Serious Allegations of Wrongdoing

SunLight General stopped paying Power Partners MasTec, so MasTec sued SunLight.  What they alleged in federal court forms the basis of Freeholder Gail Phoebus' and Assemblyman Parker Space's a request to the Securities and Exchange Commission, U.S. Department of Justice, and the N.J. Office of the Attorney General to review the allegations set forth in MasTec v. SunLight.  The allegations are serious and deeply troubling:

- That the SunLight Entities "have drawn on the Public Bond Funds and diverted such funds for non-trust purposes in violation of the New Jersey Trust Fund Statute."

- That the SunLight Entities have admitted that "millions of dollars of Public Bond Funds" have been used to "make lease payments" and to "fund the SunLight Entities' required contributions under the Program Documents, and to pay the 'soft' costs (including attorneys' fees) of the Authorities and the SunLight Entities."

- That "the SunLight Entities owe Power Partners millions of dollars as a direct beneficiary under the New Jersey Trust Fund Statute and there are no longer sufficient funds in the Public Bond Funds to pay Power Partners and to complete the projects."

- That the SunLight Entities "participated in an additional scheme to draw down over $6.3 million in Public Bond Funds and misdirected more than $2.7 million of such funds for non-trust purposes."

- That SunLight General Capital and its subsidiaries were formed "with virtually no assets, such that they were undercapitalized at the time of formation."

- That those who controlled the SunLight Entities treated corporate assets as "their personal piggy banks, repeatedly transferring assets from one entity to the next for the purpose of ensuring that there would be insufficient assets in each entity to satisfy its obligations to Power Partners."

- That "the corporate form of the SunLight Entities was used to commit conversion, make fraudulent transfers, and other improper acts."

SunLight's attorney told the media that "context matters and it is important to recognize that MasTec's statements were made in the context of a commercial dispute".  In fact, this so-called "commercial dispute" is a lawsuit filed in United States District Court.  Do attorneys file baseless lies in federal court?  Maybe attorneys do, and maybe they also lie to freeholder boards.  That is why we need an investigation run by federal officers.  Lie to them and you go to jail.