From the Arizona lawsuit: COUNT I: CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 48. All of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated and restated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. 49. At the time Defendants marketed and opened their training program in Arizona, it was reasonably apparent to them that they did not have adequate aircraft or other resources (qualified instructors, training materials and facilities) available to fulfill the promises they made to their students. 50. At the time they marketed and opened their training program in Arizona, Defendants knew that it would not be possible for students to graduate the program within 12 months of their start date, or even within 18 months, when the contract for training services would terminate. 51. When they marketed and opened their training program in , Glendale, and Tucson, Arizona, Defendants knew well that they could not and, would not hire nearly all of their graduates as pilots. 52. When Defendants marketed and opened their program, they knew that they would not have sufficient aircraft available for student use in either Mesa, Glendale or Tucson, Arizona as comparable to the aircraft that they had presented during the marketing seminars. 53. Defendants misrepresented the manner in which they would provide educational services and the aircraft which would be made available to students. 54. Defendants misrepresented through statements, tangible presentation of equipment, and photographs, the nature and efficacy of their courses, training devices and equipment. 55. Defendants misrepresented the role of the school in providing or arranging for employment following completion of student training. 56. Defendants misrepresented the available employment opportunities for students following graduation. 57. Despite these misrepresentations, and their inability to fulfill representations made to students, Defendants arranged for and accepted funds from a financing program which required the lender, Key Bank, to make advances to SILVER STATE far in excess of the actual training fees earned. 58. Even after it became apparent that Defendants' equipment was wholly inadequate, and that it would be unable to meet the time frame for training. Defendants continued to require and accept draws from the lending institution. 59. Upon information and belief, SILVER STATE has received in excess of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) of student funds, while it has provided services having a value that is a fraction of the funds received. 60. Upon information and belief, Defendant AIROLA has personally benefitted from its misrepresentations and misstatements in that he has personally achieved substantial financial gain. 61. Defendants have violated the Arizona Consumer Protection Act, Code §A.R.S. § 44-1521 through 44-1534, et seq. which prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful pursuant to the laws of the state of Arizona and the Consumer Protection Act. A.R.S. § 44-1521 through 44-1534 et. seq. 62. As a result of Defendants' deceptive acts, Plaintiffs have suffered damages including, but not limited to, loss of the funds paid to SILVER STATE; lost time and value of the money paid to SILVER STATE; interest expensed on their student loans; delay in or inability to complete the helicopter training program resulting in lost income, and such other damages as a jury may deem appropriate. 63. Pursuant to the Arizona Consumer Protection Act, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover treble damages and their attorneys' fees and costs. COUNT II: BREACH OF CONTRACT 64. All of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated and restated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. 65. The Training Agreement contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, requiring SILVER STATE to fulfill the contract and in so doing to act in good faith. 66. The Training Agreement expressly requires SILVER STATE to render training services adequate to allow a student to obtain a commercial pilot certificate (rotorcraft) a certified flight instructor certificate (rotorcraft), external load proficiency, an instrument rating, and a turbine transition. 67. The Training Agreement terminates after 18 months, thus requiring SILVER STATE to provide services and equipment sufficient to allow a student to complete the aforementioned certifications and training within an 18 month period. 68. The training actually provided by SILVER STATE and the aircraft provided by SILVER STATE were wholly inadequate to allow a student to complete the program within the twelve (12) month period represented as "typical" for its students, or even within the eighteen (18) month period constituting the end of the Training Agreement. 69. In its failure to provide adequate training services, and in its failure to provide adequate equipment, SILVER STATE breached the terms of its Training Agreement. 70. As a result of SILVER STATE's breach of contract, Plaintiffs have suffered damages, including, but not limited to, the loss of funds paid to SILVER STATE; lost time and value of the money paid to SILVER STATE; interest expensed on their student loans; delay in or inability to complete the helicopter training program resulting in lost income, and such other damages as a jury may deem appropriate. 71. Defendants breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, not only in their knowing failure to provide adequate educational services and equipment, but in the misrepresentations they made to induce students to enter and continue in the program. COUNT III: FRAUD 72. All of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated and restated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. 73. The Defendants made numerous false and material misrepresentations concerning the services their Arizona helicopter flight training programs would offer. At the time these representations were made SILVER STATE did not have either the aircraft, instructors, materials or facilities to provide the promised training, nor did SILVER STATE have the capacity or even the intent to acquire these resources prior to accepting payment from prospective students or prior to the time the training was promised to begin. 74. Both SILVER STATE and AIROLA knew their representations were false and, due to the significance of the representations and their absolute control of the business of SILVER STATE, they could not be ignorant of the fact that their representations were true. In fact, Defendants had no reasonable expectation that they could fulfill the promises made to students in light of the inadequate resources. 75. Defendants clearly intended that Plaintiffs and others would rely upon their false representations. Given the totality of the statements made by Defendant AIROLA and others under his direct control, the only possible purpose for their representations was to cause Plaintiffs and others to rely thereon and to enter into flight training contracts that Defendants knew were impossible to fulfill. 76. Plaintiffs were unaware of the falsity of the representations made and relied upon those representations. All of Plaintiff’s herein were persons of at least average ability and intelligence. The location of Defendant’s presentation in a large aviation facility, the presence of multiple and varied model helicopters, and the sophistication of the sales materials, would have led anyone interested in such helicopter flight training to rely on Defendant’s to provide the services promised and believe that Defendant’s had the capacity to provide the services they promised. 77. In reliance on the representations of Defendants, Plaintiffs enrolled as students in the helicopter flight training program offered by SILVER STATE and entered a contractual agreement under which they would pay on average fifty-five thousand, nine hundred and fifty dollars ($55,950) to SILVER STATE. 78. As a result of Defendant’s false and fraudulent representations, Defendant SILVER STATE obtained approximately five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) in student funds from Plaintiffs. Defendant SILVER STATE failed to provide the promised helicopter flight training program and caused Plaintiff’s the loss of most of the value of the funds they paid to Defendant SILVER STATE. 79. As a result of the fraud committed by Defendants SILVER STATE and AIROLA, the Plaintiffs have been damaged. The damages include, but are not limited to, the loss of funds paid to SILVER STATE; lost time and value of the money paid to SILVER STATE; interest expensed on their student loans; delay in or inability to complete the helicopter training program resulting in lost income. COUNT IV: FRAUD 80. All of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated and restated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. 81. Defendant AIROLA personally made numerous false and material misrepresentations concerning the services to be provided by SILVER STATE in its Arizona helicopter flight training programs. At the time that he made these representations SILVER STATE did not have either the aircraft, instructors, materials or facilities to provide the promised training, nor did SILVER STATE have the capacity or even the intent to acquire these resources prior to accepting payment from prospective students prior to the time the training was promised to begin. 82. AIROLA knew his representations were false and, due to the significance of the representations and his absolute control of the business of SILVER STATE, he could not be ignorant of the fact that his representations were not true. In fact, AIROLA had no reasonable expectation that SILVER STATE could fulfill the promises made to students in light of the inadequate resources available. 83. AIROLA clearly intended that Plaintiffs and others would rely upon his false representations. Given the totality of the statements made by AIROLA, and others under his direct control, the only possible purpose for their representations was to cause Plaintiffs and others to rely thereon and to enter into flight training contracts that AIROLA knew were impossible for SILVER STATE to fulfill. 84. Plaintiffs were unaware of the falsity of the representations made by AIROLA and relied on those representations. All of the Plaintiff’s herein were persons of at least average ability and intelligence. The location of AIROLA’s presentation in a large aviation facility, the presence of multiple and varied model helicopters, and the sophistication of the sales materials, would have led anyone interested in such helicopter flight training to rely of SILVER STATE to provide the services promised and to believe that SILVER STATE had the capacity to provide the services they promised. 85. In reliance on the representations of AIROLA, Plaintiffs enrolled as students in the helicopter flight training program offered by SILVER STATE and entering a contractual agreement under which they would pay, on average, fifty-five thousand, nine-hundred and fifty dollars ($55,950) to SILVER STATE; the Plaintiffs had a right to rely on the representations made to them. 86. As a result of AIROLA's false and fraudulent representations, SILVER STATE obtained approximately five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) in student funds from Plaintiffs. SILVER STATE subsequently failed to provide the promised helicopter flight training program and caused Plaintiff’s the loss of most of the value of the funds they paid to SILVER STATE. 87. As a result of the fraud committed by AIROLA, the Plaintiffs have been damaged. The damages include, but are not limited to, the loss of funds paid to SILVER STATE; the lost time value of the money paid to SILVER STATE; interest expense on their student loans; delay in or inability to complete the helicopter training program resulting in lost income. 88. At all times described herein, AIROLA was the owner and chief operating officer of SILVER STATE, and not only did he know of the inability of SILVER STATE to fulfill its contractual obligations to Plaintiffs. He was in fact responsible for all of the helicopter training program deficiencies. 89. The failure of SILVER STATE to meet its contractual obligations to its students could only be a deliberate scheme by AIROLA to use the SILVER STATE helicopter flight training program for his personal gain at the expense of the SILVER STATE students by deliberately failing to provide the needed flight training resources and by misrepresenting the costs involved in the program. COUNT V: CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD 90. All of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated and restated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. 91. Defendants SILVER STATE and AIROLA had a duty to be truthful in the representations they made to prospective or actual students concerning the training program they would offer in Arizona. 92. Defendants in fact misrepresented aspects of the training program, and in so doing, breached the duty owed to the Plaintiffs and other students. 93. Their breach misled the Plaintiffs to their detriment and resulted in an advantage to AIROLA personally, and SILVER STATE. 94. Such breach resulted in damages to Plaintiffs, including, but not limited to, the loss of funds paid to SILVER STATE; lost time and value of the money paid to SILVER STATE; interest expensed on their student loans; delay in or inability to complete the helicopter training program resulting in lost income, and such other damages as a jury may deem appropriate. COUNT VI: NEGLIGENCE 95. All of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated and restated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. 96. This count is alleged in the alternative to the counts above. By asserting this negligence cause, Plaintiffs in no way waive their rights to pursue the foregoing causes of action. 97. Defendants had a duty to design, develop and implement a training program that would allow students, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, to complete their training within the twelve (12) to eighteen (18) months as represented. 98. Defendants had a duty to design, develop and implement a training program capable of graduating all competent students within eighteen (18) months, the time period of the Training Agreement. 99. Defendants breached this duty by failing to design, develop and implement a training program capable of meeting the criteria set forth in their promotional and contractual materials. 100. As a result of Defendant’s breaches, Plaintiffs suffered damages including, but not limited to, the loss of funds paid to SILVER STATE; lost time and value of the money paid to SILVER STATE; interest expensed on their student loans; delay in, or inability to complete the helicopter training program resulting in lost income, and such other damages as a jury may deem appropriate. COUNT VII: NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION 101. All of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated and restated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. 102. Defendants made numerous representations as to material facts concerning their training program. 103. The representations they made were untrue. 104. Regardless of their actual belief, the Defendants made representations without any reasonable ground for believing them to be true. 105. The representations were made with the intent to induce the Plaintiffs and other students to rely upon them. 106. The Plaintiffs were unaware of the falsity of the representations and werejustified in relying on them. 107. As a result of the reliance, the Plaintiffs sustained damage including, but not limited to the loss of funds paid to SILVER STATE; lost time and value of the money paid to SILVER STATE; interest expensed on their student loans; delay in or inability to complete the helicopter training program resulting in lost income, and such other damages as a jury may deem appropriate. COUNT VIII: JOINT, VICARIOUS AND ALTER EGO LIABILITY 108. All of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated and restated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. 109. AIROLA and SILVER STATE have acted in a joint scheme to commit the torts and other wrongs alleged in this Complaint. 110. The limited liability company entity known as SILVER STATE HELICOPTERS, LLC, was used as a subterfuge to defeat public convenience, justify wrong or to perpetrate fraud and in fact was the alter-ego of Defendant AIROLA, and was used for AIROLA’s personal financial benefit. 111. AIROLA is individually liable for any of the wrongs alleged herein. 112. SILVER STATE is liable for any wrongs committed by AIROLA alleged herein. 113. AIROLA and SILVER STATE are each vicariously liable for the acts of the other. COUNT IX: EXEMPLARY DAMAGES 114. All of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated and restated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. 115. In their commission of the acts alleged herein, Defendants have acted with actual malice or committed actual fraud. 116. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover exemplary damages against the Defendants and each of them. COUNT X: MISTAKE 117. All of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated and restated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. 118. The consent of Plaintiffs to the Training Agreement was given by mistake or obtained by fraud on the part of the Defendants. 119. The consideration promised to the Plaintiffs substantially or materially failed. 120. Defendants are not entitled to enforce against the Plaintiffs any provisions which may be detrimental to Plaintiffs. Such provisions include, but are not necessarily limited to, any provisions purporting to allow the Defendants to retain the students’ loan proceeds or other funds, the choice of law provisions, and the arbitration provisions. COUNT XI: UNCONSCIONABILITY 121. All of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated and restated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. 122. Defendants’ conduct, acts, language, or silence amount to representation or a concealment of material facts. The falsity of these facts were known to Defendants at the time of their conduct, but not known to the Plaintiffs. 123. Defendants’ conduct was done with the intention or expectation that it would be relied upon by the Plaintiffs, or under circumstances that it was natural and probable that it would be so acted upon. 124. The conduct was in fact relied upon by the Plaintiffs and resulted in a change of their position for the worse. 125. Defendants are barred from relying on provisions of the Training Agreement unfavorable to the Plaintiffs, including, but not limited to, its provisions concerning retention of loans or other funds received, its choice of law provisions, or its arbitration provisions. COUNT XII: PUBLIC POLICY 126. All of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated and restated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. 127. The Training Agreement was entered between each of the Plaintiffs and SILVER STATE within the state of Arizona. 128. Training services to be provided by SILVER STATE were all intended to take place within the state of Arizona. 129. Defendants touted the economic opportunity they would bring to the city of Mesa, Glendale, and Tucson, Arizona in their marketing. 130. The state of Arizona has an interest in preventing enforcement of unconscionable, unlawful or otherwise inappropriate provisions contained within the Training Agreement. 131. The contract's provisions, including those governing retention of student funds, timing of "earning" fees for services, venue and arbitration are against the public policy of the state of Arizona. COUNT XIII: IMPOSSIBILITY 132. All of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated and restated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. 133. Due to Defendants' conduct, it became impossible for Defendants to perform the Training Agreement in the manner promised. 134. Due to Defendants' conduct, it became impossible for the Plaintiffs to fulfill their responsibilities under the contract. 135. Plaintiffs have no duty to perform a contract which is impossible for them to perform where they had no reason to foresee the impossibility at the time that they contracted. The contract is thus not enforceable against the Plaintiffs. COUNT XIV: CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST 136. All of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated and restated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. 137. Defendants received funds directly from the students lenders in excess of services performed or funds earned. 138. As such, it became Defendants' obligation to hold such funds in constructive trust for Plaintiffs. 139. Defendants had a fiduciary duty to properly handle and administer the funds received. 140. Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by arranging payment, and accepting such payment for funds in excess of training services actually performed. 141. Plaintiffs are entitled to have any funds received from them by Defendants placed in a separate trust account, and to require Defendants to account therefore. 142. Such funds should remain available during the pendency of this action. 143. Plaintiffs have also suffered damages by virtue of Defendants' breach of the constructive trust, including, but not limited to, those damages previously alleged in this complaint and any additional damages which may be identified at a later date. Back to top Guest Posted: Jan 16, 2007 22:51 Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WOW what a find Back to top Dave in Sac Joined: 05 Jul 2006 Posts: 34 Posted: Jan 17, 2007 08:28 Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yup, this is it in plain english. This pretty much sums it all up. Where's that little boy that's been defending them in this thread now? I'm sure there's too many big words in this article for him anyway. Dave in Sac. Back to top shrpshter Moderator Joined: 29 Jun 2006 Posts: 152 Posted: Jan 17, 2007 11:50 Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: Where's that little boy that's been defending them in this thread now? Oddly enough, he is the one who posted the above lawsuit extracts. Jerry is not going to be happy. I happen to find the unposted lawsuit extracts of each individuals complaints even more interesting. I will refrain from posting them here, but one can find the complete lawsuit complaints in SSH's wikipedia article. Back to top Advertisement Posted: Jan 29, 2007 12:55 Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First The Silver State Truth Forum Index -> Negative All times are GMT - 7 Hours Page 1 of 1 Quick Reply: Username: Jump to: Select a forum Your Thoughts On Silver State Helicopter----------------ANONYMOUS POSTING PROBLEMS FIXED!!!!!READ THISAdmin's Comments To Forum UsersNegativePositiveJerry Threatens Lawsuit Against Vertical ReferenceUpcoming SSH Seminars You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group Forum hosted by RSS feed | Forum directory | Set up a free forum! join to post