Preview
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/09/2021 03:02 PM INDEX NO. 617853/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/09/2021
Exhibit H
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/09/2021 03:02 PM INDEX NO. 617853/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/09/2021
October 19, 2021
Via E-Mail
Mr. Adam Wald, Esq.
Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, & Brietstone, LLP
190 Willis Avenue
Mineola, New York 11501
Re: Veludi Capital Strategies, LLC v. Manuel Pereira
Index No. 617853/2019
Dear Mr. Wald:
As you know, this law firm represents Veludi Capital Strategies (“Veludi”) and Chander
Goel in the above-referenced matter. I write in response to your meet and confer letter dated
October 5, 2021.
In the first instance, I must reiterate that the alleged discovery deficiencies are in no way
related to the Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaims and Third-Party Claims, the basis of which is
an agreement between your client and MassMutual whereby he released his claims and/or assigned
them to Mass Mutual. However, none of the requests seek any information relating to same (not
that Veludi or Goel would be in possession of anything relating to Mr. Pereira’s settlement with
Mass Mutual even if it was requested). Therefore, our discovery disagreements notwithstanding,
there is no need to adjourn any deadlines relating to the pending motion, to which we provided
you a generous amount of time to oppose already.
Turning to the main point of your letter, it appears that the basis of most of your problems
with Veludi’s and Goel’s discovery responses is not the responses themselves so much as the poor
questioning and the apparent incorrect understanding of Veludi.
To wit, you assert that “Veludi is an institutional actor engaged in the sale of insurance
policies…” (p. 3). This is false. Veludi has never been engaged in, or in any way involved with,
the sale or issuance of a single insurance policy. Furthermore, until 2021, Veludi has never
employed a single person.1 In light of these facts, together with the fact that Goel did not sell any
of the at issue policies, it is perfectly reasonable for Veludi and Goel to have very few documents
responsive to Defendant’s requests (including agreements, communications, and documents
relating to commissions). Furthermore, agreements with Mass Mutual were maintained by Mass
Mutual, and he no longer has access to same since his termination therefrom.
While I will double-check with my clients to ensure that no documents are missing and
will produce any documents responsive to requests for which we have made no objection, I have
1
Veludi hired its first employee in early 2021, long after the events at issue and the filing of this lawsuit.
Manhattan Office: 55 West 39th Street, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10018
New York City | New Jersey | Long Island | Beverly Hills | Florida
Website: www.cmfllp.com
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/09/2021 03:02 PM INDEX NO. 617853/2019
NYSCEF DOC.Mr.NO.
Adam 124
Wald RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/09/2021
October 19, 2021
Page 2 of 3
no reason to believe there exist any additional documents in my clients’ possession which are
responsive to your requests.
I also must note that several times in your letter you are misrepresenting what your requests
seek. For example, you assert that one of the items you seek is “written agreements with Mr.
Pereira (Id. at ¶3)” (p. 3) – however request No. 3 actually seeks “written agreements…by and
between Veludi and Mr. Pereira relative to the Mass Mutual Policies” (emphasis added), which is
much narrower in scope than just “agreements” between the parties. Thereafter, your request for
communications is likewise limited to those which are “relative to such written agreements.” (p.
3). As Veludi entered into no agreements with Mr. Pereira relative to the Mass Mutual policies,
there are no documents responsive to either request (as much as you may wish that the requests
included all communications between the parties). Additionally, you also assert that Veludi must
maintain requested documents as a function of corporate formalities, and cite Limit Liab Co. §1102
(p.3), however, none of the documents required to be maintained by Limit Liab. Co. §1102 (a list
of managers, a list of members, articles of organization, operating agreement, and tax returns) were
ever requested by Defendant.
Turning to the interrogatories, it appears all of them – with the exception of one which I
will return to hereafter – are answered correctly. Again, you do not accurately state your own
Interrogatory No. 18 to Veludi, which sought whether or not Mass Mutual paid for the space at
180 Maiden Lane where Veludi maintained an office. However, your October 5, 2021 letter relates
this as Veludi stipulating to the fact that Mass Mutual paid for “its” offices. Those are not the same
question. As Veludi Interrogatory No. 19 says, the space at 180 Maiden Lane was Mass Mutual’s
branch office.
Your assertions notwithstanding that certain responses “belies logic,” MassMutual did
indeed pay the rent for the office space of which Veludi made use, Mr. Goel did indeed receive an
override of Sunil Kumar’s commissions, Mr. Kumar did indeed sell the Mass Mutual Policies, and
neither Veludi nor any Veludi employee (because it had none) received any incentive from selling
the Mass Mutual policies. Each of these responses is correct, and I direct your attention above to
where I pointed out that Veludi has never had any involvement with the sale of any insurance
policy.
Regarding Goel’s interrogatory No 5, we reiterate our objection on the ground of
vagueness. We do not know how any individual has any interest in the property in possession of
another (perhaps unless same was stolen or embezzled from its rightful owner). Regardless, same
would be a legal question and not the proper subject of an interrogatory. Additionally, as the loan
was between Veludi and Periera, the question also makes little sense. However, as we responded
to Interrogatory No. 7 and 8, Mr. Goel indirectly has an interest in the debt owed to Veludi by
virtue of his ownership thereof.
Regarding Veludi’s Interrogatory No. 20, the response of “No” is correct as Veludi had no
employees. Regarding Goel’s Interrogatory No. 22, it was Mr. Dunbar’s job and responsibility to
attempt to collateralize the Queens property; although due to Mr. Dunbar’s failure to do so, there
did come a point in time where Mr. Goel did attempt to assist Mr. Dunbar by providing him a
contact at HAB Bank. Whether that little involvement qualifies as “attempt[ing] to collateralize”
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/09/2021 03:02 PM INDEX NO. 617853/2019
NYSCEF DOC.Mr.NO.
Adam 124
Wald RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/09/2021
October 19, 2021
Page 3 of 3
the property itself is a matter of one’s interpretation; Mr. Goel did not believe it is. However, this
clarification should resolve any issue you may have with his response.
Regarding Goel’s Interrogatory No. 15, FINRA was not and is not a regulatory body over
insurance. Mr. Goel was given no insurance sanction – rather, he gave up his securities license by
being barred from registering with a securities broker for declining to further cooperate with
FINRA’s investigation. As Mr. Goel did not engage in the sale of securities, he made a cost/benefit
analysis of continuing to incur fees to keep same which license he did not use, and ultimately
consented to the bar sanction. Therefore, the response – insofar as FINRA is concerned – is
accurate. Contrary to any false assertion that “Goel merely sought to avoid answering it,” by
specifically identifying FINRA (when a simple “no” would have been sufficient) he was extra
forthcoming by correcting the mistaken premise as to avoid confusion. Together with the fact that
Veludi’s response to Interrogatory No. 15 specifically directs you to the BrokerCheck report where
you can locate the document you attached as Exhibit J, it is clear that Mr. Goel was not trying to
hide anything. Further, a simple request as to whether Mr. Goel has ever faced discipline from
FINRA would have alleviated the entire dispute.
However, we do concede that Response No. 15 was nevertheless inaccurate because as you
have pointed out, Mr. Goel did receive a fine from the New York State Department of Financial
Services. Mr. Goel misunderstood this question because the conduct relating to the fine did not
occur during his affiliation with Mass Mutual (rather, it stemmed from his affiliation with New
York Life). Therefore, we will stipulate to changing the response to Interrogatory No. 15 to “yes.”
The answer will then be accurate regardless of whether you consider FINRA an insurance regulator
or not. Mr. Goel will refer you to the description of his conduct from the New York State
Department of Financial Services (attached to your letter as Exhibit K) in response to Interrogatory
No. 16. 2
I trust that the above addresses all of your concerns, and that this settles the matter
regarding Veludi’s and Mr. Goel’s discovery responses.
Very truly yours,
Craig A. Riha
2
I also note that you merely asked a yes/no interrogatory, there was no document request to Mr. Goel regarding
same, consequently no documentary evidence was withheld.
Preview
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/09/2021 03:02 PM INDEX NO. 617853/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/09/2021 Exhibit H FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/09/2021 03:02 PM INDEX NO. 617853/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/09/2021 October 19, 2021 Via E-Mail Mr. Adam Wald, Esq. Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, & Brietstone, LLP 190 Willis Avenue Mineola, New York 11501 Re: Veludi Capital Strategies, LLC v. Manuel Pereira Index No. 617853/2019 Dear Mr. Wald: As you know, this law firm represents Veludi Capital Strategies (“Veludi”) and Chander Goel in the above-referenced matter. I write in response to your meet and confer letter dated October 5, 2021. In the first instance, I must reiterate that the alleged discovery deficiencies are in no way related to the Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaims and Third-Party Claims, the basis of which is an agreement between your client and MassMutual whereby he released his claims and/or assigned them to Mass Mutual. However, none of the requests seek any information relating to same (not that Veludi or Goel would be in possession of anything relating to Mr. Pereira’s settlement with Mass Mutual even if it was requested). Therefore, our discovery disagreements notwithstanding, there is no need to adjourn any deadlines relating to the pending motion, to which we provided you a generous amount of time to oppose already. Turning to the main point of your letter, it appears that the basis of most of your problems with Veludi’s and Goel’s discovery responses is not the responses themselves so much as the poor questioning and the apparent incorrect understanding of Veludi. To wit, you assert that “Veludi is an institutional actor engaged in the sale of insurance policies…” (p. 3). This is false. Veludi has never been engaged in, or in any way involved with, the sale or issuance of a single insurance policy. Furthermore, until 2021, Veludi has never employed a single person.1 In light of these facts, together with the fact that Goel did not sell any of the at issue policies, it is perfectly reasonable for Veludi and Goel to have very few documents responsive to Defendant’s requests (including agreements, communications, and documents relating to commissions). Furthermore, agreements with Mass Mutual were maintained by Mass Mutual, and he no longer has access to same since his termination therefrom. While I will double-check with my clients to ensure that no documents are missing and will produce any documents responsive to requests for which we have made no objection, I have 1 Veludi hired its first employee in early 2021, long after the events at issue and the filing of this lawsuit. Manhattan Office: 55 West 39th Street, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10018 New York City | New Jersey | Long Island | Beverly Hills | Florida Website: www.cmfllp.com FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/09/2021 03:02 PM INDEX NO. 617853/2019 NYSCEF DOC.Mr.NO. Adam 124 Wald RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/09/2021 October 19, 2021 Page 2 of 3 no reason to believe there exist any additional documents in my clients’ possession which are responsive to your requests. I also must note that several times in your letter you are misrepresenting what your requests seek. For example, you assert that one of the items you seek is “written agreements with Mr. Pereira (Id. at ¶3)” (p. 3) – however request No. 3 actually seeks “written agreements…by and between Veludi and Mr. Pereira relative to the Mass Mutual Policies” (emphasis added), which is much narrower in scope than just “agreements” between the parties. Thereafter, your request for communications is likewise limited to those which are “relative to such written agreements.” (p. 3). As Veludi entered into no agreements with Mr. Pereira relative to the Mass Mutual policies, there are no documents responsive to either request (as much as you may wish that the requests included all communications between the parties). Additionally, you also assert that Veludi must maintain requested documents as a function of corporate formalities, and cite Limit Liab Co. §1102 (p.3), however, none of the documents required to be maintained by Limit Liab. Co. §1102 (a list of managers, a list of members, articles of organization, operating agreement, and tax returns) were ever requested by Defendant. Turning to the interrogatories, it appears all of them – with the exception of one which I will return to hereafter – are answered correctly. Again, you do not accurately state your own Interrogatory No. 18 to Veludi, which sought whether or not Mass Mutual paid for the space at 180 Maiden Lane where Veludi maintained an office. However, your October 5, 2021 letter relates this as Veludi stipulating to the fact that Mass Mutual paid for “its” offices. Those are not the same question. As Veludi Interrogatory No. 19 says, the space at 180 Maiden Lane was Mass Mutual’s branch office. Your assertions notwithstanding that certain responses “belies logic,” MassMutual did indeed pay the rent for the office space of which Veludi made use, Mr. Goel did indeed receive an override of Sunil Kumar’s commissions, Mr. Kumar did indeed sell the Mass Mutual Policies, and neither Veludi nor any Veludi employee (because it had none) received any incentive from selling the Mass Mutual policies. Each of these responses is correct, and I direct your attention above to where I pointed out that Veludi has never had any involvement with the sale of any insurance policy. Regarding Goel’s interrogatory No 5, we reiterate our objection on the ground of vagueness. We do not know how any individual has any interest in the property in possession of another (perhaps unless same was stolen or embezzled from its rightful owner). Regardless, same would be a legal question and not the proper subject of an interrogatory. Additionally, as the loan was between Veludi and Periera, the question also makes little sense. However, as we responded to Interrogatory No. 7 and 8, Mr. Goel indirectly has an interest in the debt owed to Veludi by virtue of his ownership thereof. Regarding Veludi’s Interrogatory No. 20, the response of “No” is correct as Veludi had no employees. Regarding Goel’s Interrogatory No. 22, it was Mr. Dunbar’s job and responsibility to attempt to collateralize the Queens property; although due to Mr. Dunbar’s failure to do so, there did come a point in time where Mr. Goel did attempt to assist Mr. Dunbar by providing him a contact at HAB Bank. Whether that little involvement qualifies as “attempt[ing] to collateralize” FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/09/2021 03:02 PM INDEX NO. 617853/2019 NYSCEF DOC.Mr.NO. Adam 124 Wald RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/09/2021 October 19, 2021 Page 3 of 3 the property itself is a matter of one’s interpretation; Mr. Goel did not believe it is. However, this clarification should resolve any issue you may have with his response. Regarding Goel’s Interrogatory No. 15, FINRA was not and is not a regulatory body over insurance. Mr. Goel was given no insurance sanction – rather, he gave up his securities license by being barred from registering with a securities broker for declining to further cooperate with FINRA’s investigation. As Mr. Goel did not engage in the sale of securities, he made a cost/benefit analysis of continuing to incur fees to keep same which license he did not use, and ultimately consented to the bar sanction. Therefore, the response – insofar as FINRA is concerned – is accurate. Contrary to any false assertion that “Goel merely sought to avoid answering it,” by specifically identifying FINRA (when a simple “no” would have been sufficient) he was extra forthcoming by correcting the mistaken premise as to avoid confusion. Together with the fact that Veludi’s response to Interrogatory No. 15 specifically directs you to the BrokerCheck report where you can locate the document you attached as Exhibit J, it is clear that Mr. Goel was not trying to hide anything. Further, a simple request as to whether Mr. Goel has ever faced discipline from FINRA would have alleviated the entire dispute. However, we do concede that Response No. 15 was nevertheless inaccurate because as you have pointed out, Mr. Goel did receive a fine from the New York State Department of Financial Services. Mr. Goel misunderstood this question because the conduct relating to the fine did not occur during his affiliation with Mass Mutual (rather, it stemmed from his affiliation with New York Life). Therefore, we will stipulate to changing the response to Interrogatory No. 15 to “yes.” The answer will then be accurate regardless of whether you consider FINRA an insurance regulator or not. Mr. Goel will refer you to the description of his conduct from the New York State Department of Financial Services (attached to your letter as Exhibit K) in response to Interrogatory No. 16. 2 I trust that the above addresses all of your concerns, and that this settles the matter regarding Veludi’s and Mr. Goel’s discovery responses. Very truly yours, Craig A. Riha 2 I also note that you merely asked a yes/no interrogatory, there was no document request to Mr. Goel regarding same, consequently no documentary evidence was withheld.