In 2012, the two defendant developers presented to the plaintiffs, a financial statement purporting to show that the defendants’ company (“A”) had assets of more than $200 million. Based thereon, the plaintiffs loaned “A” $3 million. The interest was to be $2 million. The court stated that “apparently in an attempt to avoid usury issues, the deal was structured so that plaintiffs were to provide consulting services and receive several hundred thousand dollars in consulting fees.”

The defendants asserted that the plaintiffs never perform the services. However, the court noted that “subsequent events have rendered this claim moot.”