On May 2, the attorney for ITFederal and its CEO Truc “Curt” Tran followed attorneys for the other seven defendants in the EDA civil suit of March 26 in filing defense motions attacking the style and substance of the case against their clients.
In the demurrer seeking dismissal of five of the six counts (1-4 and 6) in the EDA Civil Complaint it is asserted that the filing by attorney Cullen Seltzer of the Richmond law firm of Sand-Anderson lacks the legally-required specificity and factual basis to support its oft-stated conclusion that the defendants have acted to improperly divert EDA assets based “on information and belief”.
“And many of the Plaintiff’s allegations being made solely ‘on information and belief’ is fatal under the heightened pleading requirement for fraud,” Tran/ITFederal attorney Brandon H. Elledge writes citing case history, adding of such wording, “and thus to avoid dismissal, a fraud plaintiff must supplement such allegations with ‘a statement of facts on which the belief is founded’ and also ‘must delineate at least the nature and scope of plaintiff’s efforts to obtain, before filing the complaint, the information needed to plead with particularity’.”
As to the sixth count omitted from the Tran/ITFederal request for dismissal, Count 5 – “Breach of Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty” – the demurrer notes that it “does not purport to state a claim against Mr. Tran and ITFederal” but rather asserts actual claims “only against Defendant McDonald” – which does appear to be the case as it would impact all defendants other than McDonald. See Related Story:
“As an employee of the Warren EDA, Defendant McDonald owed the Warren EDA a fiduciary loyalty,” Count 5 begins in recounting the obligations of McDonald’s role as the executive director of the EDA.
And it is in the absence of the detail of the preceding 160 paragraphs leading to the $17.6 million-plus civil suit’s call for compensation in six counts against all nine defendants upon which defense attorneys have focused their arguments for dismissal.
The six counts seeking a judgment of “not less than $17,640,446.16” against “the Defendants jointly and severally” are: 1/ Fraud and Fraud in the Inducement; 2/ Conversion; 3/ Conspiracy; 4/ Unjust Enrichment; 5/ Breach of Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty; and 6/ Ultra Vires (improper) Transactions and Agreements.
And other than that one mention of the minimum of $17.6-million-and-change of allegedly misdirected or embezzled EDA assets there is no other reference to specific amounts of money tied to any defendant in the plaintiff presentation of the resultant civil “Counts” against those defendants. In fact, only “Defendant McDonald” and “Defendant Earthright Energy LLC” are cited in the six counts – McDonald in the aforementioned Count 5 “Breach of Fiduciary Loyalty” that does appear focused on her alone; and Earthright Energy LLC in Count 6 “Ultra Vires Transactions and Agreements” related to work arrangements or contracts engaged in with Earthright Energy through McDonald without approval of the EDA Board of Directors “in the manner required by law.”
However as alluded to above and noted in previous stories on the EDA complaint and defense motions against it, there is detail concerning specific amounts of money involved in specific transactions involving specific defendants throughout the first 160 paragraphs of the complaint. Those 160 graphs appear to present the basis of fact and finance leading to the final 39 paragraphs stating of the more generalized summary of offenses described in Counts 1 through 6 of the EDA civil suit. See Related Story:
However for Tran/ITFederal attorney Elledge that detail too, is lacking.
“While the Complaint is long on allegations as to McDonald’s misconduct, it offers very little as to Defendants … Tran … and ITFederal except for conclusory recitations or vague statements made only ‘on information and belief’,” Elledge asserts, adding, “Mr. Tran and ITFederal expressly deny the meritless claims asserted against them and any alleged wrongdoing in this matter.”
Of the summary nature of the stating of the Counts against the defendants, the Tran/ITFederal defense memorandum of support of the demurrer for dismissal states, “… the group pleading method employed by the Warren EDA in its Complaint is improper and fails to fairly inform Mr. Tran and ITFederal of the nature of the claims levied against them …”
However, is that true of the first 160 paragraphs of the 199-graph complaint – well 209-graphs if you include the 10 paragraph “Prayer for Relief” seeking return of EDA assets, attorneys fees and “punitive damages (of at least one million dollars) jointly and severally against the Defendants”?
The complaint devotes many paragraphs to the securing of a $10-million bank loan for Tran/ITFederal through the EDA, citing the involvement of McDonald and then-U.S. Congressman Robert Goodlatte, R-6th, along with Tran. It is noted that loan was made at Goodlatte’s request despite repeated assertions by “Tran and Defendant McDonald …that Tran did not need the financial support of the Town and Warren EDA”.
However that “unnecessary” $10 million dollars of financial support was acquired, along with the gift of a 30-acre parcel at the Royal Phoenix site publicly valued by the EDA at $2 million for a one dollar price. Conditions were attached to that gift, including completion of the project by an eventually extended completion date of mid-2020; and a reduction of the scope of the project from an approximate 40,000 s.f. in a three-building complex alleged by Goodlatte to produce over 600 high-paying tech jobs through ITFederal to the community, to a 10,000 square-foot building producing at least 10 jobs of indeterminate wage.
And while the complaint notes that far less than $10 million appears to have been spent to date on the ITFederal Project here, the Tran/ITFederal motion for dismissal asserts Tran did nothing wrong and has worked within the parameters of his agreement with the EDA, both on the loan and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding nearly $1.5 million in what is described as “Subsequent Payments to ITFederal” alleged to have been unauthorized by the EDA.
Regarding the Count of “Conversion” of EDA assets to Tran’s personal benefit, Elledge writes on behalf of his clients, “The only Warren EDA funds allegedly retained by ITFederal are a $10 million loan pursuant to a promissory note and a deed of trust and some $1.5 million pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding. Thus, ITFederal received those funds in accordance with such agreements. Plaintiff does not – and cannot – allege a breach of such agreements, and it, therefore, alleges no right to immediate possession of the funds. Rather, it lawfully controls them subject to the terms of the loan documents and the MOU …
“The only payments due to Plaintiff is the repayment terms of the promissory note, and it has not – and cannot – allege that ITFederal has breached or defaulted on any of its contractual obligations,” the Tran/ITFederal filing in support of its motion for dismissal states.
But at issue for the EDA as plaintiff is an alleged fraud perpetrated by Tran in conjunction with McDonald in her role as EDA executive director and possibly others, to acquire the loan, gift of property and “Subsequent Payments to ITFederal”. That fraud is alleged to involve a $140 million in purported ITFederal government contract the plaintiff found no evidence exists – though Elledge asserts it does – as well as websites said to create a false impression of financial viability of Tran companies the plaintiff asserts there is no discovered substantive support of, and false representations of Tran’s personal worth and intentions of investment in this community.
“Plaintiff does not allege any cohesive fraudulent scheme here, but rather a series of independent transactions connected only by the involvement of Defendant McDonald … In the portions of the Complaint referencing Mr. Tran and ITFederal, Plaintiff obscures who actually made what representations at issue by repeating the phrase ‘Tran and Defendant McDonald represented, through McDonald (emphasis in context) … Such vague construction fails to establish Mr. Tran’s connection to the alleged misrepresentations by omitting how Mr. Tran managed to represent anything ‘through McDonald’,” the Tran/ITF filing states, adding, “By lumping Mr. Tran together with Defendant McDonald and referencing ‘multiple occasions,’ Plaintiff unsuccessfully tries to create an impression of wrongdoing without articulating who made what statement to whom on which occasion.”
From a different angle, Tran/ITFederal attorney Elledge echoes Jennifer McDonald attorney Lee Berlik’s argument that his client is being villainized for the alleged actions of other defendants and/or bad decisions by past EDA boards.
“Plaintiff suggests every statement by every counterparty it now regrets crediting was a false statement by Ms. McDonald … instead of a false statement to Ms. McDonald (emphasis in context),” Berlik wrote in his April 16 filing on his client’s behalf, adding, “The Warren EDA is looking for someone to blame for every decision it now regrets since new leadership has taken over – and Ms. McDonald is it.”
From Tran’s legal perspective he has simply taken advantage of a series of sweetheart deals offered by the EDA Board of Directors at the urging of friends in high places, including Congressman Goodlatte and the EDA’s then executive director.
What could possibly be wrong with that?
At issue in the wake of the filing of the series of defense demurrers for dismissal of the cases against their clients is will that question in regard to all defendants ever be argued in front of a jury in a Warren County or any other courtroom?
EDA presents budget proposal to Board of Supervisors; delinquent taxes from contractors
On Tuesday, February 11 at the evening work session of the Warren County Board of Supervisors, the EDA Board and staff presented its budget proposal to get through the final 3 1/2 months of this fiscal year and to continue into FY 2021.
Also included on the agenda was a discussion with Building official David Beahm and Commissioner of the Revenue Sherry Sours on the payment of delinquent taxes and business license fees by contractors prior to issuance of building permits.
County Administrator Doug Stanley discussed the Department of Environmental Quality Financial Assurance requirements. Also, Stanley, along with County Attorney Jason Ham, discussed the management and lease agreements of the Front Royal Golf Club.
See the presentations, including discussion of the Town’s $8 million-plus debt to the EDA on the new police station and the status of the Front Royal Golf Club in this exclusive Royal Examiner video:
EDA report to County – long-time annual auditor withdraws from lagging 2018 audit process
During one of six operational updates from entities with which it is either directly or indirectly involved at its Tuesday, February 4 meeting, the Warren County Board of Supervisors got what Front Royal-Warren County Economic Development Authority Executive Director Doug Parson called “bad” and “very disappointing” news.
That news was that long-time EDA auditor Yount-Hyde-Barbour had withdrawn from the EDA’s 2018 audit process. That process is running considerably behind as the EDA tries to get to the bottom of the final year of a number of years during which a contracted financial investigation by Cherry Bekaert, known for its forensic audit discoveries of criminal financial behavior, alleged a number of years of financial improprieties within EDA operations.
The Cherry Bekaert investigation conducted from mid-September 2018 into the spring of 2019 has resulted in a $21.3-million EDA civil litigation against what currently stands at 14 human and business entity defendants and multiple financial felony indictments by a special grand jury empaneled to investigate potential criminality tied to the EDA civil litigation. At the center of both the civil and criminal cases is former EDA Executive Director Jennifer McDonald.
It was Yount-Hyde-Barbour that was contracted by the EDA to conduct its annual audits during most, if not all of the years during which the EDA financial scandal is believed to have occurred. In recent months retired Warren County Finance Director Carolyn Stimmel and Heather Tweedie of the auditing firm Hottel-Willis have been pouring through the EDA’s 2018 financial records trying to ascertain what EDA assets went where, how, to what purpose and most importantly, were those purposes legitimate and authorized by the EDA Board of Directors.
Yount-Hyde-Barbour had been expected to take the result of Stimmel and Tweedie’s work to belatedly conduct their annual audit for 2018. Completion of that audit has been termed crucial to the
EDA’s future ability to function as it attempts to traverse the operational aftermath of the financial crimes alleged to have occurred under McDonald’s decade of executive leadership of the EDA.
One EDA civil case defendant’s attorney wondered aloud during a past motions hearing that if their client was a defendant for the financial actions alleged against them, why the EDA auditor that had rubber stamped the EDA’s finances annually through the years of alleged embezzlements and misdirection of assets, wasn’t also a defendant.
Could Yount-Hyde-Barbour’s withdrawal from the 2018 audit process be an indicator of potential legal issues between the auditor and the EDA? In response to media questions Sands Anderson attorney Dan Siegel, present with lead EDA civil case attorney Cullen Seltzer for a closed session discussion with County officials of the EDA’s civil case landscape, said only that EDA counsel continues to explore potential legal liability in many directions.
VDOT Revenue Sharing
In other business Tuesday, after a week’s delay to allow new supervisors to gather additional information, the county board unanimously approved the County’s contribution to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Revenue Sharing Program. It was explained that the program that runs through multiple municipal fiscal year budgets allows involved municipalities to get a 50% revenue match from the State on needed and desired road improvements throughout the county.
Numbers presented projected the County’s contribution in the coming FY 2021 budget at $250,000. It was a number projected to remain constant in FY 2021 through FY 2024. Six total involved road project costs were cited at $2.9-million over a number of years, with a 25% County contribution total of $753,312.50 and a 25% contribution from involved Sanitary District and POA fees at $703,313.50.
Short-term rental permit
By a 3-2 margin, a divided board approved a short-term rental Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Stephen J. Aron Jr. despite some objections from neighbors in the gated River Ridge Property Owners Association. Tony Carter and Archie Fox cast the two dissenting votes.
Carter cited neighbor concerns about security issues tied to the applicant’s efforts to recoup some of his residential property improvement costs in purchasing what he said at the earlier public hearing was the run-down home of what he described as the less than conscientious previous occupants. In explaining her vote for the CUP, Delores Oates noted that renters wouldn’t be given the code to the gate, but would utilize a locked key box key to activate entry to the gated community.
Carter replied that, that solution still allowed entry and access of strangers to a community that many residents may have located to for the additional security provided by locked access available only to residents and their guests.
During the January public hearing it was noted in favor of the request that many short-term rental operations do quite a bit of vetting of guests. The applicant indicated he intended to be conscientious about those allowed to stay at the residence he and his family plan to spend a great deal of time at themselves.
In addition to the EDA, other operational updates the county received were from VDOT, RSW Jail, the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service, Department of Social Services and the Town of Front Royal.
See a related story on the Town report; and see the full Warren County Board of Supervisors meeting – other than the 3-hour-plus closed session – in this Royal Examiner video:
Economic development proceeds amidst legal and Spotted Lanternfly threats
This reporter sat down with Front Royal-Warren County Economic Development Authority Board of Directors Vice-Chairman Jeff Browne and Executive Director Doug Parsons on Friday, January 31, to discuss the work they do amidst challenges they face in the aftermath of the financial scandal that developed during the executive leadership of Jennifer McDonald and a previous EDA board majority.
In what we hope is the first of at least monthly video interviews on EDA business and affairs, listen as Browne and Parsons describe how their time is budgeted as they continue the EDA’s work of business retention and recruitment in an environment of dueling civil litigations. They continue to offer an olive branch to the Front Royal Town Council to work together in good faith to determine exactly what the EDA owes the Town in allegedly misdirected EDA assets generated by Town taxpayers, as opposed to an increasingly expensive attorney-driven civil suit filed by the Town against its existing co-created EDA.
It is litigation, as is pointed out in the interview, in which town taxpayers face the unhappy task of funding both sides, as Town taxpayers for the plaintiff and as County taxpayers for the defendant.
And speaking of olive branches, Browne and Parsons conclude the interview by describing the economic threat presented by the expanding presence of the fruit-tree and grapevine feeding Spotted Lanternfly in Frederick County to our north; and how Warren County citizens and businesses can be on the alert to spot, report and mitigate early signs of the destructive bug’s presence in our county.
Watch the discussion in this exclusive Royal Examiner video:
Judge denies EDA civil suit defendants’ motions for removal from case
In a written ruling signed January 24 and filed in the Warren County Circuit Court Clerk’s Office on January 27, Judge Bruce D. Albertson denied a host of EDA civil litigation defense motions for removal from the case as alleged co-conspirators with central defendant, former EDA Executive Director Jennifer McDonald.
Among defendant attorneys involved in the December 12 motions hearing were those representing April Petty, Jesse Poe, Donald Poe and his Earth Right Energy (ERE) solar panel installation company, and ITFederal and its principal Truc “Curt” Tran.
The basis of those defense counsel arguments for dismissal of their clients from the civil case primarily revolved around the plaintiff’s notion of an overarching conspiracy that somehow links the various defendants to central figure and former EDA Executive Director McDonald; and that there are legally definable contractual breaches making those defendants individually liable for funds that came their way through McDonald.
At the December motions hearing christened “Groundhog Day” by one media rep present (guilty as charged) for the bulk of four-and-a-half-hours of repetitive legal arguments put forth by each defense attorney on essentially identical claims for removal of their clients from the civil case, lead plaintiff attorney Cullen Seltzer’s counter was briefer.
That was because Seltzer’s reply was essentially a one-response-fits-all argument. That response was that there did not have to have to be direct knowledge among all defendants of each interlocking conspiracy McDonald is alleged to having been a party to, for that conspiracy to exist to the benefit of separate defendants in separate transactions. Seltzer scoffed at the idea of McDonald as “a rogue tornado” distributing EDA assets to various defendants without a general common knowledge that something illegal was transpiring to each defendant’s benefit.
“I deny each Demurrer and Plea in Bar for the reasons cited by the plaintiff,” Judge Albertson wrote in his brief, three paragraph ruling.
However, the judge also ruled that a plaintiff claim of “Breach of Fiduciary Duty” against all defendants, cited only McDonald and her former Administrative Assistant Michelle Henry for such action.
“Plaintiff alleges that this count applies to all defendants due to the conspiracy count. The manner in which this count is written, however, names only Ms. Henry and Ms. McDonald as parties that have breached this duty. I find that his count does not apply to the other defendants as written in the Amended Complaint,” the judge ruled.
The judge also continued a decision on Earth Right Energy’s “Plea in Bar and separate Motion for Sanctions” based on other arguments heard December 12. There was disagreement between ERE attorney Ryan Huttar and EDA counsel on the validity of contracts between the EDA and ERE in amounts over $10,000, which is most, if not all involved contracts.
EDA counsel noted that any EDA transaction or contract over $10,000 had to be approved by the EDA Board of Directors, which EDA counsel stated did not happen in the Earth Right Energy cases. However, Earth Right attorney Huttar contended the company’s contracts, including a $27-million one with the Warren County Public School system negotiated while Greg Drescher was both an EDA board member and superintendent of schools, were legally binding.
It appears a decision on those arguments will require additional factual information to be brought to the court.
Economic Development Authority Board of Directors Meeting – January 24, 2019
The Economic Development Authority held their monthly Board of Directors meeting on January 24, 2020.
One of the topics was the sale of the Stokes Market (most recent the Main Street Market) to William Huck, owner of C&C Frozen Treats on Main Street in Front Royal. Huck has been trying to remodel the property he owns adjacent to C&C but because of costs higher than anticipated and issues with zoning and permitting, he has been exploring other options to open his newest business known as My Lagniappe – it’s a Louisiana expression that means ‘An extra or unexpected gift or benefit, such as that given to customers when they purchase something.’ If you know Huck, you know he always offers his customers a little lagniappe.
The solar panels on the roof of the EDA office building was also a point of discussions. The EDA is advertising for any party interested in purchasing the solar electric system currently stationed on top of the EDA Building at 400 Kendrick Lane, Front Royal.
The RSW Jail has said they are not interested in the solar panels. The cost of installation and unknown purchase price makes the project not cost effective.
Discussion also included workforce housing, the 2018 audit, Afton Inn renovations and the big one, running out of money by March.
Watch the EDA Board at work in this exclusive Royal Examiner video:
Town given okay to amend its civil suit against EDA, with some explanation
Following a conference call with involved attorneys at their respective offices at 8:45 a.m., Friday morning, January 24, Judge Bruce D. Albertson granted the Town of Front Royal leave to amend its current $15 million civil filing against the Front Royal-Warren County Economic Development Authority. The Town has 30 days to file an amended suit and the EDA will have the option of filing a demur to dismiss the amended suit as not factually supported legally.
The Town initially filed its suit seeking the return of $3 million of its assets believed to have been misappropriated as part of the EDA financial scandal, on June 21, 2019. That filing was described by Town Attorney Doug Napier at the time as largely precautionary to prevent any statute of limitations deadlines from being passed on yet-to-be-determined fraudulent EDA transactions utilizing Town assets.
Just over three weeks later on July 12, the suit was amended to $15 million, as previously reported, still without any elaboration on the sources of that number.
Of the January 24 judicial okay to again amend its suit, Town Attorney Napier said any coming amendment would “have to be legally cognizable” – or accompanied by legally supportable documentation. Napier said the Town had a scheduled meeting with its contracted auditor, Mitchell and Company, next week. That meeting may shed light on which direction, and how far in either, the Town’s amended civil suit against the EDA will next go.
The EDA’s civil litigation against what has grown to a total of 14 human and business entity defendants currently stands at $21.3 million. And despite his being dropped from the list of EDA civil case defendants in the wake of his death last spring from a possibly self-inflicted gunshot wound, electronic computer and phone records of former Sheriff Daniel McEathron have recently been subpoenaed from his estate in the EDA civil suit.
The initial amendment to the original Town claim against the EDA coincided with the Town’s pulling back from participation in the “EDA Reform Committee” and three-way EDA-Town-County joint meeting efforts geared toward fixing what had gone wrong to allow the alleged misappropriations and embezzlements circling the former EDA executive director, Jennifer McDonald, to happen over a number of years.
At the helm of the EDA for a decade prior to her December 20, 2018 resignation, McDonald has been the central figure in both the civil and criminal cases brought as a result of the Cherry Bekaert investigation of EDA finances begun in September 2018. She currently faces 34 financial felony charges brought by the special grand jury empaneled to investigate potential criminality tied to EDA finances in recent years.
Stated justification for one publicly voiced Town financial dispute with the EDA, the 4% bond interest rate the Town has been asked to cover on construction of the new Front Royal Police Department headquarters, has pointed heavily at “promises” made by McDonald. Those promises revolved around anticipation the FRPD project would qualify for the New Market Tax Credit Program offered municipalities for economic growth capital improvement projects.
However, as a non-job creating project the FRPD construction did not qualify for what would have been a 1.5% interest rate over the 30-year life of the bond issue with funding through the NMTC Program. As that dispute festers on the edge of Town-EDA litigation, the Town has refused to pay what appears to be an undisputed $8.4-million in principal payments bill the EDA has submitted to the Town on the FRPD project.
Written references in a Memorandum of Agreement and Resolutions of support of the NMTC funding cite “anticipation” of the program’s funding and support of that funding being pursued.
Despite late 2017, early 2018 recommendations of then Town Manager Joe Waltz, Finance Director B. J. Wilson and People Inc. NMTC Program Administrator Bryan Phipps that a guaranteed bank-offered 2.65%, 30-year interest rate would be preferable to competing with multiple municipalities for limited NMTC funds, a council majority chose to hold out for the NMTC financing the FRPD project ultimately did not qualify for.
However, some Town officials have pointed to verbal promises made by McDonald that the funding was in place, as a basis for the Town claim it should not pay more than 1.5% interest rate tied to those promises.
A “legally cognizable” argument on one Town claim against the EDA?
Time will tell.