Free Complaint - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 1 of 42

DAVID J. COHEN, ESQ. California Bar No. 145748 COHEN & PAIK LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 398-3900 Attorneys for Plaintiff John Gidding
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Mr. JOHN GIDDING, an individual; PIVOTAL INC., a California corporation; Plaintiffs, vs. DEREK ANDERSON, an individual; JOHN ZAPPETTINI, an individual; OLIVIER LEMAL an individual; PLANTAGENET CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, a purported California corporation; PLANTAGENET CAPITAL AMERICA LLC, a purported Delaware corporation; PLANTAGENET CAPITAL FUND LP, a purported Cayman Island corporation; PLANTAGENET CAPITAL FUND LP II, a purported Cayman Island corporation; PLB HOLDINGS SA, a purported Luxembourg corporation; PLANTAGENET PARTNERS SA, a purported French corporation; SA SOCIETE CHAMPENOISE D'EXPLOITATION VINICOLE, a purported French corporation; SERGE HAUCHART, an individual; PATRICK RAULET, an individual; JEAN-FRANCOIS RAPENEAU, an individual; CHRISTOPHE RAPENEAU, an individual; SA COMPAGNIE DES VINS DU LEVANT, a purported French corporation; SA CHAMPS RENIER, a purported French corporation; MARIE-CLAUDE SIMON, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive; Defendants.

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: (1) RICO (U.S.C. 18 1962(c)); AND (2) CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT RICO (U.S.C. 18 1962(d))

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 2 of 42

INTRODUCTION 1. This Complaint alleges violations under the Racketeer

Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970, Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, as amended, 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c) and Section 1962(d) ("RICO"), and is brought by Plaintiffs Pivotal Inc. and John Gidding in connection with a scheme devised, conducted, and/or participated by the above named defendants: Derek Anderson, Olivier Lemal, John Zappettini, Plantagenet Capital Management LLC, Plantagenet Capital America LLC, Plantagenet Capital Fund LP, Plantagenet Capital Fund LP II, PLB Holdings SA, and Plantagenet Partners SA; Serge Hauchart, Patrick Raulet, Jean-Francois Rapeneau, Christophe Rapeneau, Marie Claude Simon, SA Societe Champenoise d'Exploitation

Vinicole, SA Compagnie des Vins du Levant, and SA Champs Renier; each of whom participated, either directly or indirectly, in a fraudulent scheme amounting to operating an enterprise

consisting, alternatively, of either (a) a court's of Los Angeles County, Chalons, France, and Luxenbourg; or (b) an associationin-fact of the marketers, sellers and producers of Champagne LeBreun, through a series of predicate acts including, mail fraud and wire fraud, under U.S.C. Section 1341, 1343 to obtain money and property by use of materially false promises and omissions of material fact, and to conspire to do so, all to the detriment of the Plaintiffs. These acts, at least two of them within ten

years, amounted to a pattern of racketeering activity involving relativeness and continuity of the predicate acts. The relief

sought includes treble damages arising from the fraud set forth herein, cost of investigation and suit, and attorneys fees.

1

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 3 of 42

JURISDICTION 2. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. Sections 1331, 1337, 1349 because this matter involves allegations of illegal behavior arising under the laws of the United States, including violations of RICO and the practice of frauds upon the courts of California. Furthermore, jurisdiction

in this Court is proper pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sections 1964(a), 1964(c). PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. Personal Jurisdiction and venue are predicated upon 18

U.S.C. §1965(a), because certain defendants reside, are found, have an agent, and transact affairs in Marin County and San Francisco, and the ends of justice require that other parties residing in other districts be brought before this Court. Venue

is also proper in this Court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1965(b) because, to the extent any defendant may reside outside of this District, the ends of justice require such defendant or

defendants to be brought before the Court. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(3) because a defendant may be found in this district. Venue is also proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(d) because a foreign corporation may be sued in any district, and under 28 U.S.C. §1391(a) because a California corporation may be sued in any district within the state. RELEVANT TIMES 4. The relevant times in this complaint are from March 2,

2000 when Gidding and Pivotal amended their complaint in the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, previously naming

defendants Plantagenet Capital Management, LLC and SCEV, to add

2

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 4 of 42

defendants PPSA and PLB Holdings, through the date of the filing of this complaint. Further, personal jurisdiction is predicated

on the fact that the acts and occurrences in furtherance of the claims herein arose in, arise in and affect the State of

California and commence within the State of California. THE PARTIES 5. Plaintiff Pivotal Inc. ("Pivotal") is a corporation

organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. At all relevant times Pivotal has had its principal place of business in North Hollywood, Glen Ellen, and San Francisco, California. Pivotal, from 1988 to the present day, has been

licensed by the US Treasury Department to import wines into the United States of America, and is licensed by the California Alcoholic commerce. 6. Plaintiff John Gidding ("Gidding"), at all relevant Beverage Commission to sell wine in interstate

times, has been a resident of Pasadena and San Francisco, California. Gidding, from 1988 to the present day, has been an

officer, director and shareholder of Pivotal. 7. Defendant SA Societe Champenoise d'Exploitation

Vinicole (hereinafter "SCEV") is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of France. At all relevant times SCEV

has had its principal place of business in Chalons-en-Champagne and Reims, France. 8. SCEV produces, sells, and markets champagne.

Defendant Derek Anderson ("Anderson"), at all relevant

times, has been a resident of Mill Valley, California who is a partner in the various Plantagenet entities.

3

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 5 of 42

9.

Defendant

John

Zappettini

("Zappettini"),

at

all

relevant times, has been a resident of Atherton, California. Zappettini was or is a partner of Anderson in Plantagenet and

was an officer, director and stockholder of SCEV from January 1999 through March 2000. stockholder of 10. Zappettini was also a director and

PPSA and PLB.

Defendant Olivier Lemal ("Lemal"), at all relevant Lemal was or officer and

times, has been a resident of Saint Cloud, France. is a partner of Anderson in PPSA and was an

stockholder of SCEV from January 1999 through March 2000. 11. Defendant Serge Hauchart ("Hauchart"), at all relevant Hauchart was an

times, has been a resident of Paris, France.

officer, director and employee of SCEV from January 1999 through June 1999; and a stockholder of SCEV from January 1999 through December 2003. 12. Defendant Plantagenet Capital Management LLC ("PCM") is

or was a corporation organized and existing under the laws of California. During the relevant times, PCM had its principal

places of business in San Francisco and Mill Valley, California and was directed and controlled by Anderson and Zappettini. 13. Defendant Plantagenet Capital America LLC is or was a

corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware. During the relevant times, Plantagenet Capital America LLC had its principal place of business in Dover, Delaware and was directed and controlled by Anderson. 14. Defendant Plantagenet Capital Fund LP, is or was a

corporation organized and existing under the laws of the British West Indies. During the relevant times, Plantagenet Capital

4

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 6 of 42

America LLC had its principal place of business in Grand Cayman, British West Indies and was directed and controlled by Anderson. 15. Defendant Plantagenet Capital Fund LP II, is or was a

corporation organized and existing under the laws of the British West Indies. During the relevant times, Plantagenet Capital

America LLC had its principal place of business in Grand Cayman, British West Indies and was directed and controlled by Anderson. 16. Defendant Plantagenet Partners SA ("PPSA") is or was a

corporation organized and existing under the laws of France. During the relevant times, PPSA had its principal place of business in Paris, France and was directed and controlled by Anderson and Lemal. The shareholders of PPSA are Lemal, PCM,

Anderson and Zappettini. 17. Defendant PLB Holdings SA ("PLB") is or was a

corporation organized and existing under the laws of Luxembourg. During the relevant times, PLB had its principal place of business in Luxembourg City, Luxembourg and was directed by Anderson and Zappettini. The shareholders of PLB are Plantagenet Capital America LLC, Plantagenet Capital Fund LP, and Plantagenet Capital Fund LP II. 1999 to March 2000. PLB was a shareholder of SCEV from January On April 7, 2000, the assets of PLB were

liquidated by Zappettini. 18. Defendant SA Compagnie des Vins du Levant ("Levant") is

or was a corporation organized and existing under the laws of France. During all relevant times, Levant has had its principal

place of business in Paris, France and was owned, directed and controlled by Patrick Raulet. Levant was a stockholder of SCEV

from March 2000 through December 2003.

5

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 7 of 42

19.

Defendant Patrick Raulet ("Raulet"), at all relevant

times, has been a resident of Dole and Rilly-La-Montagne France. Raulet was an officer and director of SCEV from March 2000 through December 2003. 20. Defendant SA Champs Renier ("Renier") is or was a

corporation organized and existing under the laws of France. During all relevant times, Renier has had its principal place of business in Reims, France and was owned, directed and controlled by Jean-Francois Rapeneau and Christophe Rapeneau (Collectively "Rapeneaux"). Renier has been the sole shareholder of SCEV from

December 2003 to the present day. 21. Defendant Jean-Francois Rapeneau, at all relevant

times, has been a resident of Epernay, France.

Jean-Francois

Rapeneau has been an officer and director of SCEV from December 2003 to the present day. 22. Defendant Christophe Rapeneau, at all relevant times, Jean-Francois Rapeneau

has been a resident of Epernay, France.

has been an officer and director of SCEV from December 2003 to the present day. 23. Plaintiffs do not know the true names of Does 1 through 100, inclusive, and thereby sues them by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, that in doing the acts and things alleged in this complaint, the named defendants Does 1 through Does 100, inclusive, each of them, acted as the agents, joint venturers, or co-conspirators of each of the other

defendants.

6

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 8 of 42

THE CALIFORNIA CIVIL SUIT 24. On December 29, 1998, Pivotal and Gidding entered into

contracts with SCEV for the future delivery of champagne to the United States. Pivotal and Gidding, in turn, entered into

contracts with customers to the delivery of the wine. The profit on these latter contracts would have been $1,327,243 over the two years covered by the contracts. 25. SCEV failed to deliver the champagne. As a result,

Pivotal and Gidding sued SCEV and PCM in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, CA. Pivotal and Gidding sued

Plantagenet because Plantagenet was believed to control SCEV. Pivotal and Gidding sued SCEV for non-delivery. The lawsuit also sought pre-judgment interest. attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 26. SCEV was represented by their own counsel, as was PCM. A copy of the complaint is

Because Plantagenet was insured by the Hartford Insurance Company ("Hartford"), Hartford paid for and provided counsel to PCM. 27. During discovery, Pivotal and Gidding learned that PPSA

and PLB owned SCEV, and were the entities who had funds to pay any judgment. Further, Anderson, Zappatini and Lemal were

discovered to be the co-partners who owned and controlled PCM, PPSA and PLB. It was further learned that Lemal owned and

controlled 20% of SCEV, and Hauchart was determined to have been the president of SCEV and a minor stockholder of SCEV. Unknown

to plaintiffs, due to the intentional concealment of this fact by the defendants in the Los Angeles lawsuit, SCEV was actually owned, directed and controlled by Raulet and Levant as of March 2, 2000, when Levant, which is owned and controlled by Raulet,

7

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 9 of 42

purchased a majority of the shares of SCEV. both had more than sufficient assets to

Raulet and Levant pay the amounts

plaintiffs were seeking in the lawsuit. 28. In or about April, 2001, PCM and SCEV moved for A

summary judgment.

The motion was denied on April 26, 2001.

copy of the Court's ruling denying the motion is attached as Exhibit 2. 29. On May 2, 2001, Pivotal and Gidding successfully moved A copy

to amend the complaint to add PPSA and PLB as defendants. of the motion is attached as Exhibit 3. 30.

On September 12, 2001, SCEV filed a substitution of

attorneys form in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles in which SCEV purported to substitute Anderson as its lawyer for Joseph form Decker, are dated Esq. June 4, The signatures A copy on of the this

substitution

2001.

substitution is attached as Exhibit 4.

Anderson is not a lawyer

or member of the bar in any state or country. 31. On September 17, 2001, Pivotal and Gidding had Huissier

(a member of the French legal profession similar to a bailiff) deliver a verbal and written summons to SCEV at their

headquarters in France informing Raulet and SCEV that they were not legally represented in the California lawsuit, and they had not responded to Pivotal & Gidding's $450,000 offer to settle. 32. After several continuances had been granted during the

pendency of the lawsuit, the case was set for trial in October, 2001. 33. On September 20, 2001, Hartford, on behalf of PCM, The

PPSA, PLB, Anderson, and Zappetini, settled the lawsuit.

8

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 10 of 42

settlement was for $150,000. Plaintiffs settled for the $150,000 because Hartford was aggressively litigating the lawsuit, and plaintiffs could not afford to continue; in fact, plaintiffs had virtually no money available, due to lost business and legal fees, at the time of the settlement. agreement is attached as Exhibit 5. Powers of Attorney to represent A copy of the Hartford Raulet had given Anderson himself and SCEV in the

settlement talks.

SCEV did not settle.

A copy of this Power of

Attorney is attached as Exhibit 6.

Meanwhile, the trial date as

between plaintiffs and the remaining defendant, SCEV, was set for December 3, 2001. 34. On November 15, 2001, Pivotal and Gidding had a

Huissier deliver a verbal and written summons to SCEV at their headquarters in France informing Raulet and SCEV that they were not legally represented in the California lawsuit ; that Hartford had settled for PCM, PPSA, and PLB ; that SCEV was still a party to the lawsuit, and that the trial date was set for December 3, 2001. 35. SCEV failed to appear for trial on December 3, 2001,

and the court continued the matter for one day to December 4, 2001. Because both sides had waived jury early on in the

lawsuit, the three day court trial commenced on December 4, 2001. The trial included witness testimony, exhibits and deposition testimony. against At the conclusion of the trial, judgment was entered for $1,327,242 plus pre-judgment interest of

SCEV

$209,300 for a total of $1,536,543. Further, SCEV was to pay 10% annual interest until the judgment was satisfied. Formal

judgment was entered on March 22, 2002.

A copy of the judgment

9

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 11 of 42

is attached as Exhibit 7. 36. On or about May 22, 2002, the time for SCEV to appeal

the judgment expired. 37. Under California Code of Civil Procedure 473, a motion

to set aside a default judgment must ordinarily be made within six months. On or about September 20, 2002, SCEV moved, through

Los Angeles attorneys Thelen, Reid & Priest, LLP to set aside the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. The motion was accompanied by a declaration from Raulet, which included a number of exhibits. Exhibit 8. A copy of this declaration is attached as

The motion to set aside the judgement and the

declaration were both mailed by Thelen, Reed & Priest, LLP to Gidding and Pivotal's attorneys, Seebach and Seebach. A copy of

the supplemental declaration of Denise Kidish, in support of the motion, and proof of its service by mail is attached as Exhibit 9.. 38. Appendix A to the September 20, 2002 Raulet declaration

is a redacted version of a purported Contract of Guarantee between PLB and Levant which purportedly obligated PLB to

indemnify Levant and Raulet for all legal costs and any judgment taken by plaintiffs against SCEV. A copy of this purported The fax header

contract of Guarantee is attached as Exhibit 10.

on this document reads September 26, 2001, which was six days after Hartford settled with plaintiffs and 18 months after PLB's assets had been liquidated by Zappettini. A copy of PLB's notice of liquidation filed in the Luxemboug Register of Commerce attached as Exhibit 12. contract of guarantee, is

A copy of SCEV's translation of the filed in conjunction with Raulet's

10

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 12 of 42

September

20,

2002

declaration

is

attached

as

Exhibit

11.

Raulet's declaration was served on plaintiffs by mail. 39. This redacted Contract of Guarantee, on its face, shows evidence of being a forgery. The original Contract of Guarantee

was between PLB and PPSA (both Plantagenet entities, the first in Luxembourg, and the latter in Paris) and Levant. Levant

purchased SCEV from PLB and PPSA on March 2, 2000. A Plantagenet news release announcing the sale is attached as Exhibit 13. PLB

and PPSA owned SCEV at the time of the March 2, 2000 sale, as evidenced by the contract of sale produced by Plantagenet in discovery in the Los Angeles lawsuit, and attached as Exhibit 14. The contract of sale, showing PLB and PPSA's purchase of SCEV is dated December 18, 1998. Because a lawsuit was pending between

Pivotal and Gidding and SCEV on March 2, 2000, PLB and PPSA, as part of the sale of SCEV to Levant, entered into a contract of guarantee that provided PLB and PPSA would provide for the legal defense of SCEV as well as pay for any judgment Gidding and Pivotal might obtain as against SCEV. fraudulently omitted PPSA from the However, defendants redacted Contract of

Guarantee attached to the September 20, 2001 Raulet declaration because, on that date, PPSA was a thriving Paris concern with more than sufficient funds to pay the Gidding/Pivotal judgment, while PLB had been liquidated and had no money or assets. 40. This redacted Contract of Guarantee, on its face, shows further evidence the of being a forgery to because be from in at the first two

paragraph,

document

purports

least

signatories ("sousignes"), originally PLB and PPSA, but the original word guarantors ("garants") to the right of the bottom

11

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 13 of 42

of the paragraph has been changed to the singular, guarantor ("garant"). Further, in the fourth paragraph of the document, it refers, once again to guarantors ("garants"), in the plural, as does the French verb "ont," and the applicable article, "les." The singular form for the applicable verb and article are, respectively, "est" and "le." This was because the original document referred to both guarantors, PLB and PPSA, but the redacted Contract of Guarantee omitted PPSA and purported to be on behalf of only PLB. 41. Appendix E in support of Raulet's September 20, 2002

declaration is a redacted version of a purported letter from Anderson to Raulet dated September 28, 2001. Anderson informs Raulet that (a) SCEV's In this letter, "has just

lawyer

withdrawn";

and (b) in spite of Anderson's personal promise to

Raulet to pay for SCEV's lawyer's, Anderson had run out of money. The letter does not mention any contract of guarantee. A copy of this Anderson Letter is attached as Exhibit 15. sent by facsimile from Anderson's San The letter was office to

Francisco

Raulet's office in Cedex, France. 42. Appendix H in support of Raulet's September 20, 2002

declaration is redacted version of a purported letter from Raulet to Anderson dated January 7, 2002. In this letter, Raulet urges Pivotal and Gidding

Anderson to settle, on behalf of SCEV with

and cites a "contract" that he has with Anderson, but does not further describe the details of the "contract." Raulet Letter is attached as Exhibit 16. A copy of the

A copy of SCEV's

translation of the January 7, 2002 letter, filed in conjunction with the Raulet September 20, 2002 declaration is attached as

12

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 14 of 42

Exhibit 17.

These translations were served on Pivotal and

Gidding's attorneys by mail. 43. On November 15, 2002, Pivotal and Gidding filed an

opposition to SCEV's motion to set aside the judgment. A copy of the opposition is attached as Exhibit 18. On November 22, 2002, A copy

SCEV filed a Reply to Pivotal and Gidding's Opposition. of the Reply is attached as Exhibit 19.

The Reply was served,

by mail, by SCEV's attorneys Thelen, Reid & Priest on Pivotal and Gidding's attorneys Seebach and Seebach. A copy of the proof of

service by mail is attached as Exhibit 20. 44. On November 27, 2002, the Superior Court for Los

Angeles County held a hearing on SCEV's motion to set aside the judgment, and denied the motion. A copy of the transcript of the hearing is attached as Exhibit 21. 45. As of September 1, 2007, the judgment against SCEV,

including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest amounted to approximately $2,370,000.00. THE FRENCH CIVIL SUIT TO COLLECT THE PIVOTAL AND GIDDING JUDGMENT AGAINST SCEV 46. Pivotal and Gidding hired a lawyer in France, Marie-

Claud Simone located in Reims, France to collect the Los Angeles County Superior Court judgment against SCEV. 47. In or about May, 2002, attorney Simone applied for

sequesters against SCEV's property in the civil court of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Chalons-en-Champagne, France. ("Chalons Court"). 48. In or about June, 2002, the Chalons Court issued three

separate orders of sequester on SCEV's assets. The first was for SCEV's buildings, the second was for SCEV's stocks of champagne,

13

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 15 of 42

and

the

third

was

for

SCEV's

business,

including

accounts

receivable and good will, pending ratification of the California judgment in the same court. attached as Exhibit 22. 49. On September 5, 2002, Plaintiffs timely filed a motion A copy A copy of these sequesters is

in the Chalons Court to ratify the California Judgment. of this motion is attached as Exhibit 23. 50.

On February 3, 2003, SCEV entered a memoire in the

Chalons Court contesting the Plaintiffs claim of the validity of the California Judgment. The memoir contained the following

language (translated herein): "Under the terms of a Contract of Guarantee, California PLB engaged themselves The to defend SCEV in was the made

litigation

....

California

verdict

possible by the fraudulent collusion of Gidding, Pivotal, and PLB ...... The fraud consisted of settlement between Gidding,

Pivotal, and PLB, kept secret from SCEV, for the sum of $150,000 paid by PLB's insurance company to Gidding and Pivotal. The fraudulent collusion between Gidding, Pivotal, and PLB deprived SCEV of a fair trial ..... The sole purpose of the settlement agreement was to deprive SCEV of a defense .... Once PLB engaged themselves in a secret agreement with Gidding and Pivotal they acted against SCEV .... The dishonesty of Gidding and Pivotal is clear, they secretly negotiated with PLB knowing full well that PLB was defending SCEV... The dishonesty of Gidding and Pivotal should be stigmatized and sanctioned ..." A copy of this memoire is attached as Exhibit 24. exhibits. 51. Piece (Exhibit 10) to the February 3, 2003 French The memoire included a number of

14

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 16 of 42

memoire filed by SCEV is a purported complete version of the redacted Contract of Guarantee previously attached as Appendix A to Raulet's September 20, 2002 declaration in support of SCEV's motion to set aside the judgment in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and attached as Exhibit 5 to this complaint. The fax header on the Contract of Guarantee reads September 24, 2001. A copy of Piece (Exhibit) 10 to the February 3, 2003 memoire is attached as Exhibit 25. phone number and line. 52. Piece (Exhibit 10) to the February 3, 2003 filing in The fax header appears to be of a French

the Chalons Court (the purported full Contract of Guarantee) contains the same evidence of forgery as in Appendix A to the September 20, 2001 Raulet Declaration, (the purported redacted Contract of Guarantee), filed in the Superior Court for the

County of Los Angeles, as described in paragraphs 39A and 39B, above. In addition, Piece (Exhibit 10) contains the following

additional evidence of it being a forgery: there are four additional occasions where the word guarantor (garant) appears in its plural form (garants), together with the plural form of the verb, "ont," rather than the singular, "est." On each occasion,

the applicable article also appears in its plural form "les," rather than the singular "le." 53. The Contract of Guarantee also includes a covenant

which contains fax headers from SCEV from May 5, 2001 and May 11, 2001, and from Plantagenet from May 9, 2001. These fax headers Piece

all appear to be from European phone numbers and lines.

(Exhibit 10) to the February 3, 2003 filing in the Chalons Court contains the same evidence of forgery as in Appendix A to the

15

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 17 of 42

September 20, 2002 Raulet Declaration, filed in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, as described in paragraphs 39A and 39B, above. The covenant purports to reduce the price of the March 2, 2000 sale of SCEV from PLB and PPSA to Levant by one million francs. The Contract of Guarantee was signed on February 4, 2000 and the Covenant was signed on March 2, 2000. The

Covenant contains additional evidence of forgery. The signatures of Raulet and Anderson are forgeries. Comparison of the

signatures of Raulet and Anderson on the Contract of Guarantee (genuine signatures as evidenced by these signatures on numerous other documents obtained throughout the lawsuits described

herein) and those on the covenant demonstrate that the signatures on the covenant are forgeries. 54. Piece (Exhibit 22) to the February 3, 2003 SCEV memoire is the September 28, 2001 letter from Anderson to Raulet which was also attached as Appendix E to the September 20, 2002 Raulet Declaration in support of SCEV's motion to set aside the Los Angeles County Superior Court judgment, and attached as Exhibit 15. 55. Piece (Exhibit 7) to the February 3, 2003 SCEV memoire

was a complete version of the redacted Raulet letter attached as Appendix H to the September 20, 2002 Raulet Declaration in support of SCEV's motion to set aside the Los Angeles County Superior Court judgment, and attached as Exhibit 16. 56. On February 14, 2003, Levant, which then owned SCEV,

placed 1,633,202 Euros (which, at the current rate of exchange, was approximately the same dollar amount) with the Bar

Association of Chalone-en-Champage in exchange for two of the

16

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 18 of 42

three sequesters obtained by Gidding and Pivotal in June, 2002, those being the sequesters on SCEV's stocks of champagne and is attached as Exhibit 26. As

buildings. A copy of this check

a result of the posting of this security with the Chalons Court, the two sequesters, by agreement of the parties, were duly released. This guarantee remains posted with the Chalons court

through the date of this complaint. The third sequester, against SCEV's business, remained in place. 57. In or about March, 2003, as is permissible in a French

civil action, SCEV demanded that Gidding and Pivotal produce a copy of the settlement agreement in the Los Angeles County lawsuit between Gidding and Pivotal, as plaintiffs, and PLB. The actual settlement agreement, attached as Exhibit 5, was between Gidding and Pivotal as plaintiffs and Plantagenet, PLB, PPSA, Anderson, and Zappatini, as defendants. Gidding duly provided a

copy of the authentic settlement agreement to his French lawyer, Mary-Claud Simone, on or about March 12, 2007, together with a letter indicating that it could not be turned over to SCEV without duly notifying Hartford's attorneys, as provided in paragraph 11 of the settlement agreement. 58. On or about September 12, 2003, attorney Simone sent a

fax from Reims to Seebach & Seebach's office in Los Angeles, attorneys for Pivotal and Gidding in the Los Angeles County Superior Court lawsuit, requesting that Hartford be duly notified prior to an anticipated filing of the Hartford settlement

agreement by Simone in the Chalons Court. is attached as Exhibit 27.

A copy of this letter

59. On or about September 14, 2003, attorney Alice Seebach,

17

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 19 of 42

Esq., sent a letter, by fax and United States mail, to Hartford's Fresno attorneys McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth, by telefax, duly notifying them, under paragraph 11 of the Hartford settlement agreement, that the Hartford settlement agreement was about to be filed in the Chalons Court. this letter is attached as Exhibit 28. 60. On or about September 14, 2003, Seebach & Seebach A copy of

faxed, and mailed, by United States mail, a letter to attorney Simone in Reims advising Hartford's attorneys had been duly advised of the anticipated use of the settlement agreement in the Chalons Court, and further advising that it would be permissible for Simone to file the settlement agreement as part of the French civil process. 61. A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit 28.

On or about September 16, 2003, attorney Simone filed translation of the Hartford settlement This translation was prepared

a purported French

agreement with the Chalons Court.

by Madame Bertrand, the translator used by SCEV's lawyers in the proceeding. This translation was post-dated to September 30,

2003, and was a translation of a forged settlement agreement, not of the authentic settlement agreement. French translation of the Hartford A copy of this purported settlement agreement is

attached as Exhibit 29. 62. The translation was of a forged agreement because it

incorrectly provided (a) that the settlement agreement was dated September 10, 2001, when the true settlement agreement was dated September 20, 2001; (b) that the settlement agreement was between Gidding and Pivotal as plaintiffs, and Plantagenet, PLB and Plantagenet, SA. (a non-existent company at that time, so far as

18

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 20 of 42

plaintiffs are aware) when the true settlement agreement was between Gidding and Pivotal, as plaintiffs, and Plantagenet, PLB, and PPSA; ©) paragraph 4 of the authentic settlement agreement explicitly identifies the settling parties, and includes two sentences and 18 lines of text, while paragraph 4 of the forged

translation contains only one sentence and 11 lines of text; and (d) the forged French translation is dated September 30, 2003, No

while it was filed two weeks earlier, on September 16, 2003.

actual settlement agreement was filed with the Chalons Court on September 16, 2003; the only document filed was the forged English translation. 63. On or about September 20, 2003, the parties to the

French civil action to ratify the Los Angeles County Superior Court judgment the agreed third to an order from the Chalons Court in

dismissing

sequester

against

SCEV's

business

exchange for Levant, then owner of SCEV, posting, with the Bar Association of Chalons for deposit with the Chalons Court as security, Euros, the than existing post-judgment interest of 258,552 with a bond from Credit Agricole Bank

together

guaranteeing payment of future post-judgment interest at a rate not to exceed 166,320 Euros on an annual basis. The check is dated November 18, 2003, and the bond is dated October 31, 2003. These are attached, respectively, 64. as Exhibits 32 and 33. the Chalons

On October 1, 2003, SCEV made a motion in

Court indicating

that SCEV had received Gidding and Pivotal's

September 16, 2003 filing of the Hartford settlement agreement which had been filed in English, and asked for a certified French translation.

19

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 21 of 42

65.

Gidding

repeatedly

attempted,

without

success,

to

communicate with attorney Simone between September, 2003 and March 12, 2004, when Gidding, frustrated at the lack of

communication, hired a new lawyer. finally able to review his file.

At that time, Gidding was He discovered the original

forged French translation, a copy of which was filed on September 16, 2003, the copy of the authentic Harford settlement agreement which Gidding provided to attorney Simone on March 12, 2003, and a copy of a forged English settlement agreement, which may have been the model for part of the forged French translation, although there are several discrepancies between the forged French translation and the forged English settlement agreement. A copy of the forged English Hartford settlement agreement is attached as Exhibit 36. 66. additional The forged English settlement agreement contains an forgery, over and above those contained in the

apparent French translation of the document filed in the Chalons Court on September 16, 2003. Gidding's signatures is The signature page containing in the forgery than the

different

analogous signature page in the original agreement. [Compare page 5 of Exhibit 36 with Page 5 of Exhibit 5]. It appears, on

information and belief, that this inauthentic English Hartford settlement agreement was created not from the authentic

settlement agreement provided by Gidding to attorney Simone, but, instead, from copies of draft faxes sent between the parties in September, 2001, at the time the settlement agreement was being negotiated and signed. These drafts would have been in the They were,

possession of Anderson, Zappetini, PPSA or PLB.

20

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 22 of 42

apparently, delivered to attorney Simone sometime in the year between March, 2003 and March 12, 2004. They would have had to

have been delivered from the United States to Simone by United States mail, or by private courier. Further, in order for these

drafts to have been identified and transmitted from the United States to Simone, it was necessary for defendants to have used the wires between the United States and France. 67. On September 22, 2004, SCEV filed a "citation to join"

in the Chalons Court indicating that SCEV had sued PLB in Luxembourg in January, 2002 alleging that PLB, on the basis of a guarantee, owed any money that the Chalons Court might eventually ratify as being due from SCEV to Gidding and Pivotal. the "citation to join" is attached as Exhibit 37. A copy of

The "citation

to join" references the two fraudulent dates from the fraudulent Contract of Guarantee, attached as Appendix A to the September 20, 2002 Raulet Declaration in support of SCEV's motion to set aside the judgment in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, and as Exhibit (Piece) 10 to the February 3, 2003 memoire in

opposition to Gidding and Pivotal's lawsuit in the Chalons Court to ratify the Los Angeles County Superior Court judgment. two dates referenced are the "Contract of Guarantee The dated

February 4, 2000," which was fraudulently included in both the redacted Contract of Guarantee attached to the September 20, 2002 Raulet Declaration, and the full Contract of Guarantee filed together with the February 3, 2003 memoire; and the fraudulent covenant of March 2, 2000, which was attached to the February 3, 2003 memoire as part of Exhibit (Piece) 10. The reason these two dates and the documents referencing them were fraudulent is above

21

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 23 of 42

described.

Further, the "citation to join" further references

the fact that a purported December 3, 2001 judgment from the Los Angeles County Superior Court was attached to the action in the Luxembourg court on the fraudulent Contract of Guarantee. This

was a fraudulent document because the authentic judgment in the Los Angeles County Superior Court was dated March 22, 2002. The

action by SCEV in the Luxembourg court was another effort to present documents both to the Luxembourg court and to the Chalons court fraudulently representing that PLB, which had been

liquidated on April 7, 2000, was responsible for guaranteeing the California judgment in favor of Gidding and Pivotal, and

fraudulently avoiding the PPSA guarantee which was provided on the authentic Contract of Guarantee and authentic attached

Covenant, both in the Luxembourg court and the Chalons Court, at a time when PPSA was a thriving Paris concern, capable of fully paying the Gidding/Pivotal California judgment - in the event it is ratified by the Chalons court. On the basis of this "citation to join," SCEV maintains to this day, in the civil action to ratify the California judgment in the Chalons court, that in the event the judgment is ratified, PLB, and not SCEV (or PPSA) would actually owe the judgment. SCEV was aware that PLB had been

liquidated because the Luxembourg action was filed against "PLB in liquidation." The Luxembourg court dismissed Raulet's lawsuit on May 24, 2004 because Raulet had failed to prove the California judgment was entered, and not appealed. A copy of the May 24, SCEV filed the based on three

2004 dismissal is attached as Exhibit 38. "citation to join" on September 22, 2004,

fraudulent documents, well knowing that the "citation to join"

22

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 24 of 42

referenced a Luxembourg action which had already been dismissed. Gidding and Pivotal learned of and received the "citation to join" on September 27, 2004. 68. On or about February 16, 2005, Gidding and Pivotal

made a motion requesting SCEV to produce a copy of the original Contract of Guarantee, a redacted copy of which is attached as Appendix A to the September 20, 2002 Raulet Declaration in support of SCEV's motion to set aside the Los Angeles County Superior Court judgment, and a full copy of which is attached as Exhibit (Piece) 10 to the February 3, 2003 SCEV memoire filed in the Chalons Court in opposition to Gidding and Pivotal's motion to ratify the Los Angeles County Superior Court judgment. (See Exhibits 5 and 25, herein). SCEV responded that the originals Gidding's and Pivotal's

were not in the possession of SCEV.

motions for relief in the Chalons Court, based upon the nonexistence of this document, are pending. This further supports

plaintiffs' claim that the redacted copy of the Contract of Guarantee produced in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, and the full copy of the Contract of Guarantee produced in the Chalons Court, were forgeries. 69. In numerous filings between the commencement of the

ratification proceeding on September 5, 2002 and the date of the filing of this complaint, during which period the ratification proceeding has, at all times been pending, SCEV has continually filed documents with the Chalons court repeating the

representations made in SCEV's initial memoire of February 3, 2003.

23

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 25 of 42

THE FRENCH PENAL SUIT 70. SCEV's defense memoire of February 3, 2003, accused On May 12,

Pivotal, Gidding, and PLB of fraudulent collusion.

2003, Raulet brought similar criminal charges before the penal court of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris ("Paris Court"). Raulet's accusations contained the following language:

"The charge of Fraud applies as PLB, in the Guarantee, engaged themselves not only to represent SCEV in the California

litigation, but also to pay any eventual awards or judgments. It is obvious that due to fraudulent maneuvers of PLB, the

California court ruled against SCEV.

Effectively, PLB: (1) in

concluding a settlement with Pivotal & Gidding, while keeping SCEV ignorant of this fact, was released from the charges brought against them; and (2) deliberately concealed the Guarantee from the Superior Court of California, under the terms of which they had engaged to pay any judgments taken against SCEV. In this

regards, SCEV made a motion before the CA court to review the error in the judgment rendered on December 4, 2001." These

purported criminal charges closely track the lies and fraudulent statements alleged by SCEV in Gidding and Pivotal's civil action to ratify the Los Angeles Superior Court judgment in the Chalons Court. A copy of the May 12, 2003 accusation in the Paris Court

is attached as Exhibit 39. 71. On November 25, 2003 Raulet amended and his criminal of

accusation

to

specifically

accuse

Pivotal

Gidding

fraudulent collusion and forgery. following language: "In reality,

The accusation contained the PLB and Plantagenet were

probably engaged, in the deepest secrecy, with discussions with

24

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 26 of 42

Pivotal & Gidding so that they would desist in their action against Plantagenet; This dissimulation, thanks to which the California Court was kept in ignorance of the Guarantee,

constitutes another fraudulent maneuver; The last maneuver of PLB was to organize its own bankruptcy; Since PLB's liquidation, it has been impossible for SCEV complete its procedures (T-Lux), because John Zappettini has completely disappeared .......

Concerning the fraudulent maneuvers of Pivotal and Gidding: SCEV and Levant intend to bring to your attention that fact that Pivotal and Gidding are equally guilty of fraud, in order to obtain a judgement against SCEV in California; Pivotal and Gidding founded the totality of their case against SCEV upon a pretended contract of exclusivity between themselves and SCEV, and from which they beneficiaries; In order to condemn SCEV, the CA court would have had to see this contract; Pivotal and Gidding have never shown this contract to either SCEV or Levant, and it can not be excluded that they submitted a forged contract to the court in order to deceive the judge." A copy of the November 25,

2003 criminal accusation in the Paris Court is attached as Exhibit 40. 72. Raulet's criminal accusations contained a list of the

following exhibits: a) b) c) A Contract of Guarantee dated February 4, 2000; A Covenant dated March 2, 2000; A California judgment dated December 3, 2000.

These are, apparently, the same three fraudulent documents which were attached in the Luxembourg lawsuit filed by Raulet. The first document is, apparently, the same fraudulent document

25

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 27 of 42

filed by Raulet in his September 20, 2002 Declaration in the Los Angeles County Superior Court and the February 3, 2003 memoire in the Chalons Court. The second document is, apparently, the same

fraudulent document filed in the February 3, 2003 memoire in the Chalons Court. 73. On September 22, 2004, Gidding and Pivotal submitted a A copy

defense memoir to the Prosecutor of the French Republic. of that memoire is attached as Exhibit 41. 74.

On October 8, 2004, the Paris Court rejected all of A copy of this rejection is attached as

Raulet's charges. Exhibit 42. 75.

On October 18, 2004, Raulet appealed.

A copy of this

appeal is attached as Exhibit 43. 76. These charges continue to threaten the Plaintiffs with

potential fines and imprisonment because the appeal has not yet been resolved. DISCOVERY OF THE CRIMINAL SCHEME 77. scheme, Gidding the and Pivotal and were unaware of the criminal the false

false

fraudulent

documents,

representations, and the forgeries until on or about March 10, 2004, the date that Gidding obtained his file in the Chalons Court civil action to ratify the California judgment from his new attorney - who had obtained the file from his previous attorney Mary-Claude Simone. 78. While Gidding had seen the redacted Contract of

Guarantee, attached as Appendix A to the September 20, 2002 Raulet Declaration in support of SCEV's motion to set aside the Los Angeles Superior Court judgment, he did not, at that time,

26

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 28 of 42

suspect is as being a forgery because he had no knowledge that PLB had been liquidated. 79. When reviewing the file he received on March 12, 2004,

from his French attorney, Gidding noticed that the Hartford Settlement Agreement, both the English version, and the French translation, were forgeries. He then, in attempting to explain relating

the forgery, researched any information he could find to PLB. When he learned

that it had been put into liquidation

on or about April 7, 2000, he realized that the Contract of Guarantee and Covenant, as well as the related letters, produced in both SCEV's motion to set aside the Los Angeles County Superior Court judgment, and in SCEV's memoire opposing Gidding and Pivotal's lawsuit in the Chalons Court to ratify the Los Angeles County Superior Court judgment, were fraudulent. 80. Gidding learned the information sometime between March

12, 2004 and September 22, 2004, when he filed his response to Raulet's criminal complaint filed in the Paris Court on May 12, 2003. At that time, Gidding had not yet learned about the

amended criminal suit filed by Raulet in the Paris Court on November 25, 2003. 81. On or about March 18, 2004, Gidding's new attorney in

connection with the motion to ratify the judgement in the Chalons Court, Didier Schonberger, mailed to him, from France to the United States, using the United States mail, a copy of a number of documents which Schonberger obtained from the file of

Gidding's previous attorney, Simone.

Included in documents

attached to the letter were the Contract of Sale between SCEV and PLB dated December 18, 1998, and the forged Hartford settlement

27

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 29 of 42

agreement

and

forged

French

translation

of

the

Hartford

settlement agreement.

A copy of this letter with the two

described attachments is attached as Exhibit 44. DEFENDANTS JEAN-FRANCOIS RAPENEAU, CHRISTOPHE RAPENEAU AND SA CHAMPS RENIER 82. On December 22, 2003, Jean-Francois Rapeneau and

Christophe Rapeneau through SA Champs Renier, purchased the shares of SCEV. Thus, as of today, these defendants are

responsible for SCEV's liabilities, and have been in control of SCEV's actions at least since December 22, 2003. THE PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY 83. During the relevant times, Defendants engaged in a and conspired together to

pattern of racketeering activity, engage in such a pattern.

They schemed to commit acts of mail

fraud and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C Sections 1341, 1343. These acts of mail fraud and wire fraud were designed to, misrepresentations a material omissions, deprive

through

plaintiffs Gidding and Pivotal of money and property, that is, their duly obtained judgment against SCEV in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. 84. It was part of the scheme to defraud that defendants

hid from Gidding and Pivotal that SCEV was not owned by PLB and PPSA, at the time that Anderson, Zappatini, PLB, PCM and the other Plantagenet defendants settled the Los Angeles County Superior Court suit, but, rather, was owned by Levant and Raulet. When Gidding and Pivotal amended the lawsuit to name PLB and PPSA as defendants, defendants were well aware that (a) PLB had been liquidated on April 7, 2000; (b) SCEV had been sold by PLB and

PPSA to Levant and Raulet on March 2, 2000; and © ) at the time

28

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 30 of 42

of the March 2, 2000 sale, PLB and PPSA entered into a contract of guarantee with Levant and Raulet to provide for their defense at trial and to pay any judgment. 85. It was part of the scheme to defraud that defendants

Anderson, Zappatini, PCM, PLB, PPSA, and the other Plantagenet defendants settled with Gidding and Pivotal by using their insurance company, Hartford, to run up litigation costs and pressure Gidding and Pivotal into a settlement. It was further

part of the scheme to defraud to forge letters and documents where SCEV would be appear to be the holder of an indemnification agreement with an entity, PLB, that had already been liquidated rather than with PPSA, a thriving concern that could pay Gidding and Pivotal's judgment against SCEV. 86. It was a part of the scheme to defraud to allow Gidding

and Pivotal to obtain a judgment against SCEV in the Los Angeles County Superior Court lawsuit, with the intention of evading and lying to avoid the judgment. 87. It was a part of the scheme to defraud that defendants

moved to set aside the judgment on September 20, 2002, relying upon a forged a contract of guarantee between PLB and SCEV, where the genuine contract of guarantee was between PLB, PPSA and SCEV, and attaching the forged contract of guarantee to the declaration of Patrick Raulet. It was further part of the scheme to defraud

that Raulet attached two letters to his September 20, 2002 declaration, which were created by defendants as part of their scheme. The first letter, from Anderson to Raulet, is dated

September 28, 2001, one week after the settlement between Gidding and Pivotal and all defendants except for SCEV in the Los Angeles

29

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 31 of 42

County Superior Court Suit, and refers to a promise to pay or indemnify Raulet for the cost of the litigation. The second

letter, dated January 7, 2002, from Raulet to Anderson, refers to a contract, asks for relief, and asks Anderson to settle the matter. 88. It was a part of the scheme to defraud that, when

Gidding and Pivotal sought to enforce the judgment against SCEV in the Chalons Court in France, defendants filed the same forged contract of guarantee together with legal filings perpetrating the lie before the Chalons Court that Gidding and Pivotal fraudulently colluded with PLB in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County to obtain a judgment against SCEV. collusion was as follows: PLB entered into a The alleged contract of

guarantee with SCEV, and Gidding and Pivotal colluded with PLB to have it liquidated, thereby causing SCEV to be liable. This

claim of fraud in the Chalons Court, if upheld, would defeat ratification of the judgment. If the Chalons Court were made

aware of the true fact that the contract of guarantee also included PPSA, a thriving concern, the claim of fraud would have no merit, and the California judgment would be ratified in due course. 89. It was further part of the scheme to defraud that defendants filed, or caused to be filed, before the Chalons Court, a forged Hartford settlement agreement from the Los Angeles County Superior Court lawsuit, purporting to show that Gidding and Pivotal settled only with PLB and not with PPSA. This document was filed with the fraudulent intent to convince that Chalons Court that the judgment should not be ratified

30

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 32 of 42

because it was obtained by fraud, and to hide from the Chalons Court the true fact that a non-liquidated entity, PPSA, was perfectly able to honor the indemnification agreement with SCEV. If the defendants presented the genuine Hartford Settlement Agreement, the Chalons Court would be aware that PPSA settled with Gidding and Pivotal, that the settlement was consistent with the fact that PPSA and PLB sold SCEV to Levant and Raulet, and that the sale and settlement was consistent with the true contract of guarantee - between PLB and PPSA, on the one hand, and SCEV on the other hand. 90. It was further part of the scheme to defraud that

defendants filed, in the Luxembourg courts, an action against PLB which attached the same forged contract of guarantee, with the intent of using the Luxembourg court action as support in the Chalons Court, through a "citation of joinder," to cause any judgment against SCEV to be entered against the liquidated PLB, thereby depriving Gidding and Pivotal of money and property. 91. It was further part of the scheme to defraud that

defendants caused to be filed, in the Paris criminal courts, a criminal action against Gidding and Pivotal using the same forged and fraudulent documents, including the forged Hartford

settlement agreement and the forged contract of guarantee, to further pressure Gidding and Pivotal to abandon their action to ratify the California judgment. 92. It was further part of the scheme to defraud that

defendants caused the Paris criminal filings, which included the above-described forgeries, to be filed in the Chalons Court with the specific intent of depriving Gidding and Pivotal of their

31

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 33 of 42

money and property by seeking to cause the Chalons Court to fail to ratify the California judgment. 93. The defendants, through a pattern of racketeering

activity, that is, multiple acts of mail fraud and wire fraud, used the courts of the United States, France, and Luxembourg, to further their scheme to steal the amount of the California judgment, held by Gidding and Pivotal against SCEV, together with interest. 94. Defendants used the mails and the wires, or, by their

scheme, caused them to be used, on a repeated basis, as part of their pattern of racketeering activity and multiple acts of mail and wire fraud. 95. In particular, the mails were used, among other times,

on the following occasions: (a) January 7, 2002 letter from Raulet (in France) to Anderson (in San Francisco); (b) September 20, 2002 motion to set aside the California judgment (from SCEV's attorney's in San Francisco to Gidding and Pivotal's attorneys in San Francisco); (c) November 14, 2002 reply to Gadding and Pivotal's response to set aside the judgment (From SKIVE's attorneys in San Francisco to Gadding's attorneys in San

Francisco); (d) letter from attorney Sawbuck to attorney Simon to Hartford's attorneys dated September 14, 2003 (from San Francisco to Fresno, and San Francisco to France); March 10, 2004 letter from Gadding's attorney Schonberger to Pivotal (from France to Glen Ellen, Sonoma County). 96. In particular, the wires were used, among other times,

on the following occasions: (a) May 5, 2001, May 9, 2001 and May 11, 2001 exchange of faxes between Anderson and Raulet in

32

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 34 of 42

connection with the forging of the covenant to the Contract of Guarantee between PPSA, PLB and SKIVE (between San Francisco and France); (b) Anderson's September 28, 2001 faxed letter to Raulet (San Francisco to France); (c) September 12, 2003 faxed letter from Simone to attorney Sawbuck in Los Angeles (France to Los Angeles). 97. As set forth above, the Defendants have engaged in a

"pattern of racketeering activity," as defined in Section 1961(5) of RICO, by committing and/or conspiring to or aiding and abetting a scheme for at least two such acts of racketeering activity, as described above, within the past ten years. Each

such act of racketeering activity was related, had similar purposes, involved the same or similar participants and methods of commission, and had similar results impacting upon similar victims. 98. The multiple acts of racketeering activity committed

and/or conspired to or aided and abetted by Defendants, as described above, were related to each other and amount to and pose a threat of continued racketeering activity, and, therefore, constitute a "pattern of racketeering activity," as defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 1961(5). ENTERPRISE 99. Defendants carried out their pattern of racketeering

activity through an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce and foreign commerce, that is, either (a) the court systems of Los Angeles County, Chalon, France, and Luxenbourg; or (b) an

association-in-fact of the defendants who marketed, produced and soldd LeBrun Champagne. These alternative enterprises are

33

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 35 of 42

separate and distinct from the pattern of racketeering activity alleged herein. USE OF THE MAILS AND WIRES 100. As alleged herein, in furtherance of and for the purpose of executing the scheme and artifice to defraud, and through a pattern of racketeering activity, defendants, on

numerous occasions used and caused to be used mail depositories of the United States postal service by both placing and causing to be placed mailable matter in said depositories and by removing and causing to be removed mailable matter from said depositories, each such use of the mails in connection with the scheme and artifice to defraud and to obtain money by means of false pretenses, constituting the offense of mail fraud as proscribed and prohibited by 18 U.S.C. Section 1341. 101. During the relevant times, and in furtherance of and for the purpose of executing the scheme and artifice to defraud, and through a pattern of racketeering activity, defendants, on numerous occasions, used and caused to be used wire

communications in interstate and foreign commerce, by both making and causing to be made telephone calls, transmission of faxes, and other wire communications, as proscribed and prohibited by 18 U.S.C. Section 1343. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1962(c)) 102. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege paragraphs 1

through 101, as though fully set out herein. 103. Gidding and Pivotal are "persons" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Sections 1961(3) and 1964(c).

34

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 36 of 42

104. The

Defendants,

Anderson,

Zappettini,

Lemal,

Plantagenet Capital Management LLC, Plantagenet Capital America LLC, Plantagenet Capital Fund LP, Plantagenet Capital Fund LP II, PLB Holdings SA, Plantagenet Partners SA, SA Societe Champenoise D'Exploitation Vinicole, Hauchart, Raulet, Jean-Francois

Rapeneau, Christophe Rapeneau, SA Compagnie Des Vins Due Levant, Sa Champs Renier, Simon and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive are each a "person" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Sections 1961(3) and 1964(c). 105. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, the Chalons Court and the Luxenbourg Court are an enterprise "enterprise" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Sections 1961(4) and 1962(c), which enterprise was engaged in and the activities of which affected interstate and foreign commerce during the relevant times; alternatively, the defendants were an assocation-in-fact marketers, producers and sellers of LeBrun Champagne, which enterprise was engaged in and the activities of which affected, interstate and foreign commerce. 106. The Defendants Anderson, Zappettini, Lemal, Plantagenet Capital Management LLC, Plantagenet Capital America LLC,

Plantagenet Capital Fund LP, Plantagenet Capital Fund LP II, PLB Holdings SA, Plantagenet Partners SA, SA Societe Champenoise D'Exploitation Vinicole, Hauchart, Raulet, Jean-Francois

Rapeneau, Christophe Rapeneau, SA Compagnie Des Vins Due Levant, Sa Champs Renier, Simon and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive were each associated with an enterprise, that is, either (a) the courts of Los Angeles County, Chalons, France and Luxenbourg; or (b) an association-in-fact of the defendants who sold, marketed,

35

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 37 of 42

and produced LeBrun Champagne, and did conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of either of these enterprises through a pattern of racketeering activity within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Sections 1961(1)(B) and 1961(E) and 1961(5) and 1962(c), to wit: (a) Multiple instances of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1341; and (b) Multiple instances of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1343. 107. By reason of the violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c) committed by Defendants Anderson, Zappettini, Lemal, Plantagenet Capital Management LLC, Plantagenet Capital America LLC,

Plantagenet Capital Fund LP, Plantagenet Capital Fund LP II, PLB Holdings SA, Plantagenet Partners SA, SA Societe Champenoise D'Exploitation Vinicole, Hauchart, Raulet, Jean-Francois

Rapeneau, Christophe Rapeneau, SA Compagnie Des Vins Due Levant, Sa Champs Renier, Simon and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, Gidding and Pivotal were injured in a yet undetermined amount, believed to be not less than approximately $7,000,000 within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Section 1964(c). SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d) by Conspiracy to Violate Section 1962©)) 108. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege the preceding paragraphs 1 through 107, as if fully set out herein. 109. Gidding and Pivotal are "persons" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Sections 1961(3) and 1964(c). 110. The Defendants, Anderson, Zappettini, Lemal,

Plantagenet Capital Management LLC, Plantagenet Capital America

36

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 38 of 42

LLC, Plantagenet Capital Fund LP, Plantagenet Capital Fund LP II, PLB Holdings SA, Plantagenet Partners SA, SA Societe Champenoise D'Exploitation Vinicole, Hauchart, Raulet, Jean-Francois

Rapeneau, Christophe Rapeneau, SA Compagnie Des Vins Due Levant, Sa Champs Renier, Simon and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive are each a "person" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Sections 1961(3) and 1964(c). 111. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, the Chalons Court and the Luxenbourg Court are an enterprise "enterprise" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Sections 1961(4) and 1962(c), which enterprise was engaged in and the activities of which affected interstate and foreign commerce during the relevant times; alternatively, the defendants were an assocation-in-fact marketers, producers and sellers of LeBrun Champagne, which enterprise was engaged in and the activities of which affected, interstate and foreign commerce. 112. The Defendants Anderson, Zappettini, Lemal, Plantagenet Capital Management LLC, Plantagenet Capital America LLC,

Plantagenet Capital Fund LP, Plantagenet Capital Fund LP II, PLB Holdings SA, Plantagenet Partners SA, SA Societe Champenoise D'Exploitation Vinicole, Hauchart, Raulet, Jean-Francois

Rapeneau, Christophe Rapeneau, SA Compagnie Des Vins Due Levant, Sa Champs Renier, Simon and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive were each associated with an enterprise, that is, either (a) the courts of Los Angeles County, Chalons, France and Luxenbourg; or (b) an association-in-fact of the defendants who marketed,

produced and sold LeBrun Champagne, and did conspire within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d) to violate Section 1962( c),

37

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 1

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 39 of 42

that is, they conspired to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, the conduct of the affairs of either of these enterprises through a pattern of racketeering activity within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Sections 1961(1)(B) and 1961(E) and 1961(5) and 1962(c), to wit: (a) Multiple instances of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1341; and (b) Multiple instances of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1343. 113. By reason of the violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c) committed by Defendants Anderson, Zappettini, Lemal, Plantagenet Capital Management LLC, Plantagenet Capital America LLC,

Plantagenet Capital Fund LP, Plantagenet Capital Fund LP II, PLB Holdings SA, Plantagenet Partners SA, SA Societe Champenoise D'Exploitation Vinicole, Hauchart, Raulet, Jean-Francois

Rapeneau, Christophe Rapeneau, SA Compagnie Des Vins Due Levant, Sa Champs Renier, Simon and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, Gidding and Pivotal were injured in a yet undetermined amount, believed to be not less than approximately $7,000,000 within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Section 1964(c). 114. Defendants entered into an agreement with each other to join in the conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. Section 1962©). Each defendant entered into an agreement to join the