IGNATIUS KOMNINAKAS and 7 CHRISTINA A. KOMNINAKAS 7 J.D. OF FAIRFIELD v. : AT BRIDGEPORT APEIRON CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC; GREGORY PETER LOLES; KALLIOP LOLES; FARNBACHER LOLES STREET DECEMBER |D_, 2009 PERFORMANCE, LLC: FARNBACHER LOLES : AUTO PARTS, LLC; FARNBACHER LOLES MOTORSPORTS, LLC; FARNBACHERLOLES RACING, LLC AFFIDAVIT STATE OF CONNECTICUT , DOCKET NO. : SUPERIOR COURT | ss TRUMBULL December 7, 2009 COUNTY OF FAIRFIELD 1, IGNATIUS KOMNINAKAS, being duly swom, do depose and say: 1. Tam over EIGHTEEN and understand the obligations of an oath, 2, reside in the Town of Shelton, Connecticut 3 That this is an action to collect funds due to me and my wife, CHRISTINA A. KOMNINAKAS. 4. That upon information and belief and at all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, i APEIRON CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC., (Hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) is | engaged in the business of Investment Advisements having a principle place of business at 925 Grassy Hill Road, Orange, Connecticut.5. That upon information and belief and at all times hereinafier mentioned, defendant GREGORY PETER LOLES (Hereinafter “GREGORY LOLES”) is an individual residing at 451 Judd Road, Easton, Connecticut. 6. That upon information and belief the Defendant, GREGORY LOLES, is the President and a member of the Defendant Corporation. (See Attached Exhibit A) 7. That upon information and belief the Defendant, KALLIOPI LOLES, is an individual residing at 451 Judd Road, Baston, Connecticut 8. That upon information and belief the Defendant, KALLIOPI LOLES is the Secretary of the Defendant Corporation. (See Attached Exhibit A) 9. That upon information and belief the Defendant Gregory Loles was the sole member of The Defendant, Fambacher Loles Motorsports, LLC (Hereinafter “Motorsports, LLC”), a Limited Liability Company with a principal place of business located at 454 Miry Brook Road, Danbury, Connecticut. (See Attached Exhibit B). 10. That upon information and belief the Defendant Gregory Loles was the sole member of The Defendant, Fambacher Loles Street Performance, LLC (Hereinafter “Street Performance, LLC”), a Limited Liability Company with a principal place of business located at 45A Miry Brook Road, Daibury, Connecticut. (See Attached Exhibit C). 11. That upon information and belief the Defendant Gregory Loles was the sole member of The Defendant, Fambacher Loles Auto Parts, LLC (Hereinafter “Auto Parts, LLC”), a Limited Liability Company with a principal place of business located at 45 Miry Brook Road, Danbury, Connecticut. (See Attached Exhibit D). 12, That upon information and belief the Defendant Gregory Loles was the sole member of The Defendant, Fambacherloles Racing, LLC (Hereinafter “Racing, LLC”), aLimited Liability Company with a principal place of business located at 89 Triangle Street, Danbury, Connecticut. (See Attached Exhibit B) 13. To best of my knowledge on or about December, 2004, GREGORY LOLES, contacted me via telephone in an attempt to persuade me and my wife to allow him to act as our Investment Manager and/or Securities Broker. 14, On or about December, 2004, GREGORY LOLES invited me and my wife to GREGORY LOLES and KALLIOPI LOLES’ home in Easton, Connecticut to continue to persuade us to allow the Defendant Corporation to invest our funds. 15, Both GREGORY LOLES and KALLIOPI LOLES were present in the home at the time of the meeting. 16. On or about December, 2004, at the aforementioned home meeting, GREGORY LOLES, represented to the following dircetly to me and my wife: a, That our funds would be invested in a fund known as the Knightsbridge Fund. b. That said Knightsbridge Fund was managed by two (2) colleagues located in New York, New York. ¢. That the Defendant Corporation would pool our funds together with the funds of other individual investors and invest in the Knightsbridge Fund as abulk investment. 4. That our principal investment would be fully protected. e. That the Knightsbridge Fund receives an eleven percent (11%) return on investment and in turn, we would receive a Seven and ‘Three Quarters Percent (7.75%) return on our individual investment.£ That the Knightsbridge Fund receives a high return on investment while fully protecting the initial principal because the Fund only invests in stable, high power companies with the highest bond status. g. That the worst thing that could happen is that we would be forced to accept a return of our principal investment if in fact the Knightsbridge Money Managers could no longer afford to pay the stated dividend. b. That ifthe Knightsbridge Money Managers would be retuming our principal payment we would be given three (3) months notice. i. That we should avoid investing in the stock market but rather investment in the Knightsbridge Fund as it would guarantee a steady dividend payment while simultaneously protecting our initial investment. ‘That at any time, we could demand the return of our principal and if so demanded, the principal would be returned by GREGORY LOLES within five (5) days. 17, At the commencement of the home meeting, on or about December 30, 2004, I gave a check made payable to Defendant Corporation in the amount of Seventy Five Thousand ($75,000.00) DOLLARS. 18. On or about February 1, 2005, 1 received an Account Statement from the Defendant Corporation confirming the principal investment of Seventy Five Thousand ($75,000.00) DOLLARS and the Portfolio Holdings of 375 shares of the Knightsbridge Fund, indicating a Seven and Three Quarters Percent (7.75%) return and 375 shares of the Travelers Fund which indicated a 6.15% percent return,19, From February 4, 2005 to August, 2007, { received a monthly dividend payment in the amount of Four Hundred Thirty Four 38/100 ($434.38) DOLLARS. 20. On or about July, 2007 I gave an additional check to the Defendant Corporation in the amount of One Hundred Thousand ($100,000.00) DOLLARS to double the initial investment. 21. From September, 2007 to October, 2009 I received a monthly dividend payment in the amount of One Thousand Thirteen 54/100 ($1,013.54) DOLLARS. 22. Onor about February, 2009, June 2009 and again in August, 2009 I demanded the return of their total principal investment from GREGORY LOLES and on each occasion Mr. Loles agreed to retum the funds. 23. On or about October, 2009 I again demanded the return of their initial principal investment at which time GREGORY LOLES informed me that he would return the principal by the middle of November. 24. The defendant GREGORY LOLES and Defendant Corporation have refused 10 return the total principal investment in the amount of One Hundred and Seventy Five ($175,000.00) DOLLARS to me. 25. At the time of my investment and all times herein I was a member of the Saint Barbara’s Greek Orthodox Church located at 480 Racebrook Road, Orange, Connecticut (Hereinafter “Chureh”). 26. — That upon information and belief the Saint Barbara’s Greek Orthodox Church had invested funds with the Defendant Corporation and/or GREGORY LOLES. 27. On or about Sunday December 6, 2009 an emergency General Assembly Meeting ‘was scheduled and it was advised that all parishioners attend28. On or about Sunday December 6, 2009 my wife and I attended the General Assembly Meeting at St. Barbara’s Greek Orthodox Church. 29. After the commencement of said meeting it is my understanding that the following has occurred (See Attached Exhibit F): a. That on or about Tuesday December I, 2009, the Church was contacted by an individual residing in the State of California, b. Said California resident claimed to have given a Joan in the amount of $500,000.00 to GREGORY LOLES to which the funds were to be a donation to the Church and he would repay the California investor within Four (4) months. ¢. Said loan occurred via wire transfer to the Defendant Corporation on or about December 1, 2008, 4, Said California resident has attempted to collect the funds from GREGORY LOLES for approximately | year but has only been partially suocessful e. Said loan was taken by GREGORY LOLES without the Church’s knowledge or consent and no donation was made to the Church. £ Said Califomia resident contacted the Church directly for the first time on or about December 1, 2009 and demanded repayment of the funds from the Church directly. g. The Church, having no knowledge of the loan, attempted to contact GREGORLY LOLES directly to receive an explanation of the circumstances. h. GREGORY LOLES ignored all the Church’s attempt to contact him and never responded to the Church's repeated telephone messages.i, Onor about December 2, 2009 GREGORY LOLES was admitted to the hospital for an unknown reason. j. GREGORY LOLES is currently still in the hospital and refuses to speak with anyone outside the presence of his attorney. 30. Upon information and belief neither GREGORY LOLES nor the Defendant Corporation is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). 31. Upon information and belief the Church and numerous individuals have made repeated demands for the return of their principal payments and GREGORY LOLES and/or the Defendant Corporation refuses to return the principal or even contact the investors. 32. My representative has contacted ‘The Knightsbridge Advisors with locations in Boston, Massachusetts and Bartlesville, Oklahoma and Knightsbridge Holdings, LLC located in. Las Vegas, Nevada, both of which have never heard of GREGORY LOLES and/or The Defendant Corporation. 33. Upon information and belief the appropriate law enforcement authorities have been contacted. 34. [relied and acted upon on the false statements and false information provided of GREGORY LOLES and/or the Defendant Corporation. 35, Due to GREGORY LOLES and/or the Defendant Corporation’s false statements and false information I paid over One Hundred and Seventy Five Thousand 00/100 ($175,000.00) DOLLARS to GREGORY LOLES and/or the Defendant Corporation.36. As a result of the GREGORY LOLES and/or the Defendant Corporation’s false statements and or fraudulent transfers 1 have suffered damages in the amount of One Hundred and Seventy Five Thousand 00/100 ($175,000.00) Dollars. 37. The Defendant Corporation and GREGORY LOLES’ refusal to return the amount of One Hundred and Seventy Five Thousand 00/100 ($175,000.00) Dollars resulted in the loss of use of said money, cost of collection and attorney fees. 38. Therefore, I assert that the foregoing facts are sufficient to show that ‘there is probable cause that a judgment in the amount of the prejudgment remedy sought or an amount greater than that of the amount of prejudgment remedy sought, taking into account any known defense counterclaims or setoffs, will be rendered in my favor in the above-captioned action in the amount not less than One Hundred and Seventy Five Thousand 00/100 ($175,000.00) Dollars. and that an Order should enter allowing the Plaintiff to attach or garnish to the extent of One Hundred and Seventy Five Thousand 00/100 ($175,000.00) Dollars sufficient receivables and/or assets of the Defendant Corporation, Apeiron Capital Management, LLC, Gregory P. Loles, Kalliopi Loles, Farnbacher Loles Street Performance, LLC, Farnbacher Loles Auto Parts, LLC, Fambacher Loles Motorsports, LLC AND Farnbacherloles Racing, LLC to secure this sum. _ ad Ignatius Komninakas Subscribed and swom to before me this 92” day of December, 2009 is “Dends Ty Kekeanos, 6s Commissioner of Superior Court ie Meee