CORINO V ARMSTRONG:
1 – STATEMENTOF FACTS ‘
2 0* 4. Defendant, RUSSELL ARMSTRONG, was the largest shareholder of
3 Su iburst Acquisitions III, Inc. and President and Senior Managing Partner of
4 A Ce itury Financial Partners, Inc. A.
5 ~ 5. In his positions, ARMSTRONG was aware that there was a proposed merger
I 6 j be ween Sunburst Acquisitions III, Inc. and American Recruitment Conferences 1!
7 db iWoi’clseekk.com that was entered into on or about August 30, 1999.
8 6. On or around February 24, 2000, based upon fraudulent misrepresentations
9 , mz do by ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff CHRISTY CORINO purchased stock in I
10 W- |rkseek.com from ARMSTRONG for the amount of $175,000.00.
11 7. The proposed merger failed, however, and as early as January 13, 2000, it
12 we s known to Defendant ARMSTRONG that plans for the merger were to be I
13 ter ninated.
14 8. Upon entering the stock purchase agreement with CORINO on or about ‘
15 ii Fe iruary 24, 2000, ARMSTRONG already knew that CORINO’s investment in
16 ii W- irkseek.com was going to fail because of his material inside information
17 co: icerning the failed merger.
18 I 9. Workseek.com was eventually dissolved in December 2000.
19 10 ARMSTRONG illegally offered and solicited CORINO to purchase ‘
l
20 $1 75,000.00 of worthless securities in Workseekcom with knowledge that the I
21 co: npany was going to fail. ‘
ll
22 , ll In order to induce CORINO to purchase the securities, ARMSTRONG
23 re] resented the following to CORINO: a) it was a great deal and guaranteed; b)
24 thz t CORINO would triple her money within two to three months; and c) there was
25 ‘y no risk because a deal to buy out Workseekcom was already in place.
26 I 12 CORINO was not an “accredited investor” nor did she have any knowledge I
27 of zhe details of the merger.
28 p 13 ARMSTRONG was intimately connected with the merger and had a valuable \
I
n
l
L
I
sta ce in the merger and sold his personal shares of Workseelecom to an
un cnowledgeable buyer in an effort to minimize his losses from the failed merger.
14 On May 9, 2001, CORINO initiated litigation against ARMSTRONG. The
lat rsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, Case Number SC066598, alleged
cat ises of action for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, statutory securities t
vit lations, and breach of fiduciary duty.
l5 Prior to trial, on or about November 4, 2002, the parties agreed to settle the
dit pute. In doing so the parties executed a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, the
ter ns of which required ARMSTRONG to pay CORINO in installment payments
in ieu of Judgment. The parties additionally agreed that in the event of default, ,
Jut lgment would be entered against ARMSTRONG, and that such Judgment would
be deemed to be on the cause of action for fraud, and would not be dischargeable in S
anj ‘ Bankruptcy proceeding that might be filed by ARMSTRONG at any time. ‘I
l6 when ARMSTRONG failed to make the payments in accordance with the
ter ns of the settlement agreement, Judgment was entered against ARMSTRONG
for fraud on August 1, 2003, pursuant to the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment.
17 Notice of entry of judgment was filed on August 5, 2003.
18 An abstract of judgment was issued on September 11, 2003.
‘ FIRST CLA]l\/LEDR RELIEF
DEBT NON-D1งQH,A_RQEABILITY.PUR.SIlANT TO
11 U.S.C_._ง_523_(a) etseq,
15 . CORINO hereby incorporates all preceding paragraphs of this complaint as 5
tht ugh fully set forth herein. ‘ i
20 On or about November 4, 2002, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit filed by CORINO against ARMSTRONG. In doing so the parties executed a Stipulation A
for Entry of Judgment, the terms of which required ARMSTRONG to pay ‘
C( iRINO in installment payments in lieu of Judgment. The parties additionally ,
ag eed that in the event that ARMSTRONG defaulted on the payments, Judgment
a
WW A -3- . -. . 2.
‘ Creditor Christv Cnrinrfs Cnrnnlaint to Determine Non-Disehnrweahilirv
we ild be entered against him on the cause of action for fraud, and would not be
dis :hargeable in any Banlquptcy proceeding that might be filed by ARMSTRONG
at: ny time. ‘
21. When ARMSTRONG failed to make the payments in accordance with the
ter ns of the settlement agreement, Judgment was entered against ARMSTRONG
for fraud on August l, 2003 pursuant to the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment.
22. ARMSTRONG’s conduct was deliberate, willful, fraudulent, malicious and
op] iressive. Section 523 (a) (2) excepts from discharge those debts or money to the
ext ant obtained by false pretenses, false representations, or actual fraud. Judgment
ha: been entered against ARMSTRONG for fraud and should not be dischargeable
by ARMSTRONG at any time.
‘ WHEREFORE, CORINO prays for judgment as follows:
1. A detemiination that the indebtedness, owed by ARMSTRONG to CORINO
is 1 .0n-dischargeable under ll U.S.C. ง 523 (a) (2) (A); 523 (a) (4); 523 (a) (6),
pu suant to the judgment secured in state court.
2. That the Court determine remaining issues and render judgment for
C( in the amount of her debt;
3. For prejudgment interest;
4. For attomeys fees as may be allowable by law;
5. For such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Da :ed: February 16, 2006 BLEAU I FOX a P.L.C.
BY:
mas . eau sq.
James N. Kahn, H. Michael Song, sq. _
A f J tC dito
.4.
Creditor Christy Corino‘s Complaint to Determine Non-Dischargeability
Attomey or Party Narr I, Address. Telephone 6 FAX Numbers. ar|dit;sIitomie Ber Number A COURT USE ONLY — K
Thomas P. Bieau Esq. (152945) H _; W i “W i
. James N. Kahn,l sq. (231062) RE-CEJVED \
I BLEAU I FOX at .L.C. W
i 3575 Cahuengat lvd. West, Suite BO .
Lcs Angeles.CA loose FQ | T Q-1.;
Teiephone: (323) 374-8613
Facsimiio: (323)! 74-1234
Attorney for Ptinritf ZHRISTY CORINO W |
U JITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
IENTRAL DTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
in m: ’ ’cuAi=1′ER”7
RUSSELL At MSTRONG CASE NUMBER LA 0548109 ER
ADVERSARY NUMBER A
Debtor. .
CHRISTY CORINO J
. (fire Boles and Blank Lines below are forthe Count: i‘
Plaintifttsl. Use Only} (Do Not Fill’ Them tn) ‘
W ~=- A summons AND norrce or
RUSSEMRMSPONF Defmdamm . Hsrarusflconraneuce 7
T0 THE DEFENI ANT: A Complaint has been filed by the Plaintiff against you. If you wish to defend yourself, you must file
with the Court a wt tten pleading, in duplicate, in response to the Oompiaint. You must also send a copy of your written response
to the party show 1 in the upper left-hand comer of this page. Unless you have filed in duplicate and sewed a responsive
pleading by Marci ZFLZQQ5 __ _, , the Court may enter a judgment by default against you for the relief demanded
in the Complaint.
A Status Conferei ce on the proceeding commenced by the Complaint has been set for:
Hearing Date: Time: Courtroom: Ftoor:
255 East T ample Street, Los Angeles Cl 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana
U 21041 Burl rank Boulevard, Woodland Hilts CI 1415 State Street, Santa Barbara
Cl 3420 Twetl h Street, Riverside
PLEASE TAKE N JTICE that iithe tn’aI of the proceeding is anticipated to take less than two (2) hours, the parties may stipulate
to conduct the tria of the case on the date specified; instead of holding a Status Conference. Such a stipuiation rnust be lodged
with the Court at east two (2) Court days before the date set forth above and is subject to Court approval. The Court may
Qgnfinue the niet 1 J another date if necessary to accommodate the anticipated length of the trial.
JON D. CERETTO
Date oflssuance: _ ___ ___ __ – __ Clerk of the Bankmptcy COUIT
By: .._-.. .. , /__., ,_
Deputy Cierk
CRIMINAL CASE #3:95-cr-01710-IEG-1… USA v ARMSTRONG:
http://starcasm.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/fed_criminal_case.pdf
