Eia Inc., Electronic Interface Associates, Inc., Eia Datacom, Inc., Eia Electric, Inc., George Engel Lic, Llc, George Engel, Yolanda V. Del Prado, Matthew Orent, Alexandra Engel v. Mandelbaum Barrett Pc, Jeffrey Rosenthal, William Barrett, Richard S…

These claims arise out of Defendants’ failure to exercise the ordinary reasonable

skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession.

Defendants’ deviation from the standard of care proximately caused Plaintiffs to

suffer actual and ascertainable damages.

Defendants initiated and orchestrated a deal to the advantage of their favored

clients, White Oak Commercial Finance, LLC and/or White Oak Business Capital, Inc.

(collectively “White Oak”), and to the detriment of their other longstanding clients, the Borrowers.

White Oak took complete control over the Borrowers’ business and duped the

Borrowers and the Guarantors into believing that White Oak intended to continue providing

financing to ease the Borrowers’ cashflow problem as a quid pro quo for additional security and

collateral. The truth is that White Oak never intended to provide the necessary funding to maintain

the Borrowers as a going concern, and instead intended to terminate its lending relationship with

the Borrowers as soon as White Oak could swindle Guarantors into furnishing additional collateral

and guarantees. White Oak defrauded the Borrowers and Guarantors into believing that it would

forbear exercising default remedies under the contract and continue to finance the Borrowers’

cashflow needs, so that White Oak could induce the Guarantors to pledge additional collateral to

guarantee advances from White Oak, and dominate the day-to-day and strategic decision making

of the Borrowers, all to advance White Oak’s position and to impair the ability of the Borrowers

to continue as a going concern and to the detriment of the Borrowers’ employees, shareholders,

clients and creditors.

White Oak’s swindle of the Borrowers and Guarantors was aided and abetted by

the actions of Defendants. Due to Defendants’ concurrent representation of both the Borrowers

Causes of Action

COUNT I – LEGAL MALPRACTICE The Borrowers & Guarantors v. Defendants

COUNT II – VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW § 487 The Borrowers & Guarantors v. Defendants

COUNT III - BREACH OF CONTRACT Engel LIC, LLC v. Mandelbaum

COUNT IV –CONVERSION Engel LIC, LLC v. Mandelbaum