for the Russian Gazprom southern pipeline project sanctioned

by the EU and the United States. Vili Vist’s actual owner is Jordan Tsonev, a member of

the Bulgarian parliament for MRF.

213. Upon information and belief, Tsonev defaulted on its CCB loan and then garnered

the support of fellow member of parliament, Peevski, who organized the loan repayment.

This loan was extinguished with the Funds.

214. Vili Vist benefited from the Ayr funds when its CCB debt was extinguished in the

amount of $6,671,154 (BGN 10,407,000) on December 1, 2014, through Peevski’s

orchestrated conduct and conspiracy with the defendants.

215. Upon information and belief, Promishleno Stroitelstvo Holding secured a CCB loan

to participate in the consortium for the Russian Gazprom southern pipeline project

sanctioned by the EU and the United States.

216. Promishleno Stroitelstvo Holding benefited from the Ayr funds when its CCB debt

was extinguished in the amount of $4,513,133 (BGN 7,040,488) on December 1, 2014,

through Peevski’s orchestrated conduct and conspiracy with the defendants.

217. Thus, Ayr’s funds were used to start the domino effect to benefit TGI’s goal to

consolidate BT and its manufacturing and distribution under its umbrella through the call

option. To that end, the Funds ultimately provided corporate entities to be sold to TGI debt-

free which in turn opened the door for Foraj to gain access to the BT Middle East

distribution market through his company Tobacco EMEA Trade Ltd. Tobacco EMEA is

52
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 53 of 170

part of the call option payment structure, having paid EFV $21,250,937.00 in exchange for

access to the BT Middle East distribution rights resulting in contraband cigarette sales to

ISIS.

218. Upon information and belief, Peevski, for such benefit to TGI, received the

following benefits for which he had no income source to support:

a. Peevski was 100% owner of NSN Investment, EEOD, which in turn owned 100%

of Tabaco Investment, EOOD, which became a 5% shareholder in BTH on August

17, 2015.

b. Seven months later on March 18, 2016, Peevski’s then closely-held company,

Tabaco Investment, EOOD, extracted its 5% BTH position and sold it to TGI for

$14,020,256 (BGN 24,311,826). The BT shares on the Bulgarian stock market on

March 18, 2016 were being traded for approximately $34 (BGN 50) per share, yet

he sold his on the same day for the exaggerated price of $44 (BGN 66) per share.

c. Peevski, through his 100% ownership of NSN Investment, EEOD, which on

December 15, 2015 became 100% owner of Comso Tabacco, EOOD, a company

registered in Bulgaria, which owned 18% of Yuri Gagarin with the outstanding FIB

debt arising from the Ayr funds used to pay off the CCB debt. On April 20, 2016,

the 18% Yuri Gagarin shares were extracted and sold to TGI for $3,995,040 (BGN

6,866,715) through TGI’s daughter company Doreco Commerce, EOOD.

219. A few months, after the CCB debt extinguishment of the Five Companies, TGI and

Faraj exercise the VTB call option for 79.83% of Bulgartabac Holding and Faraj gains full

access to the distribution channels in the Middle East region. In August 2015, NSN

Investment, a company registered in Bulgaria listing Peevski as the sole owner, was listed

53
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 54 of 170

as the sole owner of Tabaco Investment, EOOD. In December 2015, NSN Investment was

listed as the sole owner of Comso Tabacco.

220. Upon information and belief, Comso Tabacco and Tabaco Investment respectively

owned 18% in Yurii Gagarin and 5% in Bulgartabac. Both interests inured to the benefit

of Peevski, who sold these two share positions, five and seven months later, on March 18,

2016 and on April 20, 2016, respectively, to TGI, a UAE entity.

221. Peevski received $14,020,256 (BGN 24 million) for the sale of the 5% shares held

in Tabaco Investment and $3,995,040 (BGN 6,866,714) for the 18% shares interest in Yurii

Gagarin extracted from Comso Tabacco.

U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Dallas, Texas Deems Ayr Owner of the Funds

222. On October 9, 2014, APD Attorney Maria Nakova advised both Harris in his

capacity as President and General Manager for Ayr and the sole Executive Director of

APD, and Angelov as then-acting Chairperson of the APD Board of Directors, of the need

to take immediate legal action to protect the Funds against any FIB claims to those funds,

including bringing the matter before the appropriate U.S. authorities under relevant U.S.

law.

223. Neither Harris nor any of the other defendants took steps to protect the Funds at

CCB.

224. To the contrary, the day after Maria Nakova’s instruction to take action, Harris, on

October 10, 2014, on behalf of Ayr filed for No Asset bankruptcy in the United States—

omitting any mention of the fact that, per Bulgarian court rulings as Harris knew, Ayr did

have an asset in the Funds held in CCB and APD. Harris also left off APD as an asset

which was a wholly owned subsidiary of Ayr. Ayr and Harris were compelled, only after

Harris’ multiple sworn examinations in the U.S. bankruptcy proceeding revealed Ayr had

54
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 55 of 170

these two assets, by the US. bankruptcy trustee to amend the No Assets filing and add

Ayr’s assets, The Funds and APD.

225. Once the Funds were identified as as asset of Ayr, the U.S. bankruptcy trustee

appointed Tomov as Special Counsel to marshall the Ayr’s assets, the Funds and the

subsidiary APD.

226. By filing for “No Assets” bankruptcy, Harris with actual intent to defraud did two

things simultaneously: (1) he relieved Ayr of its duties under the Agreement and

Supplemental Agreement with APD’s major stakeholders to make the promised payments

through Deutsche Bank, New York, as well as HSBC New York, and (2) he deprived the

major stakeholders, i.e., the plaintiffs, of the right to have their claims satisfied out of Ayr’s

Estate assets in the United States. His action necessarily caused abandonment of the Funds

to CCB and, ultimately, purposefully left the door wide open for FIB to take the Funds in

a pivotal key role and in a coordinated stealing which benefit inured to Group One and

Group Two as averred herein.

227. On October 22, 2014, attorney Nakova formally advised the Committee of

Creditors of ADP that Ayr had filed for bankruptcy in the U.S. and that Ayr’s Estate in

SBP was under the control and jurisdiction of the U.S. Trustee and U.S bankruptcy law.

228. The Bulgarian bankruptcy court issued an identical ruling on November 19, 2014

reiterating Nakova’s conclusions that Ayr had filed for bankruptcy in the U.S. and that

Ayr’s Estate in SBP and the Funds was under the control and jurisdiction of the U.S.

Trustee and U.S bankruptcy law.

229. Ayr’s bankruptcy filing gave rise to its Trustee’s demand that the Funds be

transferred to Ayr for the bankruptcy proceeding.

55
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 56 of 170

230. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court ordered APD to turnover the Funds to Ayr’s Trustee,

holding that those Funds were a U.S. asset belong to Ayr as parent company. The Funds

were still presumed to be in CCB, and Ayr therefore as parent company to now-defunct

APD was the proper owner of the Funds.

231. However, by the time of that ruling, the Funds were already stolen, along with any

chance for Ayr’s creditors, the plaintiffs, to recover in the bankruptcy proceeding.

232. As a result of the unauthorized and unlawful seizure of the Funds, Ayr’s Estate and

its creditors, the plaintiffs Rudersdal, ASP2, Asset Management and Tomov, have suffered

loss of funds in the amount of approximately $65 million or BGN 102,966,946.

233. In addition, the balance leftover from the Funds after the Five Companies’ debts

were extinguished, approximately $11,094,591 (BGN 17,307,563), remains unaccounted

for. BNB and the BNB CCB conservators authorized the close of the APD CCB accounts

and upon information and belief took the remaining balance of the Funds.

Bulgarian Courts Lack Jurisdiction Over this Matter

234. The European Union courts do not have jurisdiction over this matter. EU law holds

that in cases of cross-border torts, personal jurisdiction lies in the place where the damages

occurred—in this case, the U.S. Because APD is extinct and was only ever a shell company

of Ayr, the Funds that were stolen are an asset of Ayr. Ayr is a U.S. company with its

principal place of business therein, and therefore under EU law the United States is the

proper forum for this claim. Furthermore, Ayr is a party to contracts specifying New York

at the venue, subjecting the parties to personal and subject matter jurisdiction in New York.

235. Despite the matter of FIB’s theft of the Funds being brought to the Justice

Ministry’s attention in Bulgarian, the Bulgarian authorities have taken no investigative

action.

56
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 57 of 170

236. U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee Jeffrey Mims requested a ruling from the Bulgarian court

regarding: (a) its jurisdiction over the Funds stolen from Ayr, which were considered an

asset of Ayr in its own United States bankruptcy proceeding; and (b) whether the Bulgarian

courts had jurisdiction over the parties for the return of same.

237. On May 2, 2018, the Appellate Court in Varna, Bulgaria ruled that it did not have

jurisdiction on the issues Trustee Mims raised, and at the same time terminated APD’s

Bulgarian bankruptcy proceedings for lack of Bulgarian assets because any assets were

Ayr’s assets in the United States and subject to jurisdiction in the United States.

COUNT I
Piercing the Corporate Veil and Alter Ego
(As to Ayr and Harris)
238. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate herein by reference as if specifically set forth herein

the averments of paragraphs 1 through 237 of the Complaint.

239. From the outset of their involvement with the SBP, neither Ayr nor Ayr’s

Bulgarian-registered APD was adequately capitalized to engage in business with the SBP,

as evidenced by, inter alia, Ayr’s default on its FIB loans, and the ultimate bankruptcy of

both Ayr and APD coupled with the failure of the SBP to get off the ground.

240. Harris, as part-owner and Director of both Ayr and APD, knowingly and

deliberately undercapitalized these entities to be able to avoid obligations that would arise

from their operations regarding the SBP, including, but without limitation, obligations to

FIB for loans FIB made to both entities for development of the SBP and the obligations of

both entities to their investors and creditors, the plaintiffs.

241. As the founder and President and General Manager of both Ayr and APD, and

majority shareholder, Harris completely dominated both Ayr and APD and made all

material decisions for both entities, including, but without limitation, the decision to invest

in and develop the SBP; the decision to create and use APD as a mere fraudulent shell to

57
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 58 of 170

obtain the land for development of the SBP; the decision to engage in fraudulent business

dealings with Angelov, Harriott, and FIB; the decision to allow Harriott to use APD and

Ayr monies for the fraudulent Mexican bond schemes; and, most importantly, the decision

to file for fraudulent No Asset bankruptcy on behalf of Ayr and knowingly and deliberately

ignore warnings from Nakova and Tomov by simply doing nothing to protect the Funds

from FIB’s theft of them from CCB.

242. The fraudulent activities committed by Harris through Ayr as a mere

instrumentality for Harris as its alter ego and in complete unlawful disregard of Ayr’s

corporate identity, including the maker, the recipient, and the date and the place of the

transmission of the fraudulent statements, are set out in the Complaint at ¶¶ 77–104, 106–

13, 123–30, 134, 224.

243. Pursuant to the facts averred in the previous paragraph, Harris displayed a reckless

and wanton pattern of dealing with the assets of Ayr and APD in a manner designed to

further Harris’ own interests in pursuing the SBP fraud with the First Group and Second

Group and reduce his own potential liability behind the corporate shield of Ayr and APD

at the expense of the creditors of APD and Ayr including the plaintiffs, ultimately driving

both APD and Ayr into bankruptcy, during which bankruptcy proceedings Harris continued

to use Ayr as a shield for defrauding plaintiffs and the U.S. bankruptcy court by deliberately

failing to declare APD or the Funds as Ayr assets.

244. By virtue of the foregoing, Ayr and Ayr through APD primarily transacted the

personal business of Harris rather than its own business with Harris the dominator of Ayr

to the extent that Ayr lost its separate corporate identity and for all intents and purposes

was the alter ego of Harris as evidenced by the facts averred above.

58
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 59 of 170

245. Piercing the corporate veil of Ayr is therefore necessary to achieve justice and the

equitable result necessitated by Harris’ domination of Ayr and required to right the wrong

in the loss of the Funds as a direct result thereof, that is, the return of the Funds, to which

plaintiffs as creditors and investors had and have a legal and rightful claim.

246. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are entitled to disregard the corporate existence of Ayr

and APD so as to hold defendant Harris directly personally liable for Ayr and APD’s

liability to the plaintiffs under the various agreements between Harris and the plaintiffs,

arising from Harris’ fiduciary relationship with plaintiffs, and stemming from plaintiffs’

positions as creditors and investors in the failed SBP which Ayr and APD irresponsibly

and fraudulently sought to undertake.

247. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the fraud and other wrongs Harris

committed as the dominator and alter ego of Ayr as a mere instrumentality to Harris,

plaintiffs are entitled to recover the loss of the Funds in the amount of at least $65 million,

the exact amount to be proven at trial.

248. Plaintiffs furthermore request a declaratory judgment that Harris is the alter ego of

Ayr and Ayr’s subsidiary, APD.

COUNT II
Piercing the Corporate Veil and Alter Ego
(As to FIB and Minev, Mutafchiev, Mellon Bank, and Eaton Vance)
249. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate herein by reference as if specifically set forth herein

the averments of paragraphs 1 through 248 of the Complaint.

250. From the outset of its involvement with the SBP, FIB was inadequately capitalized

to engage in business with the SBP, as evidenced by, inter alia, FIB’s loan agreements

with Ayr, Asset Management, and ASP; FIB’s creation of the fabricated coal invoices to

craft the appearance of healthy and active loans on its books; and the ultimate fraudulent

theft of the Funds against the background of the failure of the SBP to get off the ground.

59
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 60 of 170

251. Minev, Mutafchiev, Mellon Bank, and Eaton Vance, as shareholders of FIB,

knowingly and deliberately undercapitalized FIB to be able to avoid obligations and

camouflage its officers and shareholders fraudulent conduct arising from FIB’s SBP

actions, including, but without limitation, FIB’s actions and consent to the transfer of SBP

construction loan proceeds on the two SBP FIB loans to Bank of Valletta and the third loan

of €2 million to FIB’s Cypress branch which was to the detriment of their investors and

creditors, the plaintiffs.

252. As shareholders, Minev, Mutafchiev, Mellon Bank, and Eaton Vance completely

dominated FIB and made all material decisions, including, but without limitation, the

decision to invest in and develop the SBP; the decision to engage in fraudulent business

dealings with Angelov, Harriott, and FIB; the decision to forge the payment order

authorization to fraudulently and unlawfully retrieve the Funds from CCB; and, upon

information and belief, the decision to ignore these suspicious loans and financial activities

by FIB of which they knew or should have known as shareholders receiving regular

shareholder reports on FIB’s financial activities.

253. The fraudulent activities committed by Minev, Mutafchiev, Mellon Bank, and

Eaton Vance through FIB as a mere instrumentality for their own personal gains as its alter

egos and in complete unlawful disregard of FIB’s corporate identity, including the maker,

the recipient, and the date and the place of the transmission of the fraudulent statements,

are set out in the Complaint at ¶¶ 42–46, 49–51, 64–75, 79–106, 108–15, 120–34, 136–58,

161, 162, 166–75, 181–91, 217-19.

254. Pursuant to the facts averred in the previous paragraph, Minev, Mutafchiev, Mellon

Bank, and Eaton Vance displayed a reckless and wanton pattern of undertaking and/or

ignoring FIB’s fraudulent financial undertakings in a manner designed to further their own

60
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 61 of 170

interests in pursuing the SBP fraud with the First Group and Second Group and reduce

their own potential liability behind the corporate shield of FIB at the expense of the

creditors of the SBP including the plaintiffs.

255. By virtue of the foregoing, FIB primarily transacted the personal business of Minev,

Mutafchiev, Mellon Bank, and Eaton Vance rather than its own business with these

shareholders the dominators of FIB to the extent that FIB lost its separate corporate identity

and for all intents and purposes was the alter ego of these shareholders as evidenced by the

facts averred above.

256. Piercing the corporate veil of FIB is therefore necessary to achieve justice and the

equitable result necessitated by Minev, Mutafchiev, Mellon Bank, and Eaton Vance’s

domination of FIB and required to right the wrong in the loss of the Funds as a direct result

thereof, that is, the return of the Funds, to which plaintiffs as creditors and investors had

and have a legal and rightful claim.

257. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are entitled to disregard the corporate existence of FIB

so as to hold defendants Minev, Mutafchiev, Mellon Bank, and Eaton Vance directly

personally liable for FIB’s liability to the plaintiffs arising from from plaintiffs’ positions

as creditors and investors in the failed SBP which FIB irresponsibly and fraudulently

sought to fund and ultimately sucked dry of its value in the form of the Funds.

258. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the fraud and other wrongs Minev,

Mutafchiev, Mellon Bank, and Eaton Vance committed as the dominators and alter egos

of FIB as a mere instrumentality to its shareholders, plaintiffs are entitled to recover the

loss of the Funds in the amount of at least $65 million, the exact amount to be proven at

trial.

61
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 62 of 170

259. Plaintiffs furthermore request a declaratory judgment that Minev, Mutafchiev,

Mellon Bank, and Eaton Vance are the alter egos of FIB.

COUNT III
Piercing the Corporate Veil and Alter Ego
(As to Harriott and Grant Capital)
260. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate herein by reference as if specifically set forth herein

the averments of paragraphs 1 through 259 of the Complaint.

261. As the Director of Grant Capital, Harriott completely dominated Grant Capital and

made all material decisions for the entity, including, but without limitation, the decision to

divert funds from the 2007, 2008, and 2009 FIB loans to Grant Capital in Malta to, inter

alia, fund the Mexican bond scheme and thereby perpetrate a fraud on the plaintiffs.

262. The fraudulent activities committed by Harriott through Grant Capital as a mere

instrumentality for Harriott as its alter ego and in complete unlawful disregard of Grant

Capital’s corporate identity, including the maker, the recipient, and the date and the place

of the transmission of the fraudulent statements, are set out in the Complaint at ¶¶ 47.

263. Pursuant to the facts averred in the previous paragraph, Harriott displayed a reckless

and wanton pattern of dealing through Grant Capital in a manner designed to further

Harriott’s own interests in pursuing the SBP fraud with the First Group and Second Group

and unlawfully reduce his own potential liability behind the corporate shield of Grant

Capital at the expense of the plaintiffs.

264. By virtue of the foregoing, Grant Capital transacted the personal business of

Harriott rather than its own business with Harriott the dominator of Grant Capital to the

extent that Grant Capital lost its separate corporate identity and for all intents and purposes

was the alter ego of Harriott as evidenced by the facts averred above.

265. Piercing the corporate veil of Grant Capital is therefore necessary to achieve justice

and the equitable result necessitated by Harriott’s domination of Grant Capital and required

62
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 63 of 170

to right the wrong in the loss of the Funds as a direct and proximate result thereof, that is,

the return of the Funds, to which plaintiffs as creditors and investors had and have a legal

and rightful claim.

266. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are entitled to disregard the corporate existence of Grant

Capital so as to hold defendant Harriott directly personally liable for Grant Capital’s

participation in the fraud perpetrated on the plaintiffs related to the SBP.

267. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the fraud and other wrongs Harriott

committed as the dominator and alter ego of Grant Capital as a mere instrumentality to

Harriott, plaintiffs are entitled to recover the loss of the Funds in the amount of at least $65

million, the exact amount to be proven at trial.

268. Plaintiffs furthermore request a declaratory judgment that Harriott is the alter ego

of Grant Capital.

COUNT IV
Piercing the Corporate Veil and Alter Ego
(As to Angelov and Blue Finance and All Seas Management)
269. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate herein by reference as if specifically set forth herein

the averments of paragraphs 1 through 268 of the Complaint.

270. As the owner of Blue Finance and All Seas Management, Angelov completely

dominated Blue Finance and All Seas Management and made all material decisions for the

entities, including, but without limitation, inter alia, disguising the money transfers to All

Seas Management Ltd., an entity owned and controlled solely by Angelov, and Blue

Finance Limited, an entity owned and controlled solely by Angelov, both Marshall Island

registered entities, to look like legitimate investments in SBP.

271. The fraudulent activities committed by Angelov through Blue Finance and All Seas

Management as a mere instrumentalities for Angelov as their alter ego and in complete

unlawful disregard of Blue Finance and All Seas Management’s corporate identities,

63
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 64 of 170

including the maker, the recipient, and the date and the place of the transmission of the

fraudulent statements, are set out in the Complaint at ¶¶ 55 and 91.

272. Pursuant to the facts averred in the previous paragraph, Angelov displayed a

reckless and wanton pattern of dealing through Blue Finance and All Seas Management in

a manner designed to further Angelov’s own interests in pursuing the SBP fraud with the

First Group and Second Group and unlawfully reduce his own potential liability behind the

corporate shield of Blue Finance and All Seas Management at the expense of the plaintiffs.

273. By virtue of the foregoing, Blue Finance and All Seas Management transacted the

personal business of Angelov rather than its own business with Angelov the dominator of

Blue Finance and All Seas Management to the extent that Blue Finance and All Seas

Management lost their individual separate corporate identities and for all intents and

purposes was the alter ego of Angelov as evidenced by the facts averred above.

274. Piercing the corporate veil of Blue Finance and All Seas Management is therefore

necessary to achieve justice and the equitable result necessitated by Angelov’s domination

of Blue Finance and All Seas Management and required to right the wrong in the loss of

the Funds as a direct and proximate result thereof, that is, the return of the Funds, to which

plaintiffs as creditors and investors had and have a legal and rightful claim.

275. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are entitled to disregard the corporate existence of Blue

Finance and All Seas Management so as to hold defendant Angelov directly personally

liable for Blue Finance and All Seas Management’s participation in the fraud perpetrated

on the plaintiffs related to the SBP.

276. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the fraud and other wrongs

Angelov committed as the dominator and alter ego of Blue Finance and All Seas

Management as a mere instrumentality to Angelov, plaintiffs are entitled to recover the

64
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 65 of 170

loss of the Funds in the amount of at least $65 million, the exact amount to be proven at

trial.

277. Plaintiffs furthermore request a declaratory judgment that Angelov is the alter ego

of Blue Finance and All Seas Management.

COUNT V
11 U.S.C. §§ 548 and 550
Fraudulent Transfer of Debtor’s Interest in Property
(As to FIB, Minev, Mutafchiev, Mellon Bank, and Eaton Vance)
278. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate herein by reference as if specifically set forth herein

the averments of paragraphs 1 through 277 of the Complaint.

279. Plaintiffs as purchasers of the U.S. Trustee’s interests in Ayr’s interests pursuant to

Ayr’s U.S. bankruptcy proceedings bring this claim against defendant Harris, as creator,

owner, and Director of both Ayr and Ayr’s Bulgarian-registered subsidiary, APD.

280. The debtor, Ayr by and through Harris, had an interest in the property of the Funds

as proceeds from the APD bankruptcy sale of the land held by APD in Bulgaria that was

supposed to be used for the SBP. This interest is confirmed by Bulgarian and U.S. court

rulings affirming Ayr’s ownership of the Funds as an asset, as laid out above in ¶¶ 138,

222, and 224 of the Complaint.

281. Harris filed for bankruptcy on behalf of Ayr on October 10, 2014.

282. The Funds were stolen by FIB, as a direct and proximate result of Harris’ failure to

take steps to protect the funds despite multiple warnings, from CCB on or about October

24, 2014.

283. Harris committed a fraudulent conveyance when he permitted FIB to seize the

Funds held in CCB and which belonged to Ayr as an asset of the defunct Ayr subsidiary,

APD.

65
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 66 of 170

284. Harris’ allowance of FIB seizing the funds without right functioned for all intents

and purposes as a conveyance or transfer.

285. Accordingly, the transfer was made within one year of the filing of the bankruptcy

petition, and at the time of the fraudulent transfer of the Funds, debtor Ayr by and through

Harris was insolvent at the time of the transfer and become further insolvent as a result

thereof.

286. The conveyance was made without fair consideration and Ayr, by and through

Harris, thus received nothing in return, which was less than a reasonably equivalent value

in exchange for such transfer, as FIB paid no fair consideration for the funds, which were

in an amount of more than $65 million; FIB exchanged no property nor was any antecedent

debt of Ayr to FIB paid off in return for the Funds; nor did FIB receive the Funds in good

faith to secure a present advance or antecedent debt in an amount not disproportionately

small as compared with the value of the Funds.

287. Therefore, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 550, plaintiffs, as purchasers and rightful holders

of the U.S. bankruptcy trustee’s rights arising out of the Ayr bankruptcy proceeding, seek

to recover, for the benefit of the estate, the property transferred, namely the Funds or the

value of such property in an amount no less than $65 million, the exact amount to be proven

at trial.

COUNT VI
Breach of Contract
(As to Ayr, Harris, Angelov, and FIB, and
Minev, Mutafchiev, Mellon Bank, and Eaton Vance)
288. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate herein by reference as if specifically set forth herein

the averments of paragraphs 1 through 287 of the Complaint.

66
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 67 of 170

289. Harris, Angelov, and FIB breached the explicit and material terms of the

agreements dated September 15, 2009; June 4, 2010; and December 29, 2009 (hereinafter

“the Loans Contracts”).

290. The terms of the Loans Contracts required Harris, Angelov, and FIB to

appropriately and responsibly manage the SBP, and properly apply the FIB construction

loans related to the SBP.

291. There was an implied duty of good faith in the performance of the Loan Contracts.

292. The above defendants failed and/or refused to meet their obligations under the

Loans Contracts, and breached the Loans Contracts by, inter alia, failing to properly

manage and invest plaintiffs’ monetary contributions to SBP when they, instead, stole those

contributions and failed to disclose their ulterior scheme and actions to the plaintiffs.

293. Those breaches were material.

294. Plaintiffs at all times upheld their obligations as creditors and investors under the

Loans Contracts.

295. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the defendants’ breaches, plaintiffs

sustained injury and damage, including the loss of the benefit of their bargain, increased

costs, expenses and fees, and loss of profits, including, specifically, the loss of their

investment in the amount of at least $65 million, the exact amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT VII
Breach of Contract
(As to Ayr, Harris, Harriott, Angelov, and FIB, and
Minev, Mutafchiev, Mellon Bank, and Eaton Vance)
296. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate herein by reference as if specifically set forth herein

the averments of paragraphs 1 through 295 of the Complaint.

67
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 68 of 170

297. Harris, Harriott, Angelov, and FIB breached the explicit and material terms of the

agreements between them and the plaintiffs dated March 28, 2012 and November 27, 2013

(hereinafter “the Agreements”).

298. The terms of the Agreements required Harris, Harriott, Angelov, and FIB to

appropriately and responsibly manage the reorganization project for APD in order to avoid

APD having to file for bankruptcy and destroy the means of realizing the SBP.

299. The terms of the Agreements also obligated these Defendants to comply with U.S.

law governing fraud and criminal acts, and New York was the selected forum and U.S. law

the choice of law in that chosen forum for all disputes related to the Agreements. All parties

consented to this choice of law and choice of forum in signing the Agreements.

300. There was an implied duty of good faith in the performance of the Agreements.

301. The above defendants failed and/or refused to meet their obligations under the

Agreements, and breached the Agreement by, inter alia, failing to properly manage and in

fact never taking concrete steps to implement the reorganization of APD in order to save it

from bankruptcy, which led in fact to APD filing for bankruptcy in Bulgaria.

302. Those breaches were material.

303. Plaintiffs at all times upheld their obligations as creditors and investors under the

Agreements.

304. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the defendants’ breaches, plaintiffs

sustained injury and damage, including the loss of the benefit of their bargain, increased

costs, expenses and fees, and loss of profits, including, specifically, the loss of their

investment in the amount of at least $65 million, the exact amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT VIII
Breach of Contract
(As to Angelov)

68
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 69 of 170

305. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate herein by reference as if specifically set forth herein

the averments of paragraphs 1 through 304 of the Complaint.

306. Angelov breached the explicit and material terms of its July 16, 2007 contract with

Rudersdal.

307. The terms of the contract required Rudersdal to provide €19 million towards

obtaining the development and construction project for SBP and for Angelov to

appropriately and responsibly obtain the right-to-build contract and pay the accompanying

€10 million fee necessary to begin construction of the SBP.

308. There was an implied duty of good faith in the performance of the contract.

309. Angelov failed and/or refused to meet his obligations under the contract, and

breached the contract by, inter alia, failing to pay the permitting fee and obtain the right-

to-build contract because the money earmarked for that fee was already gone, as Angelov

knew, towards acquiring the Mexican bonds per Angelov’s scheme with Harriott and

Harris. Angelov failed to return Rudersdal’s €19 million and to take any other steps to

acquire the funds needed to obtain the construction permit as required by the terms of the

contract with Rudersdal.

310. Those breaches were material.

311. Rudersdal at all times upheld its obligations under the contract.

312. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the defendant’s breaches, plaintiff

Rudersdal sustained injury and damage, including the loss of the benefit of their bargain,

increased costs, expenses and fees, and loss of profits, including, specifically, the loss in

the amount of at least $15 million, the exact amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT IX
Tortious Interference with Contract
(As to FIB, Minev, Mutafchiev, Mellon Bank, and Eaton Vance)

69
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 70 of 170

313. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate herein by reference as if specifically set forth herein

the averments of paragraphs 1 through 312 of the Complaint.

314. Based on the July 16, 2007 contract, Rudersdal had a business relationship

whereby Angelov had to acquire the necessary right-to-build permit for the SBP as averred

above and Rudersdal had to and did pay Angelov a total of €19 million.

315. Angelov instructed Rudersdal to deposit the €19 million into his various bank

accounts, including accounts at FIB in the amount of €5 million.

316. FIB had full knowledge of the entire SBP and knowledge of the contract between

Angelov and Rudersdal because Angelov negotiated with FIB the terms governing the

accounts at FIB where the Rudersdal $6.632.653(€5 million) was deposited. The terms of

the FIB accounts provided that any money deposited therein would go automatically

toward paying off Angelov’s designated debts or loans. Moreover, FIB knew from the

Rudersdal payment orders accompanying Rudersdal’s FIB deposits into the Angelov

designated FIB accounts that the deposits were related to the July 16, 2007 contract, the

business relationship with Angelov and SBP and not for Angelov’s debt extinguishment.

317. FIB improperly intentionally interfered with the performance of the July 16, 2007

contract without justification by diverting Rudersdal’s deposited funds toward paying off

Angelov’s designated debts or loans and failing to instead place Rudersdal’s funds in an

account designated for Rudersdal SBP participation and safeguarding said funds for the

purposes Rudersdal had assigned to them, thereby preventing the payment of the permit

fee.

318. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of FIB’s tortious interference with

the July 16, 2007 contract, plaintiff Rudersdal sustained damages, including the loss of the

benefit of their bargain, increased costs, expenses and fees, and loss of profits, including,

70
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 71 of 170

specifically, the loss in the amount of at least $6.632.653(€5 million), the exact amount to

be determined at trial.

COUNT X
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
(As to Ayr, Harris, Harriott, Angelov, FIB, and Minev, Mutafchiev, Mellon Bank,
and Eaton Vance)
319. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate herein by reference as if specifically set forth herein

the averments of paragraphs 1 through 318 of the Complaint.

320. Harris, Harriott, Angelov, and FIB owed a fiduciary duty to plaintiffs arising out of

their contractual and close business relationships and the policies, understandings, and

instructions related thereto as described above. As such, they each owed plaintiffs a

fiduciary duty including, without limitation, the duties of good faith, fair dealing, honestly,

fairness, full disclosure and loyalty towards plaintiffs, and an obligation not to engage in

self-dealing.

321. These defendants breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiffs by failing to safeguard

the Funds, by failing to act in accordance with their representations in the Loans Contracts

and Agreements between them and the plaintiffs regarding plaintiffs’ participation in SBP,

by acting in a manner directly adverse to those Loans Contracts and Agreements, by failure

to act in good faith in their handling of plaintiffs’ investments, by engaging in self-dealing

with plaintiffs’ investments, and by failing to act with the required diligence in their

business dealings with plaintiffs.

322. In conspiracy with all the other defendants, Harris, Harriott, Angelov, and FIB

orchestrated and carried out the theft of the Funds to benefit themselves by using the Funds

to invest in the Mexican bonds escrow agreements and in facilitating and acquiescing in

the paying off the debt of the Five Companies for personal gain. These benefits were

grossly larger than the benefits to which Harris, Harriott, Angelov, and FIB would have

71
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 72 of 170

been entitled under the Loans Contracts and Agreements that they had entered into with

plaintiffs ostensibly to realize the SBP.

323. By virtue of the acts and fraudulent conduct averred above, Harris, Harriott,

Angelov, and FIB knowingly, wantonly, maliciously, intentionally, and recklessly, with a

conscious disregard of the rights of plaintiffs, breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiffs.

324. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the unlawful use and taking of the

Funds in contravention to defendants’ fiduciary duties, to which plaintiffs never consented

and were neither notified nor consulted, the plaintiffs suffered harm in the loss of more

than $65 million, the exact amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT XI
Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty
(As to Ayr, Harris, Harriott, Angelov, FIB,
Minev, Mutafchiev, Mellon Bank, and Eaton Vance)
325. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate herein by reference as if specifically set forth

herein the averments of paragraphs 1 through 324 of the Complaint.

326. Harris, Harriott, Angelov, and FIB owed a fiduciary duty to plaintiffs arising out of

their contractual and close business relationships and the policies, understandings, and

instructions related thereto as described above. As such, they each owed plaintiffs a

fiduciary duty including, without limitation, the duties of good faith, fair dealing, honestly,

fairness, full disclosure and loyalty towards plaintiffs, and an obligation not to engage in

self-dealing.

327. By virtue of the acts and fraudulent conduct averred above, Harris, Harriott,

Angelov, and FIB knowingly, wantonly, maliciously, intentionally, and recklessly, with a

conscious disregard of the rights of plaintiffs, breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiffs.

72
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 73 of 170

328. Harris, Harriott, Angelov, and FIB each knew that each among them owed the

aforesaid fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs pursuant to their individual fiduciary

relationships with the plaintiffs.

329. As alleged herein, Harris, Harriott, Angelov, and FIB each had actual knowledge

that each among them violated their fiduciary duties to plaintiffs, inter alia, by reason of

the fact that each were co-conspirators in the conspiracy to abscond with plaintiffs’

investment in SBP and plaintiffs’ right to the Funds; Harris, Harriott, and Angelov were

parties to the Agreement and Supplemental Agreement with the plaintiffs regarding the

details of the APD reorganization which were never carried out; and through

communications between Angelov, Harris, and Harriott regarding funneling some of the

Funds into the Mexican bonds scheme.

330. By virtue of the acts and conduct alleged herein, Harris, Harriott, Angelov, and FIB

knowingly, wantonly, maliciously, intentionally, and recklessly, with a conscious disregard

of the rights of plaintiffs, provided substantial assistance to, and aided and abetted, each

other among them in breaching their fiduciary duties to plaintiffs by affirmatively assisting,

helping conceal, and/or failing to act when required to do so to prevent such breaches from

occurring.

331. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the foregoing, plaintiffs have

sustained damages in the amount of $65 million, the exact amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT XII
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
(As to BNB, Lyutov, and Kostadinchev)
332. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate herein by reference as if specifically set forth herein

the averments of paragraphs 1 through 331 of the Complaint.

333. BNB and the two CCB BNB-appointed conservators, Lyutov and Kostadinchev,

owed a fiduciary duty to plaintiffs arising out of their position as financial overseers and

73
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 74 of 170

regulators of CCB once CCB was put in receivership by BNB. As such, they each owed

plaintiffs a fiduciary duty including, without limitation, the duties of good faith, fair

dealing, honestly, fairness, full disclosure and loyalty towards plaintiffs, and an obligation

not to engage in self-dealing.

334. These defendants breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiffs by failing to safeguard

the Funds, by acting in a manner directly adverse to plaintiffs’ interest in and ownership of

the funds by permitting the to be stolen and used to extinguish the debts of the Five

Companies, by failure to act in good faith in their handling of the Funds, by engaging in

self-dealing with the Funds, and by failing to act with the required diligence in their

capacities as financial regulators in the context of CCB’s financial crisis and receivership.

335. In conspiracy with all the other defendants, BNB and the conservators orchestrated

and carried out the theft of the Funds to benefit themselves by using and/or permitting and

enabling the Funds to pay off the debt of the Five Companies for personal gain.

336. By virtue of the acts and fraudulent conduct averred above, BNB and the two

conservators knowingly, wantonly, maliciously, intentionally, and recklessly, with a

conscious disregard of the rights of plaintiffs, breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiffs.

337. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the unlawful use and taking of the

Funds in contravention to defendants’ fiduciary duties, to which plaintiffs never consented

and were neither notified nor consulted, the plaintiffs suffered harm in the loss of more

than $65 million, the exact amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT XIII
Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty
(As to BNB, Lyutov, and Kostadinchev)

338. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate herein by reference as if specifically set forth

herein the averments of paragraphs 1 through 337 of the Complaint.

74
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 75 of 170

339. BNB and the two CCB BNB-appointed conservators, Lyutov and Kostadinchev,

owed a fiduciary duty to plaintiffs arising out of their position as financial overseers and

regulators of CCB once BNB put CCB in receivership. As such, they each owed plaintiffs

a fiduciary duty including, without limitation, the duties of good faith, fair dealing,

honestly, fairness, full disclosure and loyalty towards plaintiffs, and an obligation not to

engage in self-dealing.

340. BNB and the two CCB BNB-conservators each knew that each among them owed

the aforesaid fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs pursuant to their individual fiduciary status

with the plaintiffs.

341. These defendants breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiffs by failing to safeguard

the Funds, by acting in a manner directly adverse to plaintiffs’ interest in and ownership of

the Funds by permitting the Funds to be retitled in names other than Plaintiffs, by

permitting the Funds to be stolen and used to extinguish the debts of non related entities,

the Five Companies, by failure to act in good faith in their handling of the Funds, by

engaging in self-dealing with the Funds, and by failing to act with the required diligence

in their capacities as financial regulators and fiduciaries in the context of CCB’s

receivership.

342. In conspiracy with all the other defendants, BNB and the BNB-appointed

conservators orchestrated and carried out the theft of the Funds to benefit themselves by

using and/or permitting and enabling the Funds to pay off the debt of the Five Companies

for personal gain.

343. By virtue of the acts and conduct averred above, BNB and the two CCB BNB-

conservators knowingly, wantonly, maliciously, intentionally, and recklessly, with a

conscious disregard of the rights and ownership interests of plaintiffs, provided substantial

75
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 76 of 170

assistance to, and aided and abetted, each other among them in breaching their fiduciary

duties to plaintiffs by affirmatively assisting, helping conceal, and/or failing to act when

required to do so to prevent such breaches from occurring.

344. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the foregoing, plaintiffs have

sustained damages in the amount of $65 million, the exact amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT XIV
Unjust Enrichment
(As to all defendants)
345. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate herein by reference as if specifically set forth herein

the averments of paragraphs 1 through 344 of the Complaint.

346. Through their fraudulent and deceitful actions regarding the Funds, all defendants

gained financial benefits, as set forth above as to each defendant, from the Funds at the the

expense and to the financial loss to the plaintiffs of their entire, respective, investment in

the SBP. Plaintiffs were deprived of the singular asset to recover as Ayr creditors with the

defendants’ unlawful taking of the Funds.

347. The principles of equity and good conscience demand that all defendants not be

permitted to remain unjustly enriched and that plaintiffs be fully compensated for their

entire loss in the approximate amount of $65 million, the exact amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT XV
Fraudulent Concealment
(As to Ayr, Harris, Harriott, Angelov, FIB, Minev,
Mutafchiev, Mellon Bank, and Eaton Vance)
348. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate herein by reference as if specifically set forth herein

the averments of paragraphs 1 through 347 of the Complaint.

349. Defendants Harris, Harriott, Angelov, and FIB had a duty as a result of their special

and fiduciary relationships with plaintiffs as averred above to disclose to plaintiffs all

76
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 77 of 170

material facts related to SBP, the APD bankruptcy, and the safeguarding and use of the

Funds.

350. This duty arose from Harris, Harriott, Angelov, and FIB’s fiduciary relationship

with plaintiffs through their negotiations and contracts for plaintiffs’ financial investment

in the SBP.

351. Harris, Harriott, Angelov, and FIB intentionally concealed the fact that the Funds

in the CCB accounts had been stolen from the plaintiffs, and the fact that Harris, Harriott,

Angelov, and FIB had a scheme to use the funds to enable the BT call option and buy the

Mexican bonds and not to develop the SBP as they had represented to plaintiffs in business

dealings.

352. Harris, Harriott, Angelov, and FIB’s deliberate failure to disclose their true intent

to steal plaintiffs’ investment while telling plaintiffs their investment would go to

developing the SBP induced plaintiffs to invest in said project, and plaintiffs in fact relied

on defendants’ failure to disclose that fact.

353. The fraudulent statements, including the maker, the recipient, and the date and the

place of the transmission of the fraudulent statements, are set out in the Complaint at ¶¶

40–44, 47–49, 62–73, 77–104, 106–12, 123–30, 134–56, 140–50, 140–58, 164–73, 179–

89, 218–24.

354. Each such failure to disclose was the result of the defendants’ specific intent to

defraud or deceive the plaintiffs out of the Funds.

355. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Harris, Harriott, Angelov, and

FIB’s failure to disclose the fact that they intended to defraud plaintiffs of their investment

and that the Funds had been stolen, and of plaintiffs’ justifiable reliance and inducement to

77
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 78 of 170

act thereon, plaintiffs have sustained damages in the amount of $65 million, the exact

amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT XVI
Fraudulent Concealment
(As to BNB, Lyutov, and Kostadinchev)

356. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate herein by reference as if specifically set forth herein

the averments of paragraphs 1 through 355 of the Complaint.

357. BNB and the two CCB BNB-appointed conservators, Lyutov and Kostadinchev,

owed a fiduciary duty to plaintiffs arising out of their position as financial overseers and

regulators of CCB once BNB put CCB in receivership. As such, they each owed plaintiffs

a fiduciary duty including, without limitation, the duties of good faith, fair dealing,

honestly, fairness, full disclosure and loyalty towards plaintiffs, and an obligation not to

engage in self-dealing.

358. BNB and the two CCB BNB-appointed conservators intentionally concealed the

fact that FIB and other defendants were engaged in a fraud to become title owner and

beneficiary to the Funds (loan repayment), the Funds in the CCB accounts had been stolen

from the plaintiffs, and that BNB and the two CCB BNB-appointed conservators

orchestrated a scheme to use the Funds to pay off the debts of the Five Companies to CCB

in contravention to the Bulgarian court’s order that the Funds be moved to a special account

at Bulgarian Development Bank.

359. BNB and the two CCB BNB-appointed conservators’ deliberate failure to disclose

their true intent to steal plaintiffs’ investment and failure to disclose their appropriation of

the Funds and application of them to extinguish the Five Companies’ debts induced

plaintiffs to stay the course and not take action against BNB and the two CCB BNB-

78
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 79 of 170

appointed conservators for the failure to safekeep the Funds, and plaintiffs in fact relied on

defendants’ failure to disclose those facts.

360. The fraudulent statements, including the maker, the recipient, and the date and the

place of the transmission of the fraudulent statements, are set out in the Complaint at ¶¶

62–73, 118–21, 140–58.

361. Each such failure to disclose was the result of the defendants’ specific intent to

defraud or deceive the plaintiffs out of the Funds.

362. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of BNB and the two CCB BNB-

appointed conservators’ failure to disclose the fact that they intended to defraud plaintiffs

of their investment and steal the Funds, and of plaintiffs’ justifiable reliance and

inducement to act thereon, plaintiffs have sustained damages in the amount of $65 million,

the exact amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT XVII
Fraud
(As to all defendants)

363. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate herein by reference as if specifically set forth herein

the averments of paragraphs 1 through 362 of the Complaint.

364. All defendants knew, or should have known, that the representations they made to

the plaintiffs about SBP and the Funds would be reasonably relied upon by the plaintiffs.

365. Material portions of those representations and information were false, wrong, and

inaccurate, and these defendants knew that those representations and information were

false, wrong, and inaccurate (the “Misrepresentations”).

366. These defendants fraudulently made the Misrepresentations intending that the

plaintiffs would act on the Misrepresentations, and knowing that plaintiffs were likely to

rely on the Misrepresentations which, if erroneous, would cause loss or injury.

79
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 80 of 170

367. The content of the Misrepresentations includes, but is not limited to, the following:

a. Misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose material information regarding the 2007-

2009 FIB loans to fund the development of the SBP as set forth above;

b. Misrepresenting SBP as a suitable investment and viable development plan for

plaintiffs to invest in, as set forth above;

c. Failing to identify and/or alert plaintiffs to all material facts regarding the SBP

project development or lack thereof, as set forth above;

d. Misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose the need for additional funding to realize

the SBP, as set forth above;

e. Misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose the use of plaintiffs’ financial

investments in SBP to fund the Mexican bond escrow agreement, as set forth above;

f. Misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose to plaintiffs that the reconstruction plan

for APD was never funded and that defendants never intended that it would be, as

set forth above;

g. Misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose to plaintiffs defendants’ knowledge of

FIB’s fraudulent claims as creditor to APD’s bankruptcy proceedings, as set forth

above;

h. Misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose to plaintiffs FIB’s multiple attempts to

present claims to the Funds in the CCB accounts, as set forth above;

i. Misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose to plaintiffs that the coal contracts were

a mere sham to justify the FIB loans, as set forth above;

j. Misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose to plaintiffs that CCB went into

receivership after the run on the Bulgarian banks thus compromising the Funds, as

set forth above;

80
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 81 of 170

k. Misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose to plaintiffs that FIB had acquired access

to the CCB accounts and that the Funds had been retitled and used to extinguish the

Five Companies’ unrelated CCB loans, as set forth above;

l. Misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose to plaintiffs the interference of the

Second Group to realize the extinguishment of the Five Companies’ CCB debts

with the Funds in order to enable the larger goal of the BT call option and close the

CCB bank accounts, as set forth above;

m. Misrepresenting to plaintiffs that Ayr did not possess the Funds as an asset when

Harris on Ayr’s behalf sought No Asset bankruptcy in Texas when in fact Ayr did,

as set forth above;

n. Misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose to plaintiffs Peevski’s role in assisting

FIB with FIB’s need for government bailout funds;

o. Failing to disclose to plaintiffs that the Funds were stolen and gone, which fact did

not come to light until Ayr bankruptcy proceedings had run their course in Texas

and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court declared the Funds to be an Ayr asset, by which

time the Funds were long gone, as set forth above;

p. Misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose to plaintiffs that Harris did not and never

intended to take any action to protect the Funds from the onslaught of actions by

the other defendants to obtain the Funds, as set forth above.

368. The Misrepresentations, including the maker, the recipient, and the date and the

place of the transmission of the Misrepresentations, are set out in the Complaint at ¶¶ 40–

44, 47–49, 62–73, 77–104, 106–12, 123–30, 134–56, 140–50, 140–58, 164–73, 179–89,

218–24.

369. The plaintiffs did in fact rely on those Misrepresentations.

81
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 82 of 170

370. Their reliance on those Misrepresentations was reasonable and foreseeable.

371. All defendants made those misrepresentations with the malicious intent to defraud

and deceive the plaintiffs, and to induce the plaintiffs’ reliance on the Misrepresentations

to plaintiffs’ injury, harm, loss, and detriment, and plaintiffs were in fact misled and

deceived by the Misrepresentations, and in fact reasonably relied on the

Misrepresentations.

372. The Misrepresentations were false and fraudulent, and were known by defendants

to be false and fraudulent when made, and thereafter, were made with reckless indifference

in disregard for the truth or falsity of the Misrepresentations, displaying a high degree of

moral culpability and manifesting a conscious and reckless disregard for the rights of the

plaintiffs bordering on criminality.

373. Defendants had actual knowledge as to the Misrepresentations.

374. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable consequence of plaintiffs’ reliance on the

Misrepresentations plaintiffs have sustained damages in excess of $65 million, the exact

amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT XVIII
Aiding and Abetting Fraud
(As to all defendants)
375. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate herein by reference as if specifically set forth

herein the averments of paragraphs 1 through 374 of the Complaint.

376. By the conduct averred above, all defendants made material Misrepresentations to

plaintiffs, including omissions of material facts these defendants were required to disclose,

concerning, inter alia, the use of the Funds and the state of plaintiffs’ investment in the

SBP.

377. The defendants made such misrepresentations with intent to defraud plaintiffs, to

enable them to loot the Funds maintained at CCB for their own personal benefit.

82
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 83 of 170

378. Plaintiffs justifiably and foreseeably relied upon these defendants’

misrepresentations and failure to disclose material facts.

379. All defendants each had actual knowledge of and notice that each among them had

made misrepresentations of material fact and omitted facts each was required to disclose

to plaintiffs.

380. The Misrepresentations were false and fraudulent, and were known by defendants

to be false and fraudulent when made, and thereafter, were made with reckless indifference

in disregard for the truth or falsity of the Misrepresentations, displaying a high degree of

moral culpability and manifesting a conscious and reckless disregard for the rights of the

plaintiffs bordering on criminality.

381. These defendants knowingly, wantonly, maliciously, intentionally, and recklessly,

with a conscious disregard of the rights of plaintiffs, aided and abetted each among them

in perpetrating a fraud on plaintiffs. Specifically, each defendant provided substantial

assistance to advance the fraud’s commission by, without limitation, the following acts:

a. Disguising the money transfers to All Seas Management Ltd., an entity owned and

controlled solely by Chavdar Angelov, and Blue Finance Limited, an entity owned

and controlled solely by Chavdar Angelov, both Marshall Island registered entities,

to look like legitimate investments in a large property development project by Ayr,

the Silver Beach project, as averred above;

b. Failing to take any steps to protect the Funds in CCB despite notice and warning

from Tomov and APD Attorney Maria Nakova that FIB was pursuing them, as

averred above;

83
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 84 of 170

c. Filing for fraudulent No Asset U.S bankruptcy on behalf of Ayr to allow FIB to

reach around the automatic stay on Ayr’s assets to get the Funds after FIB

unsuccessfully tried to be declared a creditor of APD, as described above;

d. Collaborating to divert $39,823,594 from the first three SBP loans FIB to the trustee

escrow agreement to purchase the ancient Mexican bonds, as described above;

e. Failing to repay any of the loans to FIB on the SBP property, so that APD was

eventually forced to declare bankruptcy and the SBP property forced to be sold as

a result, as described above; and

f. Using the raid on the banks in Bulgarian to put CCB into receivership by BNB

which allowed BNB and the CCB BNB-appointed conservators to re-appropriate

the Funds being held at CCB to extinguish the Five Companies’ debts in

contravention to the automatic stay issued in the U.S. bankruptcy proceedings for

Ayr as well as the Bulgarian court’s July 11, 2014 order.

382. Defendants each had actual knowledge of the fraudulent scheme to steal the Funds

for the larger, ultimate goal of realizing the BTH and Vivacom call options.

383. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of all defendants aiding and abetting

each other to carry out the fraud, plaintiffs sustained damages in excess of $65 million, the

exact amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT XIX
N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law § 273
Fraudulent Conveyance by Insolvent
(As to Ayr and Harris)

384. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate herein by reference as if specifically set forth herein

the averments of paragraphs 1 through 383 of the Complaint.

84
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 85 of 170

385. Defendant Harris committed a constructive fraudulent conveyance when he

permitted FIB to seize the Funds held in CCB and which belonged to Ayr as an asset of the

defunct Ayr subsidiary, APD.

386. Harris’ allowance of FIB seizing the funds without right functioned for all intents

and purposes as a conveyance or transfer.

387. The conveyance was made without fair consideration as FIB paid no fair

consideration for the funds, which were in an amount of more than $65 million; FIB

exchanged no property nor was any antecedent debt of Ayr to FIB paid off in return for the

Funds; nor did FIB receive the Funds in good faith to secure a present advance or

antecedent debt in an amount not disproportionately small as compared with the value of

the Funds.

388. By conveying the Funds to FIB, Harris thereby rendered Ayr insolvent as the Funds

was the only asset of value which Ayr held that could be used to meet and satisfy its

outstanding creditors’ claims.

389. Plaintiffs as creditors and holders of the trustee’s claims of Ayr therefore demand

that the conveyance in an amount no less than $65 million, the exact amount to be

determined at trial, be returned to Ayr and put towards satisfaction of the creditors’ claims

thereto

COUNT XX
N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law § 276
Conveyance Made with Intent to Defraud
(As to Ayr and Harris)
390. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate herein by reference as if specifically set forth herein

the averments of paragraphs 1 through 389 of the Complaint.

391. Defendant Harris committed an actual fraudulent conveyance when he fraudulently

filed for No Asset bankruptcy by failing to disclose Ayr’s assets in its subsidiary APD and

85
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 86 of 170

in the Funds held in CCB, thereby shielding these assets from the automatic stay on Ayr’s

assets put in place by the U.S. bankruptcy court and permitting FIB to seize the Funds held

in CCB which belonged to Ayr as an asset of the defunct Ayr subsidiary, APD.

392. Harris’ intentional fraudulent bankruptcy filing and subsequent deliberate failure to

take action to protect the Funds from FIB’s claims despite having been notified of these

attempts on several occasions by Nakova and Tomov (see supra ¶¶ 127–30, 129, 138, 222,

and 224) and subsequent allowance of FIB to seize the funds without right functioned for

all intents and purposes as a conveyance or transfer.

393. The fraudulent bankruptcy filing and conveyance, including the maker, the

recipient, and the date and the place of the transmission, are set out in the Complaint at ¶¶

77–104, 106–12, 123–30, 134–36, 218–23.

394. The fraudulent conveyance was made without fair consideration as FIB paid no fair

consideration for the funds, which were in an amount of more than $65 million; FIB

exchanged no property nor was any antecedent debt of Ayr to FIB paid off in return for the

Funds; nor did FIB receive the Funds in good faith to secure a present advance or

antecedent debt in an amount not disproportionately small as compared with the value of

the Funds.

395. The Funds conveyed to FIB had value out of which the creditors, the plaintiffs,

could have realized their portion of their claims against Ayr in its bankruptcy proceedings

for their investment in the failed SBP.

396. By conveying the Funds to FIB, Harris thereby rendered Ayr insolvent as the Funds

was the only asset of value which Ayr held that could be used to meet and satisfy its

outstanding creditors’ claims.

86
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 87 of 170

397. Harris conveyed the Funds to FIB with actual intent to defraud the plaintiffs, as

evidence by Harris’ deliberate fraudulent filing for bankruptcy for Ayr without declaring

the Funds and through Harris’ inexcusable failure to take any steps or actions to protect the

Funds from FIB’s unrightful claims despite Harris’ actual knowledge of FIB’s attempts so

to steal the funds.

398. Moreover, under oath at two 341 meetings during Ayr’s bankruptcy proceedings,

Harris upon being questioned about any outstanding assets further failed to declare the

Funds, or Ayr’s subsidiary APD, thereby deliberately continuing to defraud the U.S.

bankruptcy court and the plaintiffs as creditors thereby.

399. Upon being found out to have failed to declare the Funds in Ayr’s bankruptcy

proceedings, Harris repeatedly failed to correct this material misrepresentation because he

actually, and successfully, intended to defraud the plaintiffs as creditors regarding the

Funds as an Ayr asset to which they had a legal claim.

400. Plaintiffs as creditors and holders of the trustee’s claims of Ayr therefore demand

that the conveyance in an amount no less than $65 million, the exact amount to be

determined at trial, be returned to Ayr and put towards satisfaction of the creditors’ claims

thereto.

COUNT XXI
Negligent Misrepresentation
(As to all defendants)
401. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate herein by reference as if specifically set forth herein

the averments of paragraphs 1 through 400 of the Complaint.

402. Defendants had a duty as a result of their special and fiduciary relationships with

plaintiffs as averred above to disclose to plaintiffs all material facts related to SBP, the

APD bankruptcy, and the safeguarding and use of the Funds.

87
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 88 of 170

403. Defendants knew or should have known, that the representations they made to the

plaintiffs about SBP would be relied upon by the plaintiffs, and that their fiduciary

relationship as averred above imposed on them the duty to impart correct information to

the plaintiffs.

404. Material portions of those representations and information were false, wrong, and

inaccurate, and these defendants knew that those representations and information were

false, wrong, and inaccurate (the “Misrepresentations”).

405. These defendants fraudulently made the Misrepresentations intending that the

plaintiffs would reasonably act on the Misrepresentations, and knowing that plaintiffs were

likely to reasonably rely on the Misrepresentations which, if erroneous, would cause loss

or injury.

406. The content of the Misrepresentations includes the following:

a. Misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose material information regarding the 2007-

2009 FIB loans to fund the development of the SBP as set forth above;

b. Misrepresenting SBP as a suitable investment and viable development plan for

plaintiffs to invest in, as set forth above;

c. Failing to identify and/or alert plaintiffs to all material facts regarding the SBP

project development or lack thereof, as set forth above;

d. Misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose the need for additional funding to realize

the SBP, as set forth above;

e. Misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose the use of plaintiffs’ financial

investments in SBP to fund the Mexican bond escrow agreement, as set forth above;

88
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 89 of 170

f. Misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose to plaintiffs that the reconstruction plan

for APD was never funded and that defendants never intended that it would be, as

set forth above;

g. Misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose to plaintiffs defendants’ knowledge of

FIB’s fraudulent claims as creditor to APD’s bankruptcy proceedings, as set forth

above;

h. Misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose to plaintiffs FIB’s multiple attempts to

present claims to the Funds in the CCB accounts, as set forth above;

i. Misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose to plaintiffs that the coal contracts were

a mere sham to justify the FIB loans, as set forth above;

j. Misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose to plaintiffs that CCB went into

receivership after the run on the Bulgarian banks thus compromising the Funds, as

set forth above;

k. Misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose to plaintiffs that FIB had acquired access

to the CCB accounts and that the Funds had been retitled and used to extinguish the

Five Companies’ unrelated CCB loans, as set forth above;

l. Misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose to plaintiffs the interference of the

Second Group to realize the extinguishment of the Five Companies’ CCB debts

with the Funds in order to enable the larger goal of the BT call option and close the

CCB bank accounts, as set forth above;

m. Misrepresenting to plaintiffs that Ayr did not possess the Funds as an asset when

Harris on Ayr’s behalf sought No Asset bankruptcy in Texas when in fact Ayr did,

as set forth above;

89
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 90 of 170

n. Misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose to plaintiffs Peevski’s role in assisting

FIB with FIB’s need for government bailout funds;

o. Failing to disclose to plaintiffs that the Funds were stolen and gone, which fact did

not come to light until Ayr bankruptcy proceedings had run their course in Texas

and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court declared the Funds to be an Ayr asset, by which

time the Funds were long gone, as set forth above;

p. Misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose to plaintiffs that Harris did not and never

intended to take any action to protect the Funds from the onslaught of actions by

the other defendants to obtain the Funds, as set forth above.

407. The Misrepresentations, including the maker, the recipient, and the date and the

place of the transmission of the Misrepresentations, are set out in the Complaint at ¶¶ 40–

44, 47–49, 62–73, 77–104, 106–12, 123–30, 134–56, 140–50, 140–58, 164–73, 179–89,

218–24.

408. The plaintiffs were misled and deceived by the Misrepresentations and did in fact

rely on those Misrepresentations.

409. Their reliance on those Misrepresentations was reasonable and foreseeable.

410. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable consequence of that reliance plaintiffs

sustained loss, injury, and damage.

411. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the Misrepresentations, plaintiffs

have sustained damages in excess of $65 million, the exact amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT XXII
Negligence
(As to Ayr, Harris, Harriott, Angelov, FIB,
Minev, Mutafchiev, Mellon Bank, and Eaton Vance)

412. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate herein by reference as if specifically set forth herein

the averments of paragraphs 1 through 411 of the Complaint.

90
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 91 of 170

413. Harris, Harriott, Angelov, and FIB, they owed a fiduciary duty to plaintiffs arising

out of their contractual and close business relationships and the policies, understandings,

and instructions related thereto as averred above. As such, they each owed plaintiffs a

fiduciary duty including, without limitation, the duties of good faith, fair dealing, honestly,

fairness, full disclosure and loyalty towards plaintiffs, and an obligation not to engage in

self-dealing.

414. Harris, Harriott, Angelov, and FIB knew or should have known they breached that

duty when they took steps to make possible the theft and did in fact steal the Funds and

used them to pay of the Five Companies’ debts at CCB and purchase the Mexican bonds,

which was not the use of the Funds to which plaintiffs had agreed.

415. Harris, Harriott, Angelov, and FIB’s breach of their duty directly, proximately, and

foreseeably caused injury to the plaintiffs in the amount of $65 million.

416. Plaintiffs in fact suffered a loss of approximately $65 million, the exact amount to

be proven at trial.

COUNT XXIII
Negligence
(As to BNB, Lyutov, and Kostadinchev)

417. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate herein by reference as if specifically set forth herein

the averments of paragraphs 1 through 416 of the Complaint.

418. BNB and the two CCB BNB-appointed conservators, Lyutov and Kostadinchev,

owed a fiduciary duty to plaintiffs arising out of their position as financial overseers and

regulators of CCB once CCB was put in receivership by BNB. As such, they each owed

plaintiffs a fiduciary duty including, without limitation, the duties of good faith, fair

dealing, honestly, fairness, full disclosure and loyalty towards plaintiffs, and an obligation

not to engage in self-dealing.

91
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 92 of 170

419. BNB, Lyutov, and Kostadinchev knew or should have known they breached that

duty when they took steps to make possible the theft and did in fact steal the Funds and

used them to pay of the Five Companies’ debts at CCB, which was not the use of the Funds

to which plaintiffs had agreed.

420. BNB, Lyutov, and Kostadinchev breach of their duty directly, proximately, and

foreseeably caused injury to the plaintiffs in the amount of $65 million.

421. Plaintiffs in fact suffered a loss of approximately $65 million, the exact amount to

be proven at trial.

COUNT XXIV
Conversion
(As to all defendants)
422. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate herein by reference as if specifically set forth herein

the averments of paragraphs 1 through 421 of the Complaint.

423. The Funds stolen were specific and identifiable property, namely, a liquid cash

asset in CCB bank accounts, belonging to the plaintiffs.

424. Plaintiffs, as investors in the SBP and as Ayr U.S. bankruptcy proceedings

creditors, had an ownership interest and rightfully possessed and/or were entitled to

control the Funds before they were stolen by the defendants.

425. All defendants exercised unlawful and unauthorized control and dominion over the

Funds when they unlawfully stole them from the plaintiffs and distributed them to purchase

the Mexican Bonds and/or pay off the debts of the Five Companies deriving direct

economic benefit therefrom for themselves.

426. The defendants’ exercise of such unlawful and unauthorized dominion and control

over the Funds altered the Funds’ condition because they unlawfully changed the

ownership status of the bank accounts which housed the Funds in removing APD as the

rightful owner, and excluded plaintiffs from exercising their rights over the Funds and

92
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 93 of 170

unlawfully deprived plaintiffs of those Funds when the Funds were used to pay off

unrelated CCB corporate debts for the sole benefit of defendants.

427. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result, plaintiffs were actually harmed in

the loss of at least approximately $65 million which were stolen from the CCB accounts,

the exact amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT XXV
Civil Conspiracy
(As to all defendants)
428. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate herein by reference as if specifically set forth herein

the averments of paragraphs 1 through 427 of the Complaint.

429. The First Group, defendants Harris, Harriott, Angelov, and FIB combined by

explicit and/or inferred agreement and understanding to accomplish an unlawful act and to

use unlawful means to accomplish an act not itself illegal in furtherance of an explicit

and/or inferred conspiratorial agreement between the First Group and the Second Group

(all defendants) to unlawfully divest plaintiffs of their investment in SBP and interest in

the Funds.

430. The First Group each committed overt acts in furtherance of that agreement

including, inter alia, negotiating and notarizing documents in New York and Texas related

to the SBP Contracts and dealings; opening a bank account in HSBC Bank in New York

allegedly to hold funds purportedly designated for APD’s reorganization and

reconstruction, with no intent to effectuate; fraudulently filing for No Asset bankruptcy for

Ayr in Texas despite the fact that APD owed Ayr wich did hold the Funds as an asset;

failing to take any steps to protect the Funds in CCB from being stolen by FIB to pay off

the Five Companies’ debts; and failing to disclose any of these or other wrongdoings to the

plaintiffs.

93
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 94 of 170

431. The First Group intentionally participated in furthering this common purpose or

plan through fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, breach

of their fiduciary duties, conversion, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and aiding

and abetting to realize the conspiracy.

432. The Second Group participated as co-conspirators intentionally participated in

furthering this common purpose or plan through fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious

interference with contract, negligent misrepresentation, conversion, unjust enrichment, and

aiding and abetting to divest plaintiffs of their investment in order to obtain fees,

commissions, and personal gains, to their sole personal benefit.

433. All defendants as co-conspirators knew, or should have known, of the plan for the

theft of the Funds. All defendants as co-conspirators knew, or should have known, that the

cover-up of that theft constituted misrepresentation and deceit, and an unlawful conspiracy

to wrongfully divest plaintiffs of their property amounting to an international criminal

enterprise. All defendants as co-conspirators of each other knew of, or should have known

of, and recklessly disregarded the wrongful conduct of the others, and failed to supervise,

review, or report on the wrongful conduct which led to the Funds being stolen, and

facilitated the wrongful conduct of the other conspirators by such failures.

434. As a consequence of participation in this conspiracy, all defendants and each of

them are liable for the misconduct of the other members of the conspiracy.

435. All defendants conspired to ensure that the Funds were appropriated for their

benefit and profit, with the direct, proximate, and foreseeable loss and damage to plaintiffs

including the loss of the benefit of their bargain, increased costs, expenses and fees, loss

of profits, loss of business opportunity and loss of business reputation and relationships,

94
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 95 of 170

specifically in the amount of $65 million, the exact amount to be proven at trial, pursuant

to and in furtherance of the common scheme and agreement of the defendants.

COUNT XXVI
Civil RICO 18 U.S.C. 1962(a)–(c)
(As to all defendants)
436. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate herein by reference as if specifically set forth herein

the averments of paragraphs 1 through 435 of the Complaint.

437. Plaintiffs each are a “person” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1961(3) and 18

U.S.C. 1964(c) and bring this action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)–(c) of the Racketeer

Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (hereinafter “RICO”).

438. Defendants each are a “person” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1961(3).

Predicate Acts
Mail Fraud and Wire Fraud

439. Beginning in at least July 2007, and continuing through at least 2016, the First

Group and Second Group perpetrated a massive fraud against the plaintiffs (see supra ¶¶

40–44, 47–49, 62–73, 77–104, 106–12, 123–30, 134–56, 140–50, 140–58, 164–73, 179–

89, 218–24).

440. In conducting their part of the fraudulent scheme, the First Group made extensive

use of the mail and wire in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud) and 18 U.S.C. § 1343

(wire fraud). Without limitation, instructions to open U.S. banking accounts, carry out

activities in furtherance of the fraud, material misrepresentations made to plaintiffs, and

the negotiation, finalization, and notarization of documents in furtherance of the fraud were

sent by the First Group or their authorized agents via mail and wire to and from the United

States, and specifically to and from New York.

95
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 96 of 170

441. The fraud would not have been possible had the First Group, their entities, and their

authorized agents not used the mail and wire to send and receive the communications in

and out of New York.

442. The First Group in particular, as fiduciaries to the plaintiffs, had a duty to disclose

the series of transactions pursuant to which they and the Second Group stole the Funds

which rightfully belonged to the plaintiffs. Not only did they fail to disclose the defendants’

self-dealing transactions and fraudulent schemes, Harris affirmatively misled the plaintiffs

by providing them with oral and written reports in which he misstated, misrepresented,

failed to accurately disclose, and actively concealed the state of the SBP project as well as

APD and Ayr’s financial affairs related to plaintiffs’ investments therein. The purpose of

the First Group’s fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions was to hide the fraud and

allow all the defendants to continue their concerted scheme to obtain the Funds and

associated personal gain related thereto.

443. The plaintiffs relied on the First Group’s misrepresentations and omissions, which

allowed the defendants to steal more than $65 million from the plaintiffs without detection.

Had the First Group disclosed the defendants’ self-dealing, including, but not limited to,

the theft of the Funds, the plaintiffs would not have permitted the transactions in question

and would have certainly ended all business dealings with defendants regarding the SBP.

444. The defendants’ fraudulent scheme gives rise to numerous predicate acts of mail

and wire fraud under RICO. These acts include, but are not limited to:

a. Email exchanges on or about October 13, 2010 between Harris in the U.S. and FIB

in Bulgaria discussing and memorializing Ayr’s commitment to undertake

repayment of the three FIB construction loans of 2007, 2008, and 2009.

96
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 97 of 170

b. FIB authorized and enabled the proceeds by way of FIB-authorized and -issued

payment orders sent through the SWIFT banking communications system to Bank

of Valletta on the following dates: November 26, 2007; November 29, 2007;

November 30, 2007; December 3, 2007; October 8, 2008; December 31, 2009; and

January 20, 2010. Thereafter, these payments made through the SWIFT system

were converted into a U.S. dollars transaction and necessarily processed through

New York, and further through the SWIFT system was transferred to Banco

Popular Dominicano, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.

c. Email exchanges on or about June 26, June 28, 2013 and December 31, 2013,

between Harris in the U.S. and Tomov in Bulgaria in which Harris three times

fraudulently and deceitfully failed to admit knowledge of the scheme with FIB to

steal the Funds, or knowledge of any other wrongdoing related thereto.

445. The scheme between the First Group and the Second Group could not and would

not have been carried out without these instances of wire and mail fraud.

446. These multiple and frequent acts of mail and wire fraud establish a pattern of

racketeering and, further, give context to the defendants’ racketeering activity that persisted

for years.

Violations of the Travel Act

447. Upon information and belief, Harris, Harriott, and Angelov travelled to and from

the U.S., including New York, many times to conduct activities pursuant to the SBP.

Because Ayr is based in the United States and the center of gravity of the U.S.-arm of the

racketeering activity was in New York, Harris, Harriott, and Angelov frequently had to

travel to that state to carry out their illicit scheme in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952 (the

“Travel Act”).

97
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 98 of 170

448. The scheme between the First Group and the Second Group could not and would

not have been carried out without Harris, Harriott, and Angelov traveling to the U.S. to

effect certain transactions.

449. Harris, Harriott, Angelov, and FIB’s scheme gives rise to several predicate

violations of the Travel Act under RICO. These acts include, but, are not limited to:

a. In 2007, Angelov traveled from Bulgaria to meet with Harris in the U.S. to approach

Harris with the proposal to participate in development of the SBP.

b. Travel to Texas to notarize on or about June 4, 2010, the “Mortgage Receivables

Sale and Purchase Agreement” between Ayr and FIB for the SBP.

c. Angelov also traveled in and around the United States in March 2009, in the

summer of 2010, and from November 2010 to March 2011 to meet with Harris and

Harriott to discuss and carry out activities pursuant to the fraud.

450. These violations establish a pattern of racketeering and, further, give context to the

defendants’ racketeering activity that persisted for years.

Violations of Chapter 11 of the U.S. Code

451. On October 10, 2014, Harris fraudulently filed for “No Asset” bankruptcy on behalf

of Ayr under chapter 11 of the United States Code when, in fact, Ayr held the following:

(1) APD, and (2) the Funds in CCB in Bulgarian.

452. On or about December 3, 2014, Ayr, through Harris, was compelled by the U.S.

bankruptcy trustee to amend Ayr’s U.S. bankruptcy schedules to reflect that Ayr owned

APD.

453. However, he continued to perpetrate his fraud by not including Ayr’s asset in the

Funds, which compelled the U.S. trustee to hire Special Counsel Tomov to bring a lawsuit,

98
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 99 of 170

the result of which was the U.S. bankruptcy court found the Funds were due to Ayr and

belonged to Ayr as an asset.

454. The scheme between the First Group and the Second Group could not and would

not have been carried out without Harris fraudulently filing for No Asset bankruptcy which

bought the Second Group the additional time it needed and permitted FIB to get around the

automatic stay placed on Ayr assets and perpetrate the theft of the Funds. Harris

purposefully used the filing of No Asset bankruptcy to participate in and create a bridge

the criminal activity of the First Group and the Second Group.

455. These violations establish a pattern of racketeering and, further, give context to the

defendants’ racketeering activity that persisted for years.

Enterprise
456. The SBP, what otherwise would have been a viable business undertaking and

development project, constituted an enterprise within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4)

and was the first (the “First Enterprise”) of two enterprises which were the instruments

defendants commandeered and used as vehicles to participate in, conspire, and profit from

the scheme to rob the plaintiffs of their investments in the SBP.

457. CCB, which otherwise was a viable commercial bank, constituted an enterprise

within the meaning 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) and was the second (the “Second Enterprise”) of

two enterprises which were the instruments defendants commandeered and used as vehicles

to participate in, conspire, and profit from the scheme to rob the plaintiffs of their

investments in the SBP.

458. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Complaint, the First Enterprise

engaged in, or its activities affected, interstate and/or foreign commerce. The defendants

received and used monies from plaintiffs, who are of diverse citizenships including U.S.,

under the fraudulent guise of developing SBP pursuant to the First Enterprise.

99
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 100 of 170

459. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Complaint, the Second Enterprise

engaged in, or its activities affected, interstate and/or foreign commerce. Through the

Second Enterprise, defendants fraudulently funneled plaintiffs’ investments into various

banks, telecommunication company and cigarette manufacturing and distribution

businesses and channels touching the U.S., European Union, Russian, Middle Eastern, and

other interstate markets and aspects of foreign commerce as averred above.

460. The concerted purpose of the First Enterprise and the Second Enterprise was,

through a series of illicit and illegal devises (principally through fraud and conversion), to

wrongfully obtain, either directly or indirectly, the investment in the SBP that belonged to

the plaintiffs in the approximate amount of $65 million.

461. The First Group, through the leadership of Harris and FIB, masterminded the

scheme as to the First Enterprise and their participation in the First Enterprise, along with

the participation of the rest of the defendants (see supra ¶¶ 40–44, 47–49, 62–73, 77–104,

106–12, 123–30, 134–36).

462. The Second Group, through the leadership of Peevski, masterminded the scheme

as to the Second Enterprise and their participation in the Second Enterprise, along with the

participation of the rest of the defendants (see supra ¶¶ 137–58, 164–73, 179–89, 218–

24).

463. Upon information and belief, the First Enterprise and the Second Enterprise

includes other individuals and entities whose identities are not currently known.

464. The major asset targeted by the defendants through the First Enterprise and Second

Enterprise, the Funds from the sale of the SBP land in APD’s bankruptcy proceedings in

Bulgaria, was deemed an asset of Ayr in its bankruptcy proceedings in U.S. Bankruptcy

Court in Texas and therefore its loss and the loss of plaintiffs’ legal claim to those funds

100
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 101 of 170

through the U.S. bankruptcy proceedings were each a domestic injury suffered by plaintiffs

in the United States.

465. Negotiations and notarization of documents related to the SBP scheme occurred in

the U.S. including in New York and Texas, and New York bank HSBC Bank was employed

by defendants to perpetrate their claim that money to fund the reconstruction and

reorganization of APD to save the SBP from bankruptcy would be transferred from HSBC

Bank, New York. This was never the case.

466. The above-listed racketeering activity consisted of two or more incidents of

racketeering activity committed by the defendants. The predicate acts, including the

scheme undertaken against the plaintiffs, were committed within ten (10) years of each

other, had continuity, and were related pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5).

467. These acts of racketeering constituted a pattern of racketeering activity within the

meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5) and were interrelated by distinguishing characteristics, in

that they had the same purpose, results, participants, victim, and methods of commission,

and in part were directed at the same victim or victims: the plaintiffs.

468. This racketeering activity was a regular way of conducting the First Enterprise and

the Second Enterprise and each member’s participation in the Enterprise.

469. Upon information and belief, the Second Enterprise continues to this day, as CCB

is subject to bankruptcy proceedings in Bulgaria as a result of the theft of the Funds and

the defendants have attempted to conceal the scheme and thwart plaintiffs’ efforts to

investigate and uncover the full scope of the fraud, including, specifically, by threatening

and instituting frivolous legal proceedings against Tomov to discourage and frighten him

from pursuing these claims against the defendants.

Relatedness and Continuity

101
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 102 of 170

470. From at least 2007 and continuing through 2016, in the Southern District of New

York and elsewhere, the defendants repeatedly engaged in acts indictable under 18 U.S.C.

§§ 1341 (relating to mail fraud), 1343 (relating to wire fraud), 1952 (relating to the Travel

Act), and fraud in connection with a case under chapter 11, and thereby continually

engaged in racketeering activity within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1).

471. Defendants’ violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, 1952, and fraud in connection

with a case under chapter 11 extended over a period of years and involved distinct and

independent criminal acts. They were neither isolated nor sporadic events, but involved

regular and repeated violation of law to accomplish the Enterprise’s purpose. These acts

were related to each other by virtue of (a) common participants: the First Group and the

Second Group; (b) a common victim: the plaintiffs, either directly or indirectly through

their dealings with the First Group related to the SBP; (c) common methods of commission:

complicated financial, corporate, business, and shareholder transactions effectuated

through offshore banks, shell companies, and transfer of funds among various banks to

hide the theft of the Funds, all designed to obfuscate the transfer of wealth from the

plaintiffs to the defendants; and (d) the common purpose of looting the Funds belonging to

the plaintiffs regarding the SBP.

Injury
472. As a proximate, direct, and foreseeable result of the defendants’ violations of RICO,

18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)-(c), plaintiffs were injured in their business or property by reason of

these violations in that, as a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the First Enterprise

and Second Enterprise’s acts, plaintiffs suffered damages, including the loss of the benefit

of their bargain, increased costs, expenses and fees, loss of profits, loss of business

opportunity and loss of business reputation and relationships, and fear of economic loss as

102
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 103 of 170

well as actual economic loss. Specifically, plaintiffs suffered a loss of their investment of

at least $65 million, the exact amount to be proven at trial.

473. In addition, the scheme left the finances of APD and Ayr in a state of complete

crisis, resulting in the bankruptcy of both companies and subsequent negative reverse

domino effect in their backlash on their shareholders, creditors, investors and plaintiffs.

COUNT XXVII
Civil Rico 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)
(As to all defendants)
474. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate herein by reference as if specifically set forth herein

the averments of paragraphs 1 through 473 of the Complaint.

475. All defendants unlawfully, knowingly, and willfully conspired to commit activities

prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)–(c) as described above, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

1962(d).

476. The defendants knew that they were engaged in a conspiracy to commit the

predicate acts described above and knew that the predicate acts were part of such

racketeering activity, and that participation and agreement was necessary to allow the

commission of this pattern of racketeering activity.

477. The defendants all knowingly agreed to conduct or participate directly or indirectly

in the conduct, management, or operation of the First Enterprise and Second Enterprise’s

scheme to steal from the plaintiffs.

478. The defendants’ violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) directly, proximately, and

foreseeably caused the plaintiffs to suffer the injury described above.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request judgment against the above-named

Defendants as follows:

I. With respect to the First Cause of Action (Piercing the Corporate Veil and Alter Ego):

103
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 104 of 170

i. Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and severally;

ii. Damages in an amount no less than $200,000,000, the exact amount of which to be

determined at trial;

iii. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;

iv. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

v. Declaratory judgment that Defendant Harris is the alter ego of Ayr; and

vi. Such other, further and different relief as this Court deems just and proper.

II. With respect to the Second Cause of Action (Piercing the Corporate Veil and Alter Ego):

i. Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and severally;

ii. Damages in an amount no less than $200,000,000, the exact amount of which to be

determined at trial;

iii. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;

iv. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

v. Declaratory judgment that Defendants Minev, Mutafchiev, Mellon Bank, Eaton

Vance iare the alter egos of FIB; and

vi. Such other, further and different relief as this Court deems just and proper.

III. With respect to the Third Cause of Action (Piercing the Corporate Veil and Alter Ego):

i. Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and severally;

ii. Damages in an amount no less than $200,000,000, the exact amount of which to be

determined at trial;

iii. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;

iv. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

v. Declaratory judgment that Defendant Harriott is the alter ego of Grant Capital; and

vi. Such other, further and different relief as this Court deems just and proper.

104
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 105 of 170

IV. With respect to the Fourth Cause of Action (Piercing the Corporate Veil and Alter Ego):

i. Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and severally;

ii. Damages in an amount no less than $200,000,000, the exact amount of which to be

determined at trial;

iii. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;

iv. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

v. Declaratory judgment that Defendant Angelov is the alter ego of Blue Finance and

All Seas Management; and

vi. Such other, further and different relief as this Court deems just and proper.

V. With respect to the Fifth Cause of Action (Fraudulent Transfer of Debtor’s Interest in

Property):

i. Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and severally;

ii. Damages in an amount no less than $200,000,000, the exact amount of which to be

determined at trial;

iii. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law; and

iv. Such other, further and different relief as this Court deems just and proper.

VI. With respect to the Sixth Cause of Action (Breach of Contract):

i. Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and severally;

ii. Damages in an amount no less than $200,000,000, the exact amount of which to be

determined at trial;

iii. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law; and

iv. Such other, further and different relief as this Court deems just and proper.

VII. With respect to the Seventh Cause of Action (Breach of Contract):

i. Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and severally;

105
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 106 of 170

ii. Damages in an amount no less than $200,000,000, the exact amount of which to be

determined at trial;

iii. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law; and

iv. Such other, further and different relief as this Court deems just and proper.

VIII. With respect to the Eighth Cause of Action (Breach of Contract):

i. Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and severally;

ii. Damages in an amount no less than $200,000,000, the exact amount of which to be

determined at trial;

iii. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law; and

iv. Such other, further and different relief as this Court deems just and proper.

IX. With respect to the Ninth Cause of Action (Tortious Interference with Contract):

i. Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and severally;

ii. Damages in an amount no less than $200,000,000, the exact amount of which to be

determined at trial;

iii. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;

iv. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial; and

v. Such other, further and different relief as this Court deems just and proper.

X. With respect to the Tenth Cause of Action (Breach of Fiduciary Duty):

i. Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and severally;

ii. Damages in an amount no less than $200,000,000, the exact amount of which to be

determined at trial;

iii. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law; and

iv. Such other, further and different relief as this Court deems just and proper.

XI. With respect to the Eleventh Cause of Action (Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary

Duty):

106
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 107 of 170

i. Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and severally;

ii. Damages in an amount no less than $200,000,000, the exact amount of which to be

determined at trial;

iii. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law; and

iv. Such other, further and different relief as this Court deems just and proper.

XII. With respect to the Twelfth Cause of Action (Breach of Fiduciary Duty):

i. Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and severally;

ii. Damages in an amount no less than $200,000,000, the exact amount of which to be

determined at trial;

iii. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law; and

iv. Such other, further and different relief as this Court deems just and proper.

XIII. With respect to the Thirteenth Cause of Action (Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary
Duty):
i. Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and severally;

ii. Damages in an amount no less than $200,000,000, the exact amount of which to be

determined at trial;

iii. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law; and

iv. Such other, further and different relief as this Court deems just and proper.

XIV. With respect to the Fourteenth Cause of Action (Unjust Enrichment):

i. Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and severally;

ii. Damages in an amount no less than $200,000,000, the exact amount of which to be

determined at trial;

iii. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;

iv. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial; and

v. Such other, further and different relief as this Court deems just and proper.

107
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 108 of 170

XV. With respect to the Fifteenth Cause of Action (Fraudulent Concealment):

i. Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and severally;

ii. Damages in an amount no less than $200,000,000, the exact amount of which to be

determined at trial;

iii. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law; and

iv. Such other, further and different relief as this Court deems just and proper.

XVI. With respect to the Sixteenth Cause of Action (Fraudulent Concealment):

i. Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and severally;

ii. Damages in an amount no less than $200,000,000, the exact amount of which to be

determined at trial;

iii. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;

iv. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial; and

v. Such other, further and different relief as this Court deems just and proper.

XVII. With respect to the Seventeenth Cause of Action (Fraud):

i. Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and severally;

ii. Damages in an amount no less than $200,000,000, the exact amount of which to be

determined at trial;

iii. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;

iv. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial; and

v. Such other, further and different relief as this Court deems just and proper.

XVIII. With respect to the Eighteenth Cause of Action (Aiding and Abetting Fraud):

i. Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and severally;

ii. Damages in an amount no less than $200,000,000, the exact amount of which to be

determined at trial;

108
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 109 of 170

iii. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;

iv. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial; and

v. Such other, further and different relief as this Court deems just and proper.

XIX. With respect to the Nineteenth Cause of Action (Fraudulent Conveyance by Insolvent):

i. Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and severally;

ii. Damages in an amount no less than $200,000,000, the exact amount of which to be

determined at trial;

iii. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law; and

iv. Such other, further and different relief as this Court deems just and proper.

XX. With respect to the Twentieth Cause of Action (Conveyance Made with Intent to Defraud):

i. Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and severally;

ii. Damages in an amount no less than $200,000,000, the exact amount of which to be

determined at trial;

iii. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;

iv. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial; and

v. Such other, further and different relief as this Court deems just and proper.

XXI. With respect to the Twenty-first Cause of Action (Negligent Misrepresentation):

i. Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and severally;

ii. Damages in an amount no less than $200,000,000, the exact amount of which to be

determined at trial;

iii. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law; and

iv. Such other, further and different relief as this Court deems just and proper.

XXII. With respect to the Twenty-second Cause of Action (Negligence):

i. Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and severally;

109
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 110 of 170

ii. Damages in an amount no less than $200,000,000, the exact amount of which to be

determined at trial;

iii. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law; and

iv. Such other, further and different relief as this Court deems just and proper.

XXIII. With respect to the Twenty-third Cause of Action (Negligence):

i. Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and severally;

ii. Damages in an amount no less than $200,000,000, the exact amount of which to be

determined at trial;

iii. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law; and

iv. Such other, further and different relief as this Court deems just and proper.

XXIV. With respect to the Twenty-fourth Cause of Action (Conversion):

i. Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and severally;

ii. Damages in an amount no less than $200,000,000, the exact amount of which to be

determined at trial;

iii. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law; and

iv. Such other, further and different relief as this Court deems just and proper.

XXV. With respect to the Twenty-fifth Cause of Action (Civil Conspiracy):

i. Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and severally;

ii. Damages in an amount no less than $200,000,000, the exact amount of which to be

determined at trial;

iii. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;

iv. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial; and

v. Such other, further and different relief as this Court deems just and proper.

XXVI. With respect to the Twenty-sixth Cause of Action (Civil RICO 18 U.S.C. 1962(a)–(c)):

110
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 111 of 170

i. Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and

severally;
Damages in an amount no less than $200,000,000, the exact amount of which to be determined at

trial;

ii. Pursuant to RICO, reasonable attorney's fees, the costs of suit and all expenses and

disbursements incurred in this action;

iii. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;

iv. Pursuant to RICO, treble damages in addition to any other damages to which the

victim is entitled pursuant to common law or other provisions of the statutory code; and

v. Such other, further and different relief as this Court deems just and proper.

XXVII. With respect to the Twenty-seventh Cause of Action (Civil RICO 18 U.S.C.

1962(d)):

i. Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and severally;

Damages in an amount no less than $200,000,000, the exact amount of which to be determined at

trial;

ii. Pursuant to RICO, reasonable attorney's fees, the costs of suit and all expenses and

disbursements incurred in this action;

iii. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;

iv. Pursuant to RICO, treble damages in addition to any other damages to which the

victim is entitled pursuant to common law or other provisions of the statutory code; and

v. Such other, further and different relief as this Court deems just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs demand trial by jury on all issues and counts so triable.

111
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 112 of 170

/s/ Sylvia J. Rolinski

SYLVIA J. ROLINSKI, ESQ.
New York Bar No. SR 7798
Rolinski Law Group, LLC
14915 River Road
Potomac, MD 20854
Office +1-301-987-0202 ext. 1
Fax +1-301-263-7100
sjr@Rolinski.com

November 27, 2018 Attorney for Plaintiffs

112
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 113 of 170

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
(SOUTHERN DIVISION)
)
RUDERSDAL, EOOD, )
)
ALL SEAS PROPERTY 2, OOD, )
)
ASSET MANAGEMENT, EAD, )
)
ZAHARI TOMOV, )
)
Plaintiffs, ) Case No. 18-cv-11072
)
v. ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
PHILIP ROBERT HARRIS, )
)
AYR LOGISTICS LIMITED, INC., )
)
ANTHONY DENNIS HARRIOTT, )
)
GRANT CAPITAL )
INVESTMENTS, LTD., )
)
FIRST INVESTMENT BANK, AD, )
)
TSEKO TODOROV MINEV, )
)
IVAILO DIMITROV MUTAFCHIEV, )
)
CHAVDAR ANGELOV ANGELOV, )
)
BLUE FINANCE LIMITED, )
)
ALL SEAS MANAGEMENT, LTD., )
)
DELYAN SLAVCHEV PEEVSKI, )
)
NSN INVESTMENT, EOOD, )
)
BULGARTABAC HOLDING, AD, )
)
BULGARIAN NATIONAL BANK, )
)
STANISLAV GEORGIEV LYUTOV, )
)
ELENA ZDRAVKOVA )
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 114 of 170

KOSTADINCHEV, )
)
TABAK MARKET, AD, )
)
CIBOLE SERVICES INCORPORATED, )
BULGARIA, EOOD, )
)
ASTERIA BG, EOOD )
a/k/a DROSLIAN BULGARIA, EOOD, )
)
VILI VIST, EAD, )
)
PROMISHLENO STROITELSTVO )
HOLDING, EAD, )
)
THE BANK OF NEW YORK )
MELLON CORPORATION, )
)
EATON VANCE STRUCTURED )
EMERGING MARKETS )
EQUITY FUND, LLC, )
)
THE BANK FOR FOREIGN TRADE OF )
THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, )
a/k/a VTB BANK )
)
Defendants. )

EXHIBITS
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 115 of 170

EXHIBIT A
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 116 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 117 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 118 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 119 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 120 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 121 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 122 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 123 of 170

EXHIBIT B
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 124 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 125 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 126 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 127 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 128 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 129 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 130 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 131 of 170

EXHIBIT C
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 132 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 133 of 170

EXHIBIT D
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 134 of 170
(/)peR ~C' Preya
:JT{paHCJ\£UlU'bHC cy'rans{ations r
TipeBO):\H OT H Ha qy)I():(H e3HU:H
rp. BapHa, yn. H. BanljapoB NQ 3, BX. I, eT. 8, o¢1o1c 21, Ten. +359 52 712 522, cjlaKc +359 52 712 533
e-mail: !r.,y§(c§O?I§(ic:>O?@.gmail.cc:>m
Translation from Bulgarian

AGREEMENT CIIOPA3YMEHHE

This Agreement was signed this 28'' March )],nee, 28.03.2012 ro)1., n rp. Bapna,
2012 at Varna, Bulgaria, by and between Bonrap11ll, ce n0)1lii1Ca HaCTOlll.l.\OTO
the persons holding interest in the approval cnopa3yMenl1e
of the Reorganization Plan as proposed by 11111.\a OT 0)106peHI1eTO Ha 03)1paBI1TeiiHI15!
Ayr Logistics _Limited, Inc., Texas, USA, nnaH npeAJIO)I(eH OT Eop Jl0)1)1(11CT11KC
("Ayr") in the bankruptcy proceedings of Jli1MI1TeA I1HK (l.l.\aT TeKcac, CAll.() n
Ayr Property Development AD (Ayr's npo113B0/1CTBOTO no HeCbCTOl!TeiiHOCT Ha Eop
investment vehicle) before the District ITponopTII )J,enenonMbHT A)J,
Court of Targovishte, Bulgaria, ("the (11HBeCTI1l.\110HHO npeATIPIIliTI!e na Eop
Bankruptcy Court") hearing commercial JlOA)I(IICTI1KC Jli1MI!TeA I1HK), BOAeHO npeA
case No.l4/20l l ("the bankruptcy case"). 0Kpb)I(HI1ll Cb/1 Ha rp.ToprOBIII.l.\e, bbllrap115!
The Bankruptcy Court in its ruling of IS'" (TDproncKo geno N' 14/2011 rog11Ha),
February 2012 has scheduled a meeting of pa3rlle)l()1aHeTo 11 rnacynaHeTo Ha KOHTO
the creditors of Ayr Property Development 03ApaBI1TeJieH flllaH OT Cb6paHIIeTO Ha
AD ("APD") for 17'' April 2012 to KpeAIITOpHTe Ha Eop ITporrupTII
deliberate and vote on the reorganization )J,enenonMDHT A)J,, e nacpo<reHo 3a
plan for APD ("the Reorganization 17.04.2012 roA., c·brnacHo onpeAenenHe Ha
Plan"). Cb)1a no HeCbCTOl!TeiiHOCTTa OT
15.02.2012rOA.
WHEREAS,
(A) HacTOlll.l.\OTO cnopa3yMeHHe ce no11n11ca
A. This Agreement was signed upon due Clleg npegnap!!TeiiHO 06Cb)l()1aHe, npOBeAeHO
discussion thereof as requested by the no HCKaHe Ha Clle)1HHTe Kpe)1HTOpHTe Ha Eop
following creditors of APD: ITponopTH )J,enenonMbHT:

• All Seas Property 2 OOD ("ASP2") • On Cmo\3 ITponopTH 2 00)], (OCIT 2),
having an account receivable ("AR") 4HeTO nap114HO e
in the amount of EUR 10.000,000 (ten HOMHHHpaHO B 03ApaBHTeiiHI1ll n11aH
million Euros) owed to them and 3a H3nllal.l.\aHe n pa3Mep Ha 10 000 000
negotiated for recovery under the (AeCeT MHIIHOHa eepo) nocpe)1CTBOM
proposed Reorganization Plan by way TpaHccpopMal.\Hl!Ta MY B aKl.\HOHepno
of transforming said AR into shares of yqacTHe n KanHTana na Hro Ko
stock in the capital of New Co ITponopTH l1nnecTMbHT A)J,,
Property Investment AD ("New Co"), npHTe)l(anaHO OT Eop JlOA)I(HCT11KC
a company Ayr has acquired for the JlHMHTeA l1HK BbB Bpb3Ka C npOeKTa
purposes of the Eco Dream Project - "EKo )J,p!!i\M" - Pa3)1eJI V "<PopMy Jia
as er the Section V of the
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 135 of 170
2

Reorganization Plan: "Liquidation neoanKoBHTe Kpe~HTopH na E'hp

Formula for the Receivables of APD's Ilpon'bpTH LJ:eueJionM'hnT ALl: c
Non-Bank Creditor.\' with Claims npHeTo B3eMane 3a
Accepted for Sati.1jaction under y~ouJieTuopJiuane no '1!1. 722, aJI.l ,
Art.722 Para I (8) of the Commerce T .8 na T3" OT 03/lpam1TellnHD nnan;
Acl ";
• AceT MeHH/I)!(MbnT EAA (ACET),
• Asset Management EAD ("Asset") <IHeTO napH<InO B3eMaHe e
having an account receivable ("AR") nOMHnHpano B 03/lpaBHTeJIHH5! nJiaH
in the amount of EUR 1.300,000 (one 3a H3IIJiaJJJ,ane B pa3Mep na I 300 000
million and three hundred thousand (e/IHn MHJIHOn H TpHCTa XHJ15!/IH eBpO)
Euros) owed to them and negotiated nocpe/ICTBOM TpanccpopMal\HDTa MY B
for recovery under the proposed aKl\HOnepno Y'IaCTHe B KanHTana na
Reorganization Plan by way of H10 Ko ITponbpTH HHJleCTMbHT A)];,
transforming said AR into shares of npHTe)!(asano OT Ebp JlO!I)!(HCTHKC
stock in the capital of New Co, a JlHMHTe/1 linK BbB Bp'b3Ka C npOeKTa
company Ayr has acquired for the "EKo )J;pHiiM"- Pa3/IC!I V "ll>opMyJia
purposes of the Eco Dream Project - no JIHKBH/Ia~Hll na B3CMannDTa na
as per the Section V of the neoanKOBJITC KPC/IliTOpH na E'hp
Reorganization Plan "Liquidation Ilpon'LpTH )J;eueJIOIIM'LHT ALl: c
Formula for the Receivables of APD's npneTo B3eMane 3a
Non-Bank Creditors with Claims YIIOB!ICTBOpDuane rro '1!1. 722, aJI.l ,
Accepted for Satisfaction under T.8 na T3" na 03/lpaunTeJinnD
Art.722 Para I (8) of the Commerce nnan;
Act"
B. ASP2 and Asset requested this (E) HacTODJJJ,OTO cnopa3yMenHe e H3HCKano
Agreement to be concluded as a oT cTpana na OCI12 11 AceT KaTO 6e3ycnoHHO
condition to be met before they agree to ycnos11e 3a nO/IKpenaTa na 03/lpaBI!TeJIHH5!
support the Reorganization Plan for rrnan na Ebp JlO!I)!(HCTHKC JlHMHTe/1 liHK,
APD as proposed by Ayr for the npe/IO)!(eH 3a Ebp ITponbpTH )J;eaenonMbHT
following considerations: A)];, H MOTHBHpano CbC cne/IHI!Te
Cb06pa)!(eHI!5!:
• The Reorganization Plan relies on the
0
03/lpaBHTeJinHDT JIJian e pecpep11pan C
financial support to be provided by
IIOAKperraTa Ha ¢~-t:HaHCOBHTe aKTYIBYI ua
Mr. Anthony Harriott as instructed by
r-n AnTbnll Xap!!bT, 11eilcTBaJJJ, rro
Ayr and in furtherance of the Contract Bb3narane na Ebp JlO!I)!(HCTHKC JlHMHTe/1
of Mandate Ayr and Mr Harriott linK, Cbrnacno nollnHcanHD 3a 1.\eJITa
executed on 19'h January 2011 in that /\OroBOp 3a Man11aT OT 19.01.2011 r.,
regard, and in the fashion agreed in the TaKa KaKTO TOBa e nOCO'leno B
Memorandum of Ayr Logistics nO/InHcanHl! Ha 02-03 101111 2011 r.
Limited, Inc.'s Commitment to Provide "MeMopaH/IYM 3a cpnnancouo
Financially for the Reorganization ocnrypJiuane na 03/lpaunTeJIHHD rrJian
Plan Intended to Repay Liabilities and na E'hp Jio~JKHcTnKc JIHMHTC/1 linK 1a
Discharge Obligations of Ayr n3nJia~ane
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 136 of 170
3

Properly Development AD, Bulgaria, 33):1'LJilKeiiHRT3 113 E'Lp ITpon'LpTn

to its Creditors, signed on 2"" and 3'' Jl:eoeJionM'LIIT A.!l: K'LM Kpe):lnTopnTe
July 2011. None of the commitments 113 E'Lp ITpon'LpTH Jl:eoeJIOIIM'LIIT A.!l:".
or promises made thereunder has ITouacTOl!lJ.IeM, HHTO e)1HH OT rroeTHTe c
ever been fulfilled; T03H MeMopaHAYM aura)I(HMeHTH ue e
H3ITbJIHeH.
• On 2"" December 2011 a meeting of • Ha rrpooe)1eHOTO Cb6paHHe Ha
APD creditors took place where Ayr's Kpe)1HTOpHTe Ha Ebp ITponbpTH
President and General Manager Mr. Jl:eseJionMbHT A.!l:, ua 02.12.2011 r.,
Philip Harris confirmed and restated flpe3HJ1CHTbT II I'enepaJieH MeHHJ1)1(bp Ha
that funds in the amount of Ebp flOJ1)1(HCTHKC flHMHTe/~ l'IuK, r-H
225,000,000 (two hundred and twenty <!>HJIHn XapHc, noTBbpJ1H <j:muaucooa
five million Euros) were secured and OCHrypeHOCT Ha 03)1paoHTeJIHHl! H Ha
tn place for implementing the HHBeCTHI..\HOHHHl! nJiaH B o6eM Ha 225
Reorganization Plan. He set 15'' 000 000 (J1BeCTa )1Ba)1eCeT II neT MHJIHOHa
February 2012 as the deadline before eopo), noco'!sai1KH Kpaeu cpoK 3a
or on which all the necessary bank cua6)1l!Bane ua 03J1paoHTeJIHHl! nJiaH c
BCH'!KH npe)1BH)1eHH B Hero 6aHKOBH
deposits and guarantees for the
rapaHI..\HH II )1en03HTH B cpOK /\0
implementation of the Reorganization
15.02.2012 r. BbnpeKII Te3H ysepeHHll,
Plan would be in place. Despite those
110 15.02.2012 r., 3a KOl!TO AaTa e
assurances, however, 15'' February HaCpO'!eHO CJie)1BalJ.IOTO Cb6paHHe Ha
2012 - the deadline set and the date of Kpe)1HTOpHTe, KOeTO )1a pa3rJie)1a H
the Creditors' meeting scheduled to l'Jiacyaa 03ApaoHTeJIHIIl! nJiaH, Ebp
discuss and vote on the Reorganization fl0)1)1(HCTIIKC flHMHTe)1 l'JHK He Ca
Plan- came to pass inconsequentially. H3nbJIHHJIII noeTIITe aura)I(HMeHTH 3a
npe)1CTaBl!He Ha 06elJ.IaHHTe )1eiT03HTH H
• On IS'' December 2011 another rapaHI..\HH BcpoK 110 15.02.2012 r.
meeting of the Creditors of APD was
held and Ayr confirmed before the • Ha npooe)1eHo cb6panlle na KpeAHTOpHTe
na Ebp ITponbpTII Jl:eoeJionMbHT AJl: OT
Meeting that a deposit of USD
11an 15.12.2011 r., Ebp flOJ1)1(HCTHKC
22,000,000 (twenty two million US
flHMIITe)1 l'JHK nOTBbp/111 HaJIH'!HeTO Ha
dollars) had been made. Said funds
OTKpHT Ha'!aJieH )1en03HT B o6eM 22 000
were intended to be the initial amount 000 (ABa)\eCeT H )1Ba MIIJIIIOHa lJ.IaTCKH
dedicated to the Reorganization Plan Jwrrapa), npe)1Ha3Ha'leH 3a BCTbnHTerreH
and had to be remitted in portions to 6arraHc no 03J1pamneJIHHl! nrrau, J1bJI)I(HM
the special lawyer's account with no OTKpiiTaTa 3a l(eJITa CnCI..\HaJIHa
UniCredit Bulbank AD within 1" 3J1BOKaTcKa cMeTKa o Yn11Kpe)1HT
March 2012 - 15'" April 2012. Eyrr6auK AJl:, o nep11011a 01.03.2012-
Discussion and voting of the 15.04.2012 ro)1. 06cb)I(J1aHeTo H
Reorganization Plan for APD was rrracyoaueTo na 03J1panHTeJIHHl! nrraH
once again rescheduled, this time for OTHOBO e OTJIO)I(ei!O 3a 17.04.2012 r.
17'' April 2012.

C. Having being assured on a number of

subsequent occasions that Ayr would
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 137 of 170
4
fulfil their financial commitments to VIHK ca geiicTBIITeJJHO oc11rypeH11 TaKa, KaKTO
the Reorganization Plan for APD, the Ce HaCTOl!Ba !IOC!le/IOBaTeJJHO B IICKaHIIl!Ta 3a
creditors ASP2 and Asset have agreed !101\Kperra Ha 03gpaBIITeJIHIIll IIJJaH,
to support it, provided that the rrpegJJO)!(eH 3a Eup IIporrupTII )J,cnenorrM·bHT
following conditions are met: A,IJ,, KpegiiTOpiiTe OCII 2 11 AceT,
cpopMy n11paT nOI\KperraTa CH 3a nnaHa npH
113llbJIHeHIIe Ha CJie/IHIITe 11311CKBaHIIll:

• If Ayr unconditionally undertakes • Eup JIO/I)!(IICTIIKC JliiMIITeg l1HK ga

liOeMe 6e3yCJJOBHOTO 33/lbJI)!(eHIIe ga
to pay the ARs owed to ASP and
113ITJJaTII rrpegsapiiTeJJHO curnacysaHIITe
Asset, respectively, as pre-agreed in
c 03/lpaBIITeJJHIIll rrnaH rrpasa Ha OCIT2 11
Section V Para 9 (a.a) and (a.b) of
AceT' KaKTO ca rrpe/IBHAeHII B o.(a.a.) II
the Reorganization Plan for APD -
6. (a.o.), uaparpa¢ 9 na PaJ~en V
"Liquidation Formula for the "Cl>opMyna no JJHKBH~aqnJJ na
Receivables of APD's Non-Bank B3CMaiiHJJTa na IICOaiiKOBIITC
Creditors with Claims Accepted for Kpe~nTopn na E'Lp IIpon'LpTII
Sati,faction under Art.722 Para 1 )J,eBeJJoiiM'LIIT A)J, c rrpneTo BJeMane Ja
(8) of the Commerce Act"; y~oBJJCTBopJJsane no qJJ, 722, an.l , T.8
na T3";
• If Ayr unconditionally agrees to
fulfil its financial commitments to • Eup JlOA)!(IICTIIKC JliiMIITeg VIHK ga ce
CbrJJaCII ga 113llbJIHII liOeTIITe C
ASP and Asset, regardless of
03/lpaBIITeJIHIIll !IJiaH cp11HaHCOBH
whether or not or how the
anra)!(IIMeHTII KbM OCIT2 11 AceT,
Reorganization Plan will be
HC3aBIICIIMO OT peaJJII3aqlll!Ta Ha
implemented, and regardless of 03gpaBIITeJIHIIll rrnan 3a Eup IIporrupTII
whether or not or how the )J,esenonMuHT A)J, 11 He3aBIIciiMO OT
investment plan for the Eco Dream peanll3aqlll1Ta Ha IIHBeCTIII.\IIOHHIIll l!JiaH
Project, for which New Co has been 3a npoeKTa "EKO )J,p11iiM", Bb3JIO)!(eH 3a
made responsible, will come to be ocu[L\eCTBl!Bane qpe3 "H1o Ko -
realized; ITporrupT!! HHsecTMbHT" A)J,;

• If Ayr unconditionally agrees to • Eup Jlog)!(IICTIIKC JliiMIITe/1 l1HK ga ce

CbrJJaCII ga 113llbJIHII cp11HaHCOBIITe Cll
ful fi I its financial commitments to
aHra)!(I!MeHTII, rroeTII KbM OCIT2 11 AceT
ASP and Asset under the
C 03gpaBIITeJIHIIllliJiaH, Ha C06CTBeH p11CK
Reorganization Plan for APD at
H 01TOB0pHOCT, 8 CpOK pp 36 KaJlCH)\apH11
Ayr's risk and responsibility no
MeCel\a, C'li!TaHO OT OKOH'laTeJIHOTO
later than 36 months after the rrpmt3Hacl!He Ha no
Bankruptcy court has made its HeCbCTOl!TeJJHOCTTa flO 03/lpaBIITeJIHIIll
decision on the Reorganization Plan nnan 3a Eup IIponupTII )J,esenonMbHT
for APD. A,IJ,;

NOW THEREFORE, and seeking to ensure

ASP2's and Asset's support for the
Reorganization Plan at the discussion and
vote to be held at the meeting scheduled for
17'" April 2012 by virtue of a court order in
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 138 of 170
5
that regard, the parties hereto: .[(eBeJJO!IMbHT A.[(, nacpo'leH!f 3a 17.04.2012
r. oT Cblla no necbCTOl!TeJJnocTTa Ha Ebp
Ayr Logistics Limited, Inc., a corporation
llporrbpTH .[(eneJJO!IMbHT A.[(, rrpc/ICTanenwre
organized in 1995 under the laws of Texas,
TYK cTpaHI1:
USA, and having registered office at 459
Chippendale Drive, Rockwall, Texas 1. E'hp Jlo)J,JKUCTUKC JluMnTe/1,, linK.,
75032, USA, and represented by Philip yqpe/leHO rrpe3 !995 r., CbrJJaCHO 3aKOHf!Te
Robert Harris, President and General na ll1aTa TeKcac, CAW:, CbC cellai111ll1e: 459
Manager, acting through his legal qi1!IbH/IeHJJ .[(pails, PoKyoJJ, TeKcac 75032,
representative Counsel Zahari Tomov, CAW:, rrpe/ICTaBJJl!Bano OT <f>HJJHll Po6bpT
attorney at law, (member of the Varna Bar Xap11c, I1pe3HIIeHT 11 feHepaJJeH MeHI111)(<"bp,
and having law office address at Varna 4 '1pe3 a):IDOKaT 3axap11 ToMon, AIIBOKaTcKa
Paraskeva Nikolau St, floor 2, office 3) as KOJJemll - rp. BapHa, yJJ. llapacKena
duly appointed by a power of attorney of H!fKOJJay ,N'Q 4, eT. 2, octmc ,N'Q 3, Ha3Ha'!eH c
18'" July 201 I (bearing the certification of nbJJHOMOll1110 OT 18.07.2011 r., 3aBepeHO OT
the Consular Department of the Ministry of .[(HpeKl\lfll "KoncyJJCK!f OTHOWeHf!ll" nplf
Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Bulgaria MBHP Ha Perry6JJ!fKa obJJraplfll na 11aTa
dated 5'h August 2011, hereinafter referred 05.08.2011 ro11., OT e11na cTpana, 03Ha'!aBaHa
as "Ayr", of the first part, no-/(oJJy 3a y11o6cTno KaTo "E'hp",

And
2. "OJJ Cui\3 Ilpon'bpTH 2" 00.[(,
All Seas Property 2 OOD, a commercial TbproncKo IIPYlKecTBO, pemcTp11pano
company registered under the laws of C'b06pa3HO 3aKOHO/IaTeJJCTBOTO Ha
Bulgaria and having ElK (Company Perry6JJHKa DbJJrapHll, EHK: 148073564, CbC
number): 148073564, based in Varna and ce11aJJ11ll1e B rp. B apna 11 a11pec Ha
having registered office address at Varna, 3 yrrpanJJeHife yJJ. ,HifKOJJa Bam.1,apos" ,N'Q 3,
Nikola Vaptsarov St., entrance G, Office nx.r, oci:mc 1\eHTbp, eT. 8-Mf!, oqmc 21,
Centre, 8'h floor, office 21, as represented npe/ICTaBJJl!BaHO OT ynpaBHTeJJl! nf!Jil!Ha
by the Manager Lily ana Borisova, and Eop11cona, If
Asset Management EAD having ElK: "AceT Menlf)J,lKM'hiiT" EA)]:,
103921587 and registered office address at EMK:103921587, rrpe/ICTanmmaHo OT
the town of Targovishte, I Tsar Assen St., Hf!KOJJail Xy6eHOB H3rrbJJHf!TeJJeH
and represented by the Executive Director 1111peKTOp, c a):lpec: rp.TbproBI1U\e, yJJ. U:ap
Nikolay Hubenov, hereinafter refereed to HnaH AceH .N'• 1, mna'lanan!f 3a y11o6cTno
as "the Creditor" or "the Creditors", of KaTo "Kpe)J,UTopa 11JJI1 Kpe)J,nTOPifTe",
the second,

THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED AS IlocTurnaxa n.maclfe Ja cJIC/IIIOTo:

FOLLOWS:

l.The Creditors hereby agree and promise

Ayr, that they shall play an active part
in the deliberations and vote in support
of the Reorganization Plan proposed for
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 139 of 170
6
APD at the General Meeting of the ITponbpTH ,O:esenonMbHT A,O:, Ha
Creditors scheduled for l7'h April 2012 HaCpO'IeHOTO 3a QeJITa 06ll\O Cb6paHHe Ha
to that effect. Kpe/IIITOpiiTe 3a 17.04.2012 r.
2.Ayr hereby agrees and undertakes to 2. Ebp ce CbrJiaCl!Ba H 3aAbJIJKaoa, Ha
fulfil at their own risk and responsibility C06CTBeH pHCK H OTfOBOpHOCT, )1a H3nbJIHH
certain financial commitments to the CJie/IHHTe cfJHHaHCOBH 3a)TbJIJKeHH~ KbM
Creditors as follows: Kpe/IHTOpHTe:

(a) pay the creditor ASP2 the agreed (a) ,O:a H3nJiaTH Ha KpeAHTOpa OCI12
cyMaTa OT 10 000 000 (/leCeT MIIJIHOHa
value of ASP2's rights in the
espo) no OTKpHTa 3a QeJITa cneQHaJIHa
Reorganization Plan amounting to
cMeTKa B noma Ha OCI12 B ,O:oii•re 6aHK,
EUR 10,000,000 (ten million
H1o HopK, npe/1CTaBJil!Dau\a CTOHHOCTTa
Euros) to the special bank account
Ha CbrJiacyBaHHTe B 03)1paBHTeJIHHl! !IJiaH
opened by ASP2 with Deutsche npasa na OCI12, KOeTo nJiall\aHe ce
Bank, New York, no later than 36 AbJIJKH B cpoK 110 36 KaJieH)1apHH Meceqa,
months after the Bankruptcy court C'lHTaHO OT )\aTaTa Ha OKOH'IaTCJIHOTO
has made its final decision on the 11pOH3HaCl!He 110 03)1paBHTeJIHHl! nJiaH,
Reorganization Plan proposed for npeAJIOJKeH 3a Ebp ITpollbpTH
APD. ,O:esenonMbHT A,O:;

(b) Pay the creditor Asset the agreed (6) ,O:a 113nJiaTH na KpeAHTOpa AceT
cyMaTa OT l 300 000 (e)1HH MHJIHOH H
value of Asset's rights in the
TpHCTa XHJill/IH espo) no OTKpHTa 3a QeJITa
Reorganization Plan amounting to
cneQHaJIHa cMeTKa B noma Ha AceT o
EUR l ,300,000 (one million and
,O:oii'Ie 6anK, H1o HopK, npeACTaBJil!Ball\a
three hundred thousand Euros) to CTOiiHocrra Ha cbrnacysaHHTe B
the special bank account opened by 03/lpaBI!TeJIHIIl! nnaH npasa Ha AceT,
ASP2 with Deutsche Bank, New KOeTO nJiall\aHe Ce /lbJIJKH B CpOK /10 36
York, no later than 36 months after KaJieH/IapHII MeCeQa, C'IHTaHO OT )\aTaTa Ha
the Bankruptcy court has made its OKO'IaTeJIHOTO npo113Hacmre
final decision on the 03/lpaBHTeJIHI!l! nJiaH, npe/IJIOJKeH
Reorganization Plan proposed for ITpom,pTH ,O:esenonM'bHT A,O:;
APD.
3. KpeAIITOpiiTe 11 Ebp ce Cl,rnac~saT "
3. Ayr and the Creditors hereby agree that AOroBap~T, qe c H3nbJIHeHHeTo Ha noeTHTe no
by fulfilling the commitments made in 'lJI.2 OT HaCTO~Il.\01'0 cnopa3yMCHHC
Art.2 of this Agreement, Ayr shall 3a)1bJIJKeHIIll, Ebp npHA06Hsa H BcTbnBa B'bB
acquire and assume and enter into to the BCWIKH npasaTa Ha OCI12 11 AceT TaKa,
rights of ASP2 and Asset as defined in KaKTO ca nOCO'IeHH B 03)1paBI!TeJIHHll nJiaH 3a
the Reorganization Plan for APD and Ebp ITponbpTH ,O:esenonMbHT A,O:, KaKTO H
that both ASP2 and Asset shall be 'le OCI12 H AceT ca HanbJIHO YAOBJieTnopeHH
deemed to be completely satisfied and H Hl!MaT HHKaKBH npeTeHQIIII KbM Ebp
shall assert no claims against Ayr and Jl0)1JKHCTI1KC JlHMHTe/1 I1HK, H KbM HeroBHTe
its subsidiaries APD and New Co. npe)1npHl!THll - Ebp ITponbpTH ,O:esenonMbHT
A,O: H H1o Ko- ITponbpTII I1HBeCTMbHT A,O:.
4. Ayr and the Creditors hereby agree that
this Agreement shall supersede all
4, KoeAIITOPIITe 11 Ebp, ce cbrnacl!B~~f'TP:{;~

fi~';·~·'~~.::~~~~
,...1
., "'
..::;!..

~·<l't~~·1'!:
'•/A
.., if;
C

• ,.____ • ~.•
'·' liUNS' '-'
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 140 of 170
7
preceding agreements on the method HaCTOl!li.\OTO
and manner of payment of ASP2's and BCH'IKH npegX0/1HH /101'0BOpeHOCTH OTHOCHO
Asset's rights, including all primary pe11a 11 na'IHHa ua H3nJJall1aHe npanaTa na
agreements made by and between Ayr OCIT2 11 AceT, BKJJ!O'IHTerrno 11 H3Ha'IaJJHHTe
and ASP2 on the acquisition of the /\OfO!lOpeHOCTH C 0Cf1 2 no npHI\06HBaHe Ha
lands and the Silver Beach investment 3eMl!Ta H HHBeCTHI\HOHHOTO npel\npHl!THe
enterprise of I Oth December 2009 and "CHJJBbp 6HJ'f'l" OT gaTa 10.12.2009 r., KaKTO
by and between Ayr and Asset of 8th H 1\0fOBOpeHOCTTa C AceT OT 08 .12.2009 r. 3a
August 2009 on the application for a nomUaHe Ha 6aHKOB Kpei\HT B nO[\Kpena H B
bank loan in support and in favour of noma na AOronapl!HHl!Ta ua Ebp c ITbpua
Ayr's agreements with FIB for HHnecTHI\HOHHa 6anKa AA 3a
rescheduling and buyout of the npecTpyKTypHpane Ha
mortgage rights over the Silver Beach HI!OTe4HHTe npana B npoeKTa "CHJJBbp
Project. 6l-H14".

5. ASP2 and Ayr hereby agree that ASP2 5. KpeAHTOpa OCIT2 11 Ebp ce Cbrrracl!BaT 11
shall render their agreement with ASB goronapl!T OCIT2 11a anyrr11pa
for the transfer of the AR from the sale gorosopenocTTa c 0JI CHi\3 EbrrrapHll OOA
price of the transaction for the sale of 3a npexnbpJJl!He na B3eMaHeTO 3a
the Silver Beach investment enterprise npOI\a)!(HaTa I\eHa nO CKJIIO'IeHaTa Ha
dated 10'" December 2009, null and 10.12.2009 r. cgerrKa 3a noKynKo-npoAa)j(6a
void by reason of ASB's default on Ha HHBeCTHI\HOHHOTO npegnplll!T!Ie "CHJJBbp
6HH'!", nOpUI\H He!l3nbJJHeHHe Ha
making the payment of such price as
AOronopeHOTO 3anrra~ane na Ta3H I\eHa OT
agreed.
cTpana na Orr CHii3 Ebrrrap!!ll OOJJ:.
6. Ayr and the Creditors hereby expressly 6. KpeAHTOPHTe H Ebp Aeno3HpaT H3pH'IHOTO
agree on the following additional CBOe CbrJJaCIIe BbpXy CJJe/\HHTe
prOVISIOnS: gonbJJHI!TeJJHH KJ1ay111:

(a) Enforcement of the Agreement: (a) Krray3a Ja BJJII3atie n c11rra na

uacTOli~OTO cnopa3yMetme:
This Agreement shall enter in force
immediately when ASP2 and Asset HacTol!~OTO cnopa3yMeHHe BJJII3a n cHrra
render their joint support of the ue3a6anuo c geno3npane na egHonpeMeHHaTa
approval of APD's Reorganization nogKpena ua OCIT2 11 AceT B noma ua
Plan, when the matter is put to vote OA06peHIIeTo ua 03gpaBI!TeJJHII51 nrran 3a Ebp
at the General Meeting of APD's ITponbpTH JJ:enerronMbHT AA npH neronoTo
Creditors scheduled for 17'h April rrracynaue OT Cb6paHHeTO Ha KpegHTOpHTe Ha
2012. Ebp ITpollbpTH JJ:eneJJOIIMbHT AJJ:,
nacpoYeno 3a 17.04.2012 r.
(b) Choice of governing law and
(6) KJmyJa 3a H36op na npuJIO)KIIMO npano
jurisdiction:
II 10p11CI\IIKI\IIll:
All matters arising from this Agreement BcwrKH BbnpocH, npOH3Til'Ja~H OT
including, but not limited to HaCTOl!~OTO CnOpa3yMeHHC, KaTO
interpreting the will of the parties H36poenHTe no-gorry, no ue caMo - . --~
- --"""~-:--::-.,
of the TbJJKynaue ua BOJJl!Ta ua Cbi\OronopHTeJ~I:
thereto, the validity TP.4~'\.

~:·~~~-&'.•B~~P~?k~
-<
"""
' ~tl
"~1./4
c;
..."' .::'~ ~
~ "'I' ' -li>
'14·J'; ~.&n " •
'::·--/.~.
··>'liONS'\.'
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 141 of 170
8

Agreement, fulfilment of the parties' RaJII1!1HOCT Ha CTI0pa3yMeHI1eTO, 113TibJIHeHI1e

obligations, the consequences from Ha 3<JAbJIJKeH11l!Ta, TIOCJie/111!.\11 OT
the performance of this Agreement, 113ITbrrHeHrreTo Ha cnopa3yMeHI1eTO,
its violation and the consequences HapyweHHe Ha CnOpa3yMeHHeTO 11 fiOCJie/1Hl.\H
therefrom shall be settled by the Ha HapyweHI1eTO - ll.\e ce ypeJKi1aT no
parties in an amicable manner in !Ip11l!TeJICKI1 Ha'II1H CTIOpe/1 CTaH/1apT11Te Ha
observance of the good commercial !106paTa Tbpl'ODCKa 11 11HDeCTI1l.\110HHa
and investment practices recognized IIpaKT11Ka, fi03H3TI1 B MelK}jyHap0/1HOTO npaBO
by the international and the US laws. 11 3aKOH11Te Ha CAll(.

If the parties fail to reach such

amicable resolution and the dispute B crry'laii Ha HeBb3MOlKHOCT 3a rr3rpaJKi1aHe
still exists, the parties shall refer the Ha cbrrracne no 11pHl!TeJICKI1 11
dispute for resolution to the
HaJII1'!11eTO Ha CTIOp MeJKl1y CTpaHI1Te no
competent court having jurisdiction
HaCTOllll.\OTO CTIOpa3yMeHI1e, KOMlleTeHTeH 11a
over the principal place of business
peWI1 BCeKI1 e/1HH TaKbD CTIOp ll.\e 6b/1e Cb)la
of Ayr.
no Ml!CTO Ha yrrpasrreHI1e Ha Ebp,
(c) Compensation for damages caused
(H) Knay1a 3a o6e3~eTenHe nprr
by default on the agreements:
napyUICHHe na )IOrOHOpeHOCTHTe:
Each of the parties hereby undertakes Bcl!Ka oT cTpaHHTe no HaCTOllll.\OTO
to compensate the other party in case cnopa3yMeHI1e ce Cbrnacl!Ba )Ia o6e31l.\eTI1
of any default on the above
)lpyraTa CTpaHaTa D CJIY'Iai1Te Ha 1\0flYCHaTO
agreements by paying a lump sum
HapyweHrre na ycTaHoneHHTe no -rope
penalty of 18% (eighteen percent) of
/10rOBOpeHOCTH, KaTO 3annaTH e)IHOKpaTHa
the relevant value of ASP2's right (if
HeyCTOi!Ka B o6eM Ha 18 % (OCeMH3/1eCeT
the default affects their accounts
npOL\eHTa), H3'1HCJieHa BbpXy CbOTBeTHaTa
receivable) and the relevant value of
Asset's right (if the default affects CTOi!HOCT Ha rrpanoTo na OCII2 (n crry<Jai! Ha

their accounts receivable) HapyweHHe CBbp3ano c Tona B3eMaHe),

respectively. CbOTBeTHO BbpXy CTOi!HOCTTa Ha npaBOTO Ha
AceT (s crry'lail Ha HapyweHne CBbp3aHI1 c
(d) Option for joinder of parties TOBa B3eMaHe),

In observance with the (r) Ont.(Hll 1a npHCbe)IITIIliBane:

representations made and advance
CbOTBeTHO Ha HOMHHal.\Hl!Ta 11
consent given in Para 12, Section
npe/1BapHTeJIHO )lefi03HpaHOTO CbrJiaCHe 110
VIII "Formula for covering the
interests involved In the naparpa<j:> 12, pa3)1err VIII "<f>opMyrra ua

implementation of the TIOKp11TI1e Ha 11HTepeCHTC no npHJIOJKeHI1e Ha

Reorganization Plan regarding the 03)1paBHTeJIHHll TIJI3H Cllpl!MO !IpC/1l!BeHOTO
claims asserted by Rudersdal n3eMane oT Py11epcAarr EOO)J," oT
EOOD" of the Reorganization Plan 03/1pani1TeJIHHll rrrraH 3a Ebp IIponbpT11
for APD, ASP2 and Ayr hereby )J,enerronMbHT A)J,, Kpe/1HTOpbT OCII2 11
agree that: Ebp ce )IOrosapHT:

(i) Rudersdal EOOD shall

 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 142 of 170
9
enjoy a reserved right to join as a party npaBo 11a ce npHCbei\HHH KaTo CTpaHa no
to this Agreement by entering into HaCTOlllJ.10TO cnopa3yMeHHe, BCThnBaHKH B
ASP2's rights hereby agreed and
1\0roHopeHHTe npmm Ha OCI12 H HapeA c
exercising such rights together with
OCI12, KaTo BbTpewHHTe OTHoweHH~ Me"'IIY
ASP2, where the intercompany
relationships between Rudersdal and Tl!X ca OTHOCHMH H npOTHBOIIOCTaBHMH Ha
ASP2 shall concern and be Ebp TOJIKOBa H TaKa, KaKTO TOBa e IIOCO'IeHO
enforceable against Ayr to the extent n pa3AeJI VIII Ha 03ApaBHTeJIHHll nnaH H
and in the manner defined in Section KaKTO e onpe/leJieHO BCJieABalJ.1HTe TO'IKH:
VIII of the Reorganization Plan and as
set forth herein below; (r.6.) l13nbJIHeHHeTO Ha
3a/lbJI)I(eHHeTO Ha Ebp, nOCO'IeHO B naparpa<j:J
(ii) Fulfilment of Ayr's
2(a) Ha HaCTOlllJ.10TO CIIOpa3yMeHHC, CC
obligation under Para 2(a) of this
Agreement shall be deemed to be duly 3a'IHTa KaTO HaAJie)I(HO H3llbJIHeHO 11
made and Ayr shall be released from 0CB060AeHO OT BCliKaKBa OTrDBOpHOCT
any responsibility to Rudersdal cnpl!MO Py11epcAaJI EOOJJ:, aKo CbC
EOOD, if Ayr notifies Rudersdal 3aBepKaTa Ha OTKpHTaTa CnCl.\HaJIHa CMeTKa B
EOOD of the right-extinguishing JJ:oii'Ie 6aHK-H10 HopK Ha HMeTo Ha OCI12 c
payment made to ASP2's bank
1\bJI)I(HMaTa CyMa OT 10 000 000 (/\eCeT
account, when ASP2's bank account
MHJIHOHa enpo), Ebp yBC/IOMH PyAepC/IaJI
with Deutsche Bank, New York, is
credited with the EUR 10,000,000 (ten EOOJJ: 3a H3BbpweHOTO noraCHTeJIHO
million Euros) due, and instructs the nJialJ.1aHe KbM OCI12, c yKa3aHHe 3a
simultaneous performance under ef\HOBpeMeHHO H3llbJIHenHe no pa3AeJI VIII Ha
Section Vlll of the Reorganization 03ApaBHTeJIHHll nnan. Tona yneAOMJieHHe ce
Plan. Ayr hereby undertakes to notify 1\l>JI)[(H He3aBHCHMO OT TOBa 11aJIH PyAepcAaJI
Rudersdal as detailed above,
EOOJJ: ce e npHcbeAHHHJIO KbM nacTOlllJ.10TO
irrespective whether or not Rudersdal
cnopa3yMenHe.
has joined as a party to this
Agreement. (r.u.) KpeAHTOpbT OCI12 H Ebp ce
(iii) ASP2 and Ayr hereby agree 1\0rDBOpliT IIJiaTeHHTe no cnel.\HaJIHaTa
that the EUR 10,000,000 (ten million cMeTKa na OCI12 s JJ:oii'le 6anK-Hio HopK 10
Euros) credited to ASP2's bank 000 000 (1\eCeT MHJIHOHa eopo) 11a 6bAaT
account with Deutsche Bank, New 6JIOKHpaHif B noma na PyAepcAaJI EOOJJ: 3a
York shall be blocked in favour of CpOK OT 30 /.\Hif, C'IHTaHO OT AaTaTa Ha
Rudersdal EOOD for a 30 days-term
yBei\OMJICHHCTO 3a eAHOBpeMeHHO
as of the date on which the notice of
simultaneous performance under H3llbJIHCHHe no pa3AeJI VIII na
Section Vlll of the Reorganization 03/lpaB!fTeJIHHll nnaH. B cny'Iaii 'Ie Py11pecAaJI
Plan is given. If Rudersdal EOOD fails EOOJJ: He ce npllcbe/llfHif KbM nacTOlllJ.10TO
to join as a party to this Agreement or HJIH He aKl.\eiTTifpa
refuses to accept the notice for yeeAOMJieHHCTO ua e/\HOspeMeHHO
simultaneous performance under H3nbJIHeHHe no pa3AeJI Vlll Ha
Section V Ill of the Reorganization
031\paBHTeJIHHll nJiaH, C H3TH'JaHeTO Ha 30-
Plan at the expiration of the above 30
days-term, all commitments made by /IHCBHHll CpOK BCWIKH nOeTH aHrmKHMeHTH OT
Ayr in favour of Rudersdal EOOD Ebp c 03/lpaBHTeJIHHll nJiaH B noma aa
under the Reorganization Plan shall be Py11pecAaJI EOO A ce noraCl!BaT, a
deemed to be fulfilled and ASP2 shall eAHHCTBeHo OCI12 ocTaBa oTronopeH K~ ~ TP""~
#."·<1,;~>~-8+~1!('4}~
(/"'?-,: ' ,.0~ ~~
;;; I' 6',;.. ., ~ \
:.k '6.1,p4~9
~<-94'A ~
"til,;·;" . \.'!:..
'~I~ \I
 Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 143 of 170
10
remain solely responsible to Rudersdal Py/lepc/laJJ EOO)J,.
EOOD.
7. Closing provisions
(a) HacTOllll10TO cnopa3yMeHHe ce c·bcTaBI1 11
(a) This Agreement was drawn and flO/InHca B '!eTHpH egH006pa3lll1 eK3eMnJJl!pa -
signed in four uniform copies, one no e/IHH 3a BCl!KU OT gOI"OBOpllll111Te ce
for each of the parties thereto and CTpaiiH H eJIHH npegHa3Ha'!eH 3a aKf.\CnTHpaHe
one to be accepted by Rudersdal OT Pygepcgan EOO)J,.
EOOD.
(6) IlpHcbegmrJIBaHeTo na Pygepc11an EOO)J,
(b) Rudersdal 's joinder to this Kl>M HaCTOllll10TO cnopa3yMeHHe He e
Agreement is not a requirement and H3HCKBUHe 11 He !IOCTaBl! ycJJOBHe 3a
shall stipulate no condition for BJJH3aHeTo MY B 3aKOHHa CHna, KaKTO Tosa e
enforcement of the Agreement as onpe11eneno OT gorosapl!II1HTe ce CTpaHH no-
defined by the parties thereto in Para
rope B naparpa¢ 6 (a).
6(a) above.
(B) HacTOHII10TO cnopa3yMcnnc cc C'hCTann
(c) This Agreement was drawn and H 1!01\I!HCa 113 31!rJIHHCKH H 61,JirapCKH
signed in both English and C3HK, K3TO anrJIHHCKHH C3HK C BO/ICI!IHH H
Bulgarian; the English version shall
HMa npC/IHMCTBO npH T'hJIKynane na
prevail and have priority over the
BOJIHTa na cTpanHTC u cnyqai\ na cnop.
Bulgarian in the interpretation of the
will of the parties and in the event of
any dispute thereunder.

For Ayr Logistics Limited Inc.:

Zahari To , Attorney at law

(Duly appointed by POA of l8'h July 2011)

2000:

3a AceT:

Nikolay Hu

The undersigned, Boriana Ilieva Stefanova, hereby attest that this is a true and correct translation
from llulgarian inw English of 1 e al/ached document- Agreement of 28 March 2012. This translation
has I 0 pages.
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 144 of 170

EXHIBIT E
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 145 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 146 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 147 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 148 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 149 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 150 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 151 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 152 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 153 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 154 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 155 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 156 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 157 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 158 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 159 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 160 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 161 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 162 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 163 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 164 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 165 of 170

EXHIBIT F
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 166 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 167 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 168 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 169 of 170
Case 1:18-cv-11072-AT Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 170 of 170