By Alfred and John Donovan of RoyalDutchShellPlc.com
A conspiracy has been exposed at the highest level of the Malaysian judiciary. It involves corrupt politicians and alleged corruption of the highest judicial office in Malaysia: the Chief Justice. The crisis has shaken the country and sparked widespread demands for an urgent overhaul of the judiciary.
Lawyers are organising a protest march for Wednesday 26 September and also plan to submit a demand that Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi should order an inquiry. They plan to boycott court hearings if no formal inquiry is announced.
The scandal stems from an “explosive†video clip of a controversial senior lawyer VK Lingam allegedly in a phone conversation with the current Chief Justice of Malaysia, Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim conspiring to ‘fix’ high profile cases and the promotion of ‘friendly’ senior judges.
The 2002 video conversation also implicates former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, a sitting minister and several serving Appeal Court judges. Among the matters allegedly discussed during the telephone conversation was the appointment of Ahmad Fairuz as the Chief Judge of Malaya and his promotion as the Chief Justice, which subsequently took place in 2003.
According to a quote published on The Malaysian Bar website
“Such a scandalous expose… only serves to corroborate our allegations of a political conspiracy of the highest level and corruption of the highest judicial office, seriously bringing into question the impartiality of judicial proceedings involving the affected parties…â€
The video clip can be viewed on their website:
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/content/view/11222/2/
The fallout in terms of loss of confidence in obtaining impartial justice has inevitably spread to parties involved in current High Court cases, including litigation involving the oil giant Shell.
Royal Dutch Shell has a cosy relationship with the sleazy and oppressive Malaysian regime. It extends to Shell’s main business partner in Malaysia, the state owned Energy Company PETRONAS run by current and former government ministers. Shell keeps the repressed news media sweet by sponsoring press awards. The bottom line is that in Malaysia, money currently buys power and influence. Shell has plenty to spread around.
THE “TEAM A†CASE
In 2004 a Malaysian High Court ruled in favour of 399 former Shell employees known as “Team A†in a class action lawsuit brought in 2002 against Shell companies in Malaysia. The Judge ruled Shell had acted “unlawfully†in making deductions from employee retirement pension funds. Under a hard-hearted Shell Malaysia management, headed by the then Country Chairman Jon Chadwick, Shell appealed the decision. Many of the relevant former employees are elderly and sick. We understand from a reliable source that about 30 of the original 399 have already died.
In March 2007, three Court of Appeal judges overturned the judgment. Astonishingly, when announcing the decision in court, one of the Appeal Court judges stated as grounds for the decision:
“we don’t believe a company like Shell would do anything like this to employees”.
We managed to obtain a leaked copy of the judgment dated 30 March 2007. It was clear from the judgment that the Appeal Court Judges are either in the pocket of Shell, or ignorant unworldly fools who believe multinational oil giants are incapable of wrongdoing. The latter explanation seems rather unlikely. From what we have read on the Malaysian Bar website, Malaysian lawyers are just as savvy as their American and British cousins.
In paragraph 26 on page 24 of the Appeal Court judgment it is stated in reference to Shell…
“…to deduct employer’s EPF contributions from the lump sum would not only expose them to accusations of illegal action and fraud on employees but would result in no employee getting any benefit from the RBF and in the RBF becoming a futile exercise, and it is inconceivable that those companies would embark on such an absurd, pointless and perilous undertaking.â€
This was further confirmation that part of the reasoning for reversing the 2004 decision was on the grounds that Shell would never act fraudulently or unethically. They obviously had not heard about Shell’s track record of engaging in fictitious trades, securities fraud, price fixing cartels, theft of intellectual property, bribes, corruption, organising and arming a private army of police spies in Nigeria, conspiring with successive Nigerian governments to rob billions from a poverty stricken population, the manslaughter of Shell employees, using a registered charity – The Shell Foundation, as a front for commercial objectives, plus many other unsavoury misdeeds recorded in Wikipedia with cited reputable sources of verification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Royal_Dutch_Shell
Quite frankly the Appeal Court decision was a disgrace and a further stain on justice in Malaysia.
We understand that “Team A†is seeking leave to appeal the Appeal Court decision to the Federal Court. It seems that they could be wasting their time.
If you think about it logically, there would be no need to bribe every judge. Influence at the higher levels of the judiciary is all that is needed to fix the outcome.
DR JOHN HUONG
In June 2004, EIGHT Royal Dutch Shell companies collectively brought a defamation action against a former Shell production geologist Dr John Huong in respect of alleged libellous comments posted on what Ed Crooks, the Energy Editor of the Financial Times newspaper has described as an anti-Shell website: www.royaldutchshellplc.com (Our website)
The EIGHT Shell companies obtained an “interim injunction†against Dr Huong. In the USA or the UK, an interim injunction lasts for a short period pending a hearing. In Malaysia the original interim injunction still remains in force over 3 years later. There has been no progress in the proceedings. No discovery process. Not even witness statements. Although some court hearings took place after Shell served further proceedings on Dr Huong, including a demand that he be imprisoned for alleged contempt of court, not one word has ever been published in the Malaysian press about the case. How convenient for Shell.
With the litigation hanging over his head year after year, Dr Huong (who blew the whistle internally on the Shell hydrocarbon reserves *securities fraud) has no prospect of obtaining employment in his profession.
On 8 August 2007, we sent an email to Mr Saw Choo Boon, the current Chairman of Shell Malaysia, reminding Shell that over three years ago we notified the trial Judge (and Shell) that the eight plaintiff Shell companies were suing the wrong party in the wrong Country in respect of the wrong website. Shell had issued proceedings naming a website which has never existed and were suing a Malaysian national Dr Huong instead of us (we made the relevant alleged defamatory postings on our U.S. hosted website). We pointed out that the whole proceedings were a complete fiasco and that the pantomime has been allowed to drag on for over three years.
Dr Huong is suing Shell for wrongful dismissal. That case has also been in progress since 2004 with apparently no end in sight.
We have suspected for some time that something was very amiss with the Malaysian judicial process. Now we know that our suspicions were well founded.
We have information relating to Shell, the Malaysian judiciary and corruption that we are not at liberty to reveal.
The outcome for Dr Huong looks no more encouraging than in does for “Team A†unless corrupt Judges are removed from the litigation process.
*THE SHELL SECURITIES FRAUD
It was said in a BBC TV programme “more investors that were affected by this fraud than any other fraud in historyâ€
TRANSCRIPT OF BBC MONEY PROGRAMME FROM JULY 2004 ABOUT THE SHELL RESERVES FRAUD:
http://www.shellnews.net/2004%20Documents/bbc/bbc2moneyprogramme15july04.htm
Shell was fined $150 million by the U.S. and UK financial regulators for “fooling the markets†and Shell has already settled a number of related class action lawsuits. It has set aside $500 million to settle the final case.
This is the multinational oil giant which Malaysian Appeal Court judges believe to be incapable of cheating its employees. Who are they trying to fool?
4 users commented in " CORRUPTION CRISIS IN MALAYSIAN JUDICIARY IMPACTS ON SHELL LITIGATION "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackEnergy Billing Fraud Charges vs Multiut owned by Nachshon Draiman!
Multiut Admitted to holding money belonging to customers
Chicago Metro Area Consumers are taken for a ride by Multiut – Nachshon Draiman – Energy Billing fraud
In a Class Action proceeding initiated in November 2001 – The case after numerous delays by Multiut, is now proceeding.
Gore vs Multiut – IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS Case No. 01 CH 19688
Posted on September 21st, 2007:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT – CHANCERY DIVISION
FILED
JACK GORE on behalf of himself and all ) NOV 28, 2002
other persons or entitles similarly situated, |
•
vs. No. 01 CH 19688
DOROTHY 8ROWN CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT
MULTIUT CORP, an Illinois corporation, } Judge Stephen A, Schiller
Defendant ) Courtroom 2402
RESPONSE TO §2-619.1 MOTION TO DISMISS J/
Plaintiff JACK GORE (“Gore”). by his attorneys LARRY D DRURY LTD., hereby responds to the Motion to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-615 and 619, brought as a combined 2-619.1 motion by defendant MULTIUT CORP. (“Multiut”).
Introduction
Multiut is trying to time-bar this case by transforming express a written agency-service contract drafted by Multiut into a contract for sale of goods, and by disputing Gore’s allegations as to concealment and discovery of the wrong – but without submitting any Rule 191 affidavit or documentation. This is a class action arising out
of a written contract drafted by Multiut, attached here and to the 2nd Amended Complaint as Exhibit A and B collectively referred to herein as the “contract” or “agreement “ unless otherwise indicated by context): (1)
(A) A service contract to act as Gore’s “purchasing representatives” in obtaining natural gas from “off system” suppliers. This contract, entered into on or about December 1990, was titled “Agreement,” Exh. A 1, 3-6, 10. And,
{B} A series of supplemental agency contracts to act as Gore’s agent, in so doing with respect to various Properties. These were entered into contemporaneously with the service contract and thereafter, and titled “Natural Gas Purchasing and Agency Agreement.” Exh.-B. (2)
(1) Similarly Multiut refers to them collectively as “the agreement” in its brief (Mem. p. 2, fn. 1). Although the documents are on separately filed pages, they are mutually inclusive and one could not be entered into without the other; e.g. the service contract refers to and incorporates the agency contracts, wherein Multiut refers to itself as Gore’s ‘exclusive natural gas purchasing agent’. See Exh. A, third introductory paragraph and 16-17; Exh. B 1,
(2) Exh. 8 one of the series, is dated 1998, Exh. C is Gore’s §2-806 affidavit as to the others. Gore has stated he does not have a copy of each, they are inaccessible to him i.e. no longer in his possession, whether missplaced or otherwise, and cannot be located or returned. 2nd Amd.. Compl. {4; Exh, C, in the 1st Amd. Complaint, Count 4 for breach of oral contract was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after Gore’s deposition of May 8,- 2002, when the service contract and the 1998 agency contract were produced by Multiut and adequately established, Exhs, A-B are the same Exhs. 1-2 attached to the Gore transcript, excerpts of which are attached herein as Exh. D, Similarly the missing agency agreements are likely in Multiut’s possession and will be produced in discovery.
The contract was drafted by Multiut, it unequivocally defines Multiut’s role in the transactions, and shows that this case is not governed by the UCC. What is at issue here is not the “good” that Multiut obtained for Gore, but the service Multiut provided as his purchasing agent. Gore is suing upon the service and agency contract – not the natural gas – and has alleged that Multiut breached its duties in two respects;
{1} By falsely and intentionally charging and retaining for its own use funds that were to be applied to a City of Chicago 8% gross receipts tax (“Tax”), which it had promised would be placed in escrow and forwarded to the City. Between December 1990 and January 1995 (after the City of Chicago changed the Tax), Multiut collected approximately $14,000 from Gore and at least $1 million to $1.5 million from the Class, for this Tax that was not actually imposed upon Multiut. 2nd Amd. Compl. 7-9, ‘3! Multiut not only failed to inform Plaintiff and
the Class that the money collected was not so applied or escrowed, but also failed to escrow, account for, and refund the funds with interest.
(2) By overcharging for the service of providing natural gas. Multiut was to charge for natural gas actually supplied to Gore and the Class on a set per therm cost basis, plus an amount equal to 1/2 of their respective per therm cost savings per month, instead, Multiut overcharged and billed Gore at least $100.000 and the class millions of dollars and refuses to provide an accounting and refund with interest. Id. 10-11.
Gore has further alleged that Multiut prevented him from discovering the wrongs by intentionally concealing them until at least December 2000, when he discovered the truth and could not reasonably have done so earlier. (Gore testified at his deposition on May 8, 2002 that he first discovered the discrepancies in his bills, the overcharges, the taxes, and failure to escrow the taxes, in December 2000. See Exh, D, pp. 25-28,) Thereafter he was unable to obtain any refund and based thereon, terminated Multiut’s services on or about June 2001, However, the wrongful acts are continuing to date, in that Multiut continues to ‘refuse to provide an accounting and refund with interest to Gore and the Class, all to their detriment and damage. They seek imposition of constructive trust (id. 22), an accounting and damages in not less than the foregoing amounts plus interest (id, 9-13, 23).
Gore filed the original Class Action Complaint on Nov. 20, 2001, and in lieu of responding to a motion to dismiss, filed the 1st Amended Class Action Complaint Feb. 14, 2002, setting forth 4 counts for (1) breach of
3-: The City did not and will not collect the 8% Tax, presumably because of U.S. constitutional restrictions as to the interstate commerce clause and exceptions for interstate pipelines and out-of-state suppliers. As a result in 1994 the City changed the tax from an 8% gross receipts tax to a flat rate tax of 1.4 to 1.5 cents per therm. 2nd Amd. Comp. P 8. in Multiut’s response to First Request to Admit {attached hereto as Exh. F), it has admitted the following statements about this Tax; (8) that Multiut collected approximately $14,000 in Tax from Gore between 1991-1994; and (9) that Multiut spent its customers Tax payments on business expenses.. Yehuda Draiman testified to the same effect in his deposition 1-10-02 See transcript excerpts attached hereto as Exh. E, at pp, 36-37,40, 68, and Exh, 6 thereto.
Activity Date: 8/15/2007 Participant: GORE JACK
CASE SET ON STATUS CALL
Court Date: 8/29/2007
Court Time: 0930
Court Room: 2402
Judge: BRONSTEIN, PHILIP L.
August 30th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
RE: MULTIUT CORP. FORMER CUSTOMERS!
Multiut owner is Nachshon Draiman of Cook County, Illinois
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT YOU ARE PROBABLY DUE A REFUND PLUS INTEREST FOR SALES TAX ON NATURAL GAS WHICH WAS COLLECTED FROM YOU AND WITHHELD BY MULTIUT CORP. TEL # 847-982-0030 at 7514 N. Skokie Bl. Skokie, Illinois.
MULTIUT IS HOLDING APPROXIMATELY OVER ONE MILLION DOLLARS THAT MAY BELONG TO CUSTOMERS.
MULTIUT HAS OVERBILLED CUSTOMERS ON SHARED SAVINGS FOR THE PAST 14 YEARS.
THERE IS CURRENTLY A CLASS ACTION SUIT AGAINST MULTIUT.
I STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT YOU HAVE ALL YOUR BILLS THAT WERE ISSUED BY MULTIUT CORP. AUDITED THOROUGHLY THERE MAY BE STORAGE CREDITS DUE YOU AND ERRORS IN BILLING WHICH CREDITS MAY BE DUE YOU.
Multiut has admitted in Court that they are holding the money.
Gore vs Multiut 01 CH 19688 Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
A concerned citizen
For honesty in billing
Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al
On August 16th, 2007:
Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al 1:02-cv-07446.
Multiut Corp and Nachshon Draiman dba Future Associate of Skokie, IL. are withholding evidence of fraudulent activities in the Energy industry and inflated Medicaid billing to the government for Nursing Home patients. Also Bank fraud against their bank by presenting fraudulent and inflated receivable reports in order to get and keep a credit line, Nachshon Draiman was a large stock holder of the bank. Draiman Nachshon • SC 13G • Success Bancshares Inc • On 2/17/98
Filed On 2/17/98 • SEC File 5-53545 • Accession Number 950137-98-586
Court: United States District Court Northern District of Illinois –
Case Title: Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman Future Associates et al
Case Number: 1:02-cv-07446
Judge: Hon. John A. Nordberg
Filed On: 10/16/2002
SUMMARY
Case Number: 1:02-cv-07446
Referred To: Honorable Michael T. Mason
Jury Demand: Defendant
Demand: $9999000
Nature of Suit: Contract: Other (190)
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Case Updated: 01/20/2005
NAMES
Party Name: Multiut Corporation an Illinois Corporation,
Party Type: Defendant
Attorney(s): Paul Thaddeus Fox
(312) 456-8400
Firm Name: Greenberg Traurig, LLP.
Firm Address: 77 West Wacker Drive
Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Alan Jay Mandel
847-329-8450
Firm Name: Alan J Mandel Ltd
Firm Address: 7520 North Skokie Blvd
Skokie, IL 60077
03/30/2007 225
NOTICE of Motion by Ira P. Gould for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney224 before Honorable John A. Nordberg on 4/19/2007 at 02:30 PM. (Gould, Ira) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
04/18/2007 226
MINUTE entry before Judge John A. Nordberg: Motion of Ira Gould to withdraw his appearance on behalf of Multiut Corporation 224 is granted. The motion will not be heard on 4/19/07 as noticed. Mailed (vmj, ) (Entered: 04/19/2007).
See: http://www.antidefamationusa.com or http://www.antidefamation.us
Nachshon Draiman, Chicago – a disgruntled owner and operator of
On June 26th, 2008 Jay Draiman says:
Nachshon Draiman, Chicago – a disgruntled owner and operator of a Natural Gas Supply company and Nursing Homes – who was caught by his brother Yehuda Jay Draiman and others was stealing from employees, customers, suppliers, banks and his partners including his own blind elderly mother. Initiated a campaign of smear and fraud with the presentation of fraudulent documents (a common practice) to the courts. State and Federal court records are replete with lawsuit and litigations against Nachshon Draiman and his businesses, Multiut, Future Associates and various Nursing Homes operated by Nachshon Draiman.
The revocation of the Nursing Home license which was issued in 1975 initiated Nachshon Draiman’s involvement in syndicating the purchase of numerous Nursing Homes in the Chicago metro area – the whole pyramid was based on fraud and deception by obtaining his license through fraud. (Some of the nursing homes were closed down and or forced by State officials to be sold). Lawsuits for patient’s abuse and causing the death of a patient are common, including bank fraud confirmed by former Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Ellis. A major lawsuit by Dynegy vs Nachshon Draiman, Multiut, Future Associates Case No. 02 C 7446 for $22 million – numerous contempt of court orders and a $45 million by Israel Discount Bank for fraud, just to name a few, Utility billing fraud Gore vs. Multiut No. 01 CH 19688.
Buying a Whistleblower case from the courts in order to solidify his cover-up of the fraud.
Nachshon Draiman, Chicago – nursing home administrator license (044001323) revoked and fined
Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation
NEWS
IDFPR
Disciplinary Actions for January 2008 SPRINGFIELD
The Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR)
announced today that the Directors of the Division of Professional Regulation, Daniel E. Bluthardt, and Insurance, Michael T. McRaith, signed the following disciplinary orders in January. Orders for the Division of Banking were authorized by Director Jorge Solis.
NURSING HOME ADMINISTRATOR
Nachshon Draiman, Chicago – nursing home administrator license (044001323)
revoked and fined $2,000 for misrepresenting information in his application concerning postgraduate education degree, to obtain nursing home administrator licensure from the Department.
For additional information see: http://www.nachshondraiman.net
Nachshon Draiman and Multiut charged $15 million judgment
Honorable John A. Nordberg: Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order.
For the reasons set forth above, defendants motion for summary judgment is granted, and judgment is granted to plaintiff, and against defendants Multiut and Nachshon Draiman
Case 1:02-cv-07446 Document 228 Filed 06/11/2008 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.2.1
Eastern Division
Dynegy Marketing and Trade
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 1:02−cv−07446
Hon. John A. Nordberg
Multiut Corporation, Nachshon Draiman, et al.
Defendant.
NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, June 11, 2008:
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John A. Nordberg:Enter Memorandum
Opinion and Order. For the reasons set forth above, defendants motion for summary judgment is granted, and judgment is granted to plaintiff, and against defendants Multiut and Nachshon Draiman, on Counts I and II of plaintiffs amended complaint, in the amount of
$15,348,244.72 plus interest accruing from October 1, 2004. Judgment is granted for plaintiff and against defendants on Counts I through VI of defendants
counterclaims.Status hearing set for 10/2/2008 at 2:30 PM. [183],[196]Mailed notice(tlp, )
ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please refer to it for additional information.
For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our web site at http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.
http://www.nachshondraiman.net
NACHSHON DRAIMAN 09-17582 and Multiut 09-17575 file for bankruptcy
ilnbke
09-17582
ilnbke
09-17575
On May 14, 2009, NACHSHON DRAIMAN filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The filer is being represented by Michael L Ralph, Sr of the firm Ralph, Schwab & Schiever, Chtd.
A bankruptcy petition preparer’s failure to comply with the provisions of
title 11 and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure may result in
fines or imprisonment or both 11 U.S.C. §110; 18 U.S.C. §156.
Multiut Corporation
/s/ SCOTT R. CLAR
SCOTT R. CLAR 06183741
Crane, Heyman, Simon, Welch & Clar
Suite 3705
135 South LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60603-4297
312-641-6777 Fax: 312-641-7114
May 14, 2009
Nachshon Draiman
/s/ Nachshon Draiman
President
May 14, 2009
I certify under penalty of perjury that the information provided above is true and correct.
Signature of Debtor: /s/ Nachshon Draiman
Nachshon Draiman
Date: May 14, 2009
Software
B4 (Official Form 4) (12/07)
United States Bankruptcy Court
Northern District of Illinois
In re Nachshon Draiman Case No.
Debtor(s) Chapter 11
LIST OF CREDITORS HOLDING 20 LARGEST UNSECURED CLAIMS
Following is the list of the debtor’s creditors holding the 20 largest unsecured claims. The list is prepared in
accordance with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1007(d) for filing in this chapter 11 [or chapter 9] case. The list does not include (1)
persons who come within the definition of “insider” set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 101, or (2) secured creditors unless the value of
the collateral is such that the unsecured deficiency places the creditor among the holders of the 20 largest unsecured claims.
If a minor child is one of the creditors holding the 20 largest unsecured claims, state the child’s initials and the name and
address of the child’s parent or guardian, such as “A.B., a minor child, by John Doe, guardian.” Do not disclose the child’s
name. See 11 U.S.C. § 112; Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1007(m).
(1)
Name of creditor and complete
mailing address including zip
code
(2)
Name, telephone number and complete
mailing address, including zip code, of
employee, agent, or department of creditor
familiar with claim who may be contacted
(3)
Nature of claim (trade
debt, bank loan,
government contract,
etc.)
(4)
Indicate if claim is
contingent,
unliquidated,
disputed, or subject
to setoff
(5)
Amount of claim [if
secured, also state
value of security]
Alan Mandel
7520 N. Skokie Blvd.
Skokie, IL 60077
Alan Mandel
7520 N. Skokie Blvd.
Skokie, IL 60077
Attorney’s Fees and
Costs
Disputed
Subject to Setoff
193,963.62
BankFinancial, F.S.B.
3443 W. Touhy Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Bank Financial
3443 W. Touhy Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Personal Line of
Credit
120,000.00
BankFinancial, F.S.B.
3443 W. Touhy Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Bank Financial
3443 W. Touhy Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Guaranty on Bank
Loan, Lifescan
Laboratiries, Inc.
Contingent
Unliquidated
259,748.58
BankFinancial, F.S.B.
3443 W. Touhy Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Bank Financial
3443 W. Touhy Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Leave A Reply