Case 1:17-cv-00658-JPO Document 1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------X
HI-FI MARKETING GROUP LLC.,

Plaintiff,
VERIFIED COMPLAINT

- against - ECF case

MARCO LUZ GONCALVES,

Defendant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------X

Plaintiff, HI-FI MARKETING GROUP LLC (hereinafter "HI-FI") brings this Complaint

against Defendant MARCO LUZ GONCALVES (hereinafter "GONCALVES") alleging upon

information and belief as follows:

NATURE OF THE CASE

This is a claim for recovery on a Promissory Note (hereinafter "NOTE") that was

executed by Defendant on November 15, 2016. The Note required Mr. Goncalves pay HI-FI the

sum of $250,000 no later than December 31, 2016. At the time Mr. Goncalves executed the note

he was indebted to Plaintiff for an amount in excess of $300,000. Mr. Goncalves is and was a

sophisticated banker and was fully aware of the terms of the Note at the time that he executed it

on November 15, 2016. Following the date of execution, Mr. Goncalves made numerous written

and oral promises to Plaintiff that payment was on the way. It never arrived. Defendant was

then warned that this lawsuit would be filed unless payment was made. Defendant persisted in

his refusal to satisfy the Note.

 Case 1:17-cv-00658-JPO Document 1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 2 of 7

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff HI-FI MARKETING GROUP LLC is a limited liability company, duly

organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York with its principal

place of business located at 381 Park Avenue South, in the City and County of New

York and the State of New York.

2. Defendant MARCO LUZ GONCALVES is an individual with residences in Brazil

and the United States.

3. Mr. Goncalves has a residence in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

4. Mr. Goncalves has a residence in the City and State of New York.

5. Mr. Goncalves works for BTG Pactual, a bank with locations in Sao Paulo and New

York City.

6. Mr. Goncalves reports to work both at the New York and Sao Paulo offices of BTG

Pactual.

7. Mr. Gonclaves' New York office at BTG Pactual is located at 601 Lexington Avenue,

in the City and State of New York, County of New York.

8. Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of New York.

9. Defendant is a citizen of Brazil.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10. This Court's jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.C. 1332 and consent to this

Courts jurisdiction and venue by contract. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction of the

breach of contract claim under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1367(a) as well as the contractual

agreement to this Courts jurisdiction.

11. Defendant has consented to this Courts jurisdiction in the Note and resides in the

2
 Case 1:17-cv-00658-JPO Document 1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 3 of 7

State. Jurisdiction also exists pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1).

12. Venue is proper in this District Court pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

1400(a) in that the Plaintiff is a corporation with its principal place of business in Manhattan and

is being damaged by the Defendants actions and inaction.

13. Venue is also provided in the Southern District of New York by contractual

consent to courts located in the County of New York, State of New York.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

14. Defendant is a high ranking executive at BTG Pactual Bank a multi-national mega

million dollar banking institution.

15. Defendant is the head of Mergers and Acquisitions at BTG Pactual.

16. Defendant is well known for spending enormous amounts of money on night life

parties in New York City and elsewhere in the world.

17. In or about June of 2016, while Mr. Goncalves was working at his New York City

office, he was in search of nightlife.

18. On June 10, 2016, Mr. Goncalves arrived at a popular New York City Nightclub

known as "Provocateur" (hereinafter the Club).

19. While at Provocateur on June 10 and again on June 11, Mr. Goncalves purchased

some of the Club's finest Champagne and liquors including ACE Rose Magnums,

Cristal Magnum bottles, Dom Perignon, Patron Tequila Magnum.

20. Before Mr. Goncalves ordered the liquors on June 10, 2016, he was notified of the

price.

21. Provocateur maintains a list of Champagnes and Liquor in a "menu" which contains

the type of Champagne and price adjacent to it.

22. Defendant ordered multiple bottles of fine Champagne and Liquor over a period of

3
 Case 1:17-cv-00658-JPO Document 1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 4 of 7

approximately 6 hours.

23. The liquor was consumed by Mr. Goncalves and numerous members of his party.

24. On June 10, 2016 Mr. Goncalves was presented with the final bill and charged

$208,005.74 to his credit card.

25. Mr. Goncalves returned to the Club on June 11, 2016.

26. Again, on June 11, 2016, Mr. Goncalves reviewed the "menu" and ordered similar

liquors and Champagne.

27. Prior to ordering on June 11, Mr. Goncalves was aware of the prices.

28. Mr. Goncalves remained at the Club for hours on June 11.

29. The liquor and Champagne was consumed by Mr. Goncalves and numerous members

of his party while at the Club.

30. At the end of Mr. Goncalves' consumption on June 11, 2016, Mr. Goncalves was

presented with a bill, and he again paid for it using an American Express card, the amount of

$131,871.46.

31. Thereafter, the charges made on both June 10 and June 11 were declined.

32. Mr. Goncalves was informed of the outstanding bills.

33. Mr. Goncalves then met with a representative of HI-FI in an effort to obtain money to

satisfy the charges that were declined.

34. HI-FI provided $250,000 toward payment of the Club bills, which precipitated Mr.

Goncalves' execution of a Promissory Note on November 15, 2016 (the "Note").

35. The Note provided that Mr. Goncalves was required to pay the sum of $250,000 no

later than December 31, 2016. A copy of the Note is annexed hereto and incorporated herein.

4
 Case 1:17-cv-00658-JPO Document 1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 5 of 7

COUNT I: BREACH OF CONTRACT

36. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and realleges each and every statement in Paragraphs 1

35 as if fully set forth herein.

37. Defendant made a valid promise to pay $250,000 to the Plaintiff no later than

December 31, 2016.

38. There was consideration for the November 15, 2016 Promise to Pay contained in the

attached Note.

39. Defendant received the consideration.

40. Defendant was advised that he was in breach of the November 15, 2016 Note.

41. In December of 2016, Defendant assured Plaintiff that he intended to comply with the

terms of the Note.

42. After December 31, 2016, the Defendant was advised that he breached the terms of

the note.

43. During the first week of 2017, the Defendant certified and assured Plaintiff on

numerous occasions that he intended to cure the breach.

44. As of this date, having received numerous reminders from the Plaintiff that he is in

breach, Defendant has persisted in remaining in breach and refusing to satisfy any portion of the

$250,000 that was owed as of December 31, 2016 pursuant to the Note.

45. The Note provides for attorneys' fees to be paid by the Defendant in the event of a

default in payment.

46. Default is defined by failure to make the payment by December 31, 2016.

47. Defendant failed to make the payment by December 31, 2016

48. Defendant is in default on the Note.

5
 Case 1:17-cv-00658-JPO Document 1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 6 of 7

COUNT II: FAILURE TO HONOR AN INSTRUMENT

49. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and realleges each and every statement in Paragraphs 1

48 as if fully set forth herein.

50. The Note is an instrument as defined by U.C.C. Section 3-104

51. The Note is an unconditional promise to pay a fixed amount of money

52. The Holder of the Note is the Plaintiff.

53. The Note upon Defendants execution first came into possession of Plaintiff.

54. It promises to pay to the Order of the Plaintiff herein.

55. It is payable at a definite time.

56. Defendant has failed to honor the instrument

57. Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff thereon for the full amount stated in the Notice,

$250,000 in addition to attorneys fees, costs and interest.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant as follows:

I. Judgment in the amount of $250,000 for breach of contract and failure to

honor an instrument.

II. Judgment for attorneys' fees in an amount to be determined.

III. Interest and costs.

Dated: New York, New York

January 27, 2017
Respectfully Submitted,

THE BOSTANY LAW FIRM, PLLC

By:____s/John P. Bostany_______________
John P. Bostany(JB1986)
Attorney for Plaintiff
3 World Financial Center, 24th floor
New York, New York 10281
(212) 530-4400

6
Case 1:17-cv-00658-JPO Document 1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 7 of 7