On December 23, 2022 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Clearwater Ventures, Inc.,
Lisa Abrams,
Lisa Abrams
In Her Capacity As Trustee For The Lisa Marie Abrams Revocable Trust,
Marcus Abrams,
and
Aracar Financiera, S.A.,
Aracar Group Holdings Corp.,
Aracar Group Spv Ii Llc,
Aracar Servicios, S.A.,
Carcorp, S.A.,
Crosstax, S.A.,
Russell Abrams,
Russellcar Inversora, S.A.,
Russellcar S.R.L.,
Taxcorp, S.A.,
for Special Proceedings - CPLR Article 75 (Arbitration) - Commercial Division
in the District Court of New York County.
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2023 09:30 PM INDEX NO. 654992/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 105 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MARCUS ABRAMS, CLEARWATER
VENTURES, INC. and LISA ABRAMS,
individually and in her Capacity as Trustee for the
LISA MARIE ABRAMS REVOCABLE TRUST, Index No. 654992/2022
Petitioners, Hon. Joel M. Cohen
-against- Motion Seq. No.: 001
RUSSELL ABRAMS, RUSSELLCAR
INVERSORA S.A., CROSSTAX, S.A., TAXCORP,
S.A., CARCORP, S.A., ARACAR GROUP
HOLDINGS CORP., ARACAR FINANCIERA,
S.A., ARACAR SERVICIOS, S.A., ARACAR
GROUP SPV I LLC, and ARACAR GROUP SPV II
LLC,
Respondents.
ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION
JAMES R. SERRITELLA, an attorney duly licensed to practice law, affirms as follows:
1. I am a member of Kim & Serritella LLP, counsel for Petitioners in this matter. As
such I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances set forth herein.
2. This affirmation is submitted in support of this proceeding to confirm Petitioner’s
arbitration award (the “Award”) against Respondents Russell Abrams (“Russell”), Russellcar
Inversora S.A., Crosstax, S.A., Taxcorp, S.A., Carcorp, S.A. (collectively “Russellcar”), Aracar
Group Holdings Corp., Aracar Financiera, S.A., Aracar Servicios, S.A., Aracar Group SPV I
LLC, and Aracar Group SPV II LLC (collectively “Aracar”), and in opposition to Respondents’
motion to vacate or modify the Award.
1 of 3
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2023 09:30 PM INDEX NO. 654992/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 105 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2023
3. Petitioners, Respondents, and certain other persons and entities were parties to an
AAA arbitration proceeding (the “Arbitration”) concerning a loan Petitioners made with
Respondents.
4. Respondents were represented by three successive law firms in the Arbitration, all
of whom represented Aracar for at least some portion of the proceedings.
5. A week before the Arbitration hearing was to begin, Sandra Abrams (née
Piedrabuena), Russell’s wife and one of the respondents in the Arbitration, brought a Hail Mary
order to show cause to stay the Arbitration on the grounds that she was not a proper party. Her
application was dismissed. Despite making similar arguments on similar facts, Aracar did not
join in her application.
6. Eventually the matter proceeded to a hearing. A copy of the expert report of
Matthew Kennedy, the Arbitration respondents’ damages expert, that was submitted at the
hearing is annexed hereto as Exhibit 1.
7. Petitioners prepared a calculation of damages based on some financial
information included in Kennedy’s report that was submitted as an appendix to their post-hearing
brief. For clarity, a copy of Petitioner’s calculation of damages thus submitted is annexed hereto
as Exhibit 2. It can also be found as Appendix B to Petitioner’s post-hearing brief, which is
filed on the docket as Respondent’s Ex. EE.
8. A copy of the Award (previously submitted as an exhibit to the petition in this
matter) is annexed hereto as Exhibit 3. The Award contains 3 categories of damages: 1)
Russell’s liability for a personal guarantee he made (the “Guarantee Damages”); 2) Russellcar
and Aracar’s joint and several liability for breach of contract (the “Breach Damages”); and 3)
2 of 3
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2023 09:30 PM INDEX NO. 654992/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 105 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2023
Russell, Russellcar, and Aracar’s joint and several liability for fees associated with the
Arbitration (the “Fees”).
9. In their petition to confirm the Award, Petitioners requested the total of the
Guarantee Damages, the Breach Damages, and the Fees, as that was how the damages were
presented in the Award. However, sometime after the petition was filed, the arbitrator wrote the
parties to clarify that the Breach Damages were only for any amount not paid by Russell as part
of the Guarantee Damages. In any case, it appears that all Respondents remain jointly and
severally liable for the Fees regardless of any amounts that may be paid towards the Breach
Damages or Guarantee Damages.
Dated: New York, New York
March 10, 2023
/s/ James R. Serritella
James R. Serritella
3 of 3