Bank Hapoalim B.M. v. Allstate Sales Group Inc., et al.

CourtDistrict Court, D. New Jersey
DecidedFebruary 5, 2026
Docket3:25-cv-18047
StatusUnknown

This text of Bank Hapoalim B.M. v. Allstate Sales Group Inc., et al. (Bank Hapoalim B.M. v. Allstate Sales Group Inc., et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bank Hapoalim B.M. v. Allstate Sales Group Inc., et al., (D.N.J. 2026).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

BANK HAPOALIM B.M.,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 25-18047 (GC) (JTQ) v. MEMORANDUM ORDER ALLSTATE SALES GROUP INC., et al.,

Defendants.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon the Motion of Plaintiff Bank Hapoalim B.M. (BHI) for the appointment of Province Fiduciary Services, LLC, by and through Thomas Buck (Receiver), as receiver over certain real and personal property assets of Defendants Allstate Sales Group Inc. (ASG), Ocean Properties LLC, Ocean Investment Holdings LLC, Ocean Property Management LLC, Ocean Property Management II LLC, Home Services USA LLC, and Aegis Service Group LLC, who consent to the appointment of a Receiver. (ECF No. 3); and WHEREAS BHI filed a Complaint in federal court on December 1, 2025, asserting claims of breach of contract, foreclosure on and enforcement of security interest, and mortgage foreclosure against Defendants. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 3.) BHI alleges that it is a senior secured, asset- based creditor of Defendants and that it holds a first-priority security interest in and lien on “substantially all of the Defendants’ assets.” (Id. ¶ 2.) The Complaint includes as attachments: (1) a Loan and Security Agreement dated April 20, 2022, by and among BHI and Defendants (the Loan Agreement) (see ECF No. 1-1); (2) a Forbearance Agreement and Amendment No. 4 to the Loan and Security Agreement dated April 18, 2025, by and among BHI and Defendants (the Forbearance Agreement) (see ECF No. 1-2); and (3) several notes containing acceleration and cross-default provisions by which Defendant Ocean Properties, pursuant to the Loan Agreement, granted security interests in real estate it owned to BHI (the Real Estate Term Loan Notes) (see ECF Nos. 1-3 to 1-8); and WHEREAS BHI’s Complaint states that through the aforementioned documents, and pursuant to the Loan Agreement and related loan documents, Defendants granted BHI a security interest in, among other things, all Accounts, Books and Records, cash and cash equivalents,

Chattel Paper, Commercial Tort Claims, Commodity Accounts, Deposit Account and all funds on deposit therein, Documents, Electronic Chattel Paper, Equipment, Equity Interests, General Intangibles, Goods, Instruments, Inventory, Investment Property, Letter-of-Credit Rights, Proceeds of the foregoing property, and the real estate specified in the Real Estate Term Loan Notes (collectively, the Collateral). (ECF No. 1 ¶ 17; see also ECF No. 1-1 at 69); and WHEREAS BHI’s Complaint states that it properly perfected its security interest in the Collateral by timely filing a UCC-1 financing statement in each appropriate jurisdiction, which it attached as an exhibit to the Complaint. (Id. ¶ 18.) The mortgages were duly recorded, perfecting BHI’s security interests in the real estate in each of the aforementioned Real Estate Term Loan

Notes. (Id. ¶ 19.) BHI believes its security interest in the Collateral is prior to any other security interest. (Id. ¶ 20); and WHEREAS the Real Estate Term Loan Notes provide for the appointment of a receiver upon default. The appointment of a receiver upon default is included in: (a) Section 8.1(g) of the Mortgage, Assignment of Leases and Rents, Fixture Filing and Security Agreement associated with the New Jersey Note (ECF No. 1-4 at 19); (b) Section 18(a)(vii) of the Deed to Secure Debt, Assignment of Leases and Rents and Security Agreement associated with the Georgia Note (ECF No. 1-6 at 18); and (c) Section 8.1(g) of the Mortgage, Assignment of Leases and Rents, Fixture Filing and Security Agreement associated with the South Carolina Note (ECF No. 1-8 at 29); and WHEREAS BHI alleges that Defendants defaulted on the Real Estate Term Loan Notes and, later, defaulted under Sections 12.1(a) and 12.1(b) of the Loan Agreement. (Id. ¶¶ 21-26); and WHEREAS Defendants ceased operations and terminated their employees on September 4, 2025. (ECF No. 3 at 2); and

WHEREAS BHI now seeks an appointment of a receiver “over BHI’s secured collateral held by the Defendants during the pendency of this case to protect its interests in the Collateral and to maximize the possibility of recovering the sums owed to it by the Defendants.” (Id. at 1.) BHI argues that the Collateral is at “risk of immediate dissipation and irreparable harm” and that there is “an imminent risk of theft and loss to the equipment [and] assets[.]” (Id. at 3.) According to BHI, the cease in operations may give rise to “litigation or setoff claims by ASG’s customers” and will “prevent the collection of receivables,” the latter of which is a “significant part of BHI’s Collateral base.” (Id. at 2-3.) Moreover, BHI states that certain of the Collateral, such as machinery and equipment, “must be secured to prevent further loss, theft, or damage” because

“appropriate security” may not be in place to safeguard “easily movable equipment, machinery, and vehicles,” which may “dissipate another source of recovery for creditors.” (Id.); and WHEREAS BHI avers that “Defendants are in default under their loan agreements with Plaintiff with a combined current outstanding principal balance of approximately $21.4 million.” (Id. at 2); and WHEREAS Defendants do not oppose the appointment of a receiver and consent to BHI’s Motion and Proposed Order. (ECF No. 7); and WHEREAS the Court held an in-person hearing on this Motion on January 22, 2026, with counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants present (ECF No. 25); and WHEREAS “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 66 empowers a federal court to appoint a receiver in a pending litigation.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lichter Gateway IV, LLC, Civ. No. 17- 2036, 2017 WL 5957072, at *5 (D.N.J. Dec. 1, 2017); see also 28 U.S.C. § 754. However, the appointment of a receiver is a “drastic” and “extraordinary” remedy. Id. (citing Leone Indus. v. Associated Packaging, Inc., 795 F. Supp. 117, 120 (D.N.J. 1992), and Maxwell v. Enter. Wall Paper

Mfg. Co., 131 F.2d 400, 403 (3d Cir. 1942)). A court must take caution when exercising this power. Id.; see also 12 Wright, Miller, Kane & Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2983 (2d ed.) (“The appointment of a receiver is considered to be an extraordinary remedy that should be employed with the utmost caution and granted only in cases of clear necessity to protect plaintiffs interests in the property.”); and WHEREAS “A receiver is often appointed upon application of a secured creditor who fears that his security will be wasted.” Pusey & Jones Co. v. Hansen, 261 U.S. 491, 497 (1923);1 and WHEREAS there is no precise formula for determining when a receiver should be appointed,2 but courts in the District of New Jersey “uniformly require” demonstration of at least

three factors: (1) “an equitable interest in the property to be seized or . . . judgments that cannot otherwise be satisfied,” (2) “imminent danger of [the] property being lost, injured, diminished in

1 Courts in this district generally apply federal law to a motion to appoint receiver in federal diversity actions such as this one. See Fimbel v. Fimbel Door Corp., Civ. No. 14-1915, 2016 WL 1379788, at *2 (D.N.J. Apr. 7, 2016) (collecting cases). Moreover, BHI’s brief states that federal law should apply. (ECF No. 3 at 4 (“In a diversity case, such as this, the appointment of a receiver is a procedural matter governed by federal law and equitable principles.”).) As such, the Court applies federal law. 2 See, e.g., Canada Life Assur. Co. v. LaPeter,

Related

Pusey & Jones Co. v. Hanssen
261 U.S. 491 (Supreme Court, 1923)
Canada Life Assurance Co. v. LaPeter
563 F.3d 837 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
Maxwell v. Enterprise Wall Paper Mfg. Co.
131 F.2d 400 (Third Circuit, 1942)
Leone Industries v. Associated Packaging, Inc.
795 F. Supp. 117 (D. New Jersey, 1992)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. CCC Atlantic, LLC
905 F. Supp. 2d 604 (D. New Jersey, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bank Hapoalim B.M. v. Allstate Sales Group Inc., et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-hapoalim-bm-v-allstate-sales-group-inc-et-al-njd-2026.