Burke Contractor Files Motion With Receiver To Perfect Lien

Burke Contractor Files Motion With Receiver To Perfect Lien

EB-5 Visa, EB5 Visa, EB-5 Investment

A Burke Hotel contractor who is owed $400,000 has asked a Miami federal court judge to lift a stay of litigation on property now held by a court-appointed receiver.

Blanc & Bailey Construction Inc., based in Charlestown, New Hampshire, is seeking to perfect a lien that was placed on a property formerly owned by Miami businessman Ariel Quiros who is accused of squandering and misusing $200 million in EB-5 immigrant investor funds.

Blanc & Bailey was hired by PeakCM to perform “rough carpentry” work for the Burke Hotel last year. The company filed a lien on the property on Dec. 6, 2015.

Ben Vitale, an attorney for the contractor, says under Vermont law, Blanc & Bailey has 180 days from the time of filing to perfect the lien. Because that deadline is coming up on June 6, Vitale has asked for an expedited decision, within the next week, from Judge Darrin Gayles.

The motion is not a request for enforcement, or foreclosure action, Vitale said.

“We acknowledge the receiver needs time to figure out what’s going on,” Vitale said.

The Burke Hotel is part of an Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit against Quiros, his partner Bill Stenger, and a number of entities owned by Quiros. The Burke Hotel was owned by Burke 2000, a subsidiary of Q Burke and a holding company for the Q Burke Mountain Resort Hotel and Conference Center.

The SEC has initially opposed the motion and has deferred to Michael Goldberg, the court-appointed receiver for Burke Mountain Resort, the Jay Peak Resort and AnC Bio Vermont.

Goldberg was not available for comment on Tuesday.

The court has barred liens and legal action against the receiver.

PeakCM, the general contractor for the Burke Hotel, has placed a $4.5 million lien on the $50 million hotel. Jerry Davis, the CEO and president of PeakCM, has said that a handful of subcontractors like Blanc & Bailey would be paid out through the PeakCM lien.

In another motion filed this week, attorneys for Ariel Quiros asked the judge to release the sale of a condo on Fifth Avenue in New York City worth $8 million to $10 million, so that he can pay his attorneys fees and living expenses, which he has said are roughly $100,000 a month. David Gordon, GrayRobinson and Berger Singerman have also requested $400,000 for legal services provided to Quiros over a three week period leading up to a hearing on May 9. When the SEC brought charges against Quiros on April 12, the federal government seized all of his assets.

The SEC has opposed the sale of the condo. Lawyers for the SEC say the apartment, which is on a list of properties to be disgorged, must be used to compensate immigrant investors. The SEC alleges that Quiros used $3.8 million in investor funds that were supposed to be used for the Golf and Mountain Suites project at Jay Peak Resort to purchase the New York City condo.

The SEC alleges that Quiros stole more than $55 million in investor funds.

Judge Gayles is expected to rule on the SEC case against Quiros after attorneys file conclusory statements on May 27.



Litigation Cases


  • New Hampshire
  • Vermont

Securities Disclaimer

This website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an offer or solicitation to sell shares or securities. Any such offer or solicitation will be made only by means of an investment's confidential Offering Memorandum and in accordance with the terms of all applicable securities and other laws. This website does not constitute or form part of, and should not be construed as, any offer for sale or subscription of, or any invitation to offer to buy or subscribe for, any securities, nor should it or any part of it form the basis of, or be relied on in any connection with, any contract or commitment whatsoever. EB5Projects.com LLC and its affiliates expressly disclaim any and all responsibility for any direct or consequential loss or damage of any kind whatsoever arising directly or indirectly from: (i) reliance on any information contained in the website, (ii) any error, omission or inaccuracy in any such information or (iii) any action resulting therefrom.