GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - Christopher Mallick was fired from Paycom for stealing money?

Randy West · 09-10-2010, 01:47 AM

Oh fuck, now check this shit out I am reading:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1235298.html
These are just excerpts from the case, but interesting none the less.
TL;DR version:
Mallick was hired under false pretenses by this SAM group by doctoring a fake background investigation report about himself. He then drove the company into the ground within seven weaks by depleting it's resources.

SUEZ EQUITY INVESTORS SEI v. TORONTO DOMINION BANK USA[/B]
[I]Plaintiffs allege that defendants discouraged them from inquiring into the background of SAM Group's principal, J. Christopher Mallick, and instead provided them with what was purportedly the report of an independent investigator who had performed a background check on Mallick, but was in fact a modified version of that report with adverse information deleted. Plaintiffs thereafter invested in SAM Group in reliance on the modified report. When SAM Group subsequently failed financially, this securities fraud litigation ensued.

.....

Unlike the Original Bishops Report, the Modified Report omitted negative events in Mallick's business and financial history. Specifically, the Modified Report stated that: (1) no bankruptcy filings were found for Mallick, while the Original Bishops Report had described in some detail his involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy arising out of personal guarantees on business debts; (2) no pending civil suits were found for any individual subjects being investigated, but the Original Report had identified three civil suits filed against Mallick; and, omitted mention: (3) of a 1993 suit brought against Mallick by a gemstone business, in which he had been a joint venturer, where plaintiff sought the repayment of $250,000 borrowed from the business; (4) of three tax liens against Mallick personally, including one in the sum of $30,475, as well as a $3,233 tax lien against SAM Group's predecessor, which derived from $78,000 of unpaid federal taxes in the 1980s and $400,000 in the 1990s; and (5) of (a) several lawsuits that had been decided against Mallick, (b) his delinquent credit accounts, and (c) a critical comment made about him by a third party.

......

Defendants' substantial loans to SAM Group reflected the Group's liquidity problems, which the complaint attributes to Mallick's inability to manage the Group's finances effectively. When plaintiffs invested in the Group, ?Mallick had put SAM Group in a financial position in which SAM Group had no chance to succeed [because it] had no access to working capital.? Id. ¶ 67. As a result, plaintiffs' SAM Group securities were at the time of acquisition-and are today-worthless. Within seven weeks of plaintiffs' investment, SAM Group suffered a cash flow crisis from which it did not recover.

........

09-10-2010, 01:47 AM
Randy West So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,079	Oh fuck, now check this shit out I am reading: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1235298.html These are just excerpts from the case, but interesting none the less. TL;DR version: Mallick was hired under false pretenses by this SAM group by doctoring a fake background investigation report about himself. He then drove the company into the ground within seven weaks by depleting it's resources. SUEZ EQUITY INVESTORS SEI v. TORONTO DOMINION BANK USA[/B] [I]Plaintiffs allege that defendants discouraged them from inquiring into the background of SAM Group's principal, J. Christopher Mallick, and instead provided them with what was purportedly the report of an independent investigator who had performed a background check on Mallick, but was in fact a modified version of that report with adverse information deleted. Plaintiffs thereafter invested in SAM Group in reliance on the modified report. When SAM Group subsequently failed financially, this securities fraud litigation ensued. ..... Unlike the Original Bishops Report, the Modified Report omitted negative events in Mallick's business and financial history. Specifically, the Modified Report stated that: (1) no bankruptcy filings were found for Mallick, while the Original Bishops Report had described in some detail his involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy arising out of personal guarantees on business debts; (2) no pending civil suits were found for any individual subjects being investigated, but the Original Report had identified three civil suits filed against Mallick; and, omitted mention: (3) of a 1993 suit brought against Mallick by a gemstone business, in which he had been a joint venturer, where plaintiff sought the repayment of $250,000 borrowed from the business; (4) of three tax liens against Mallick personally, including one in the sum of $30,475, as well as a $3,233 tax lien against SAM Group's predecessor, which derived from $78,000 of unpaid federal taxes in the 1980s and $400,000 in the 1990s; and (5) of (a) several lawsuits that had been decided against Mallick, (b) his delinquent credit accounts, and (c) a critical comment made about him by a third party. ...... Defendants' substantial loans to SAM Group reflected the Group's liquidity problems, which the complaint attributes to Mallick's inability to manage the Group's finances effectively. When plaintiffs invested in the Group, ?Mallick had put SAM Group in a financial position in which SAM Group had no chance to succeed [because it] had no access to working capital.? Id. ¶ 67. As a result, plaintiffs' SAM Group securities were at the time of acquisition-and are today-worthless. Within seven weeks of plaintiffs' investment, SAM Group suffered a cash flow crisis from which it did not recover. ........