Exhibit 4
`19-08289-shl Doc 466-4 Filed 03/06/24 Entered 03/06/24 23:42:46 Exhibit 4
`Pg 1 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Su bject:
`Mr. Hill,
`Tabak, Marc J.
`Sunday, February 4, 2024 10:43 PM
`'Fred Hill'; Dougherty, John (JCDougherty@mintz.com); stephen.matthews@dlapiper.com;
`Kaminetzky, Benjamin S.
`RE: The P.F. Laboratories, Inc
`I have al ready answered your previous emai ls in ful l, and will not respond to continued abuse and th reats. This issue
`was fully decided by the court and ther e is nothin g more to say.
`Marc
`Marc J. Tobak
`Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
`+1 212 450 3073 office
`marc.tobak@davispolk.com
`From: Fred Hil l <fredhill7 0@gma il.c om>
`Sent: Frid ay, Feb ruary 2, 2024 10:08 PM
`To: Tabak, Ma rc J. < mar c.t obak@d avispolk .com>; Doughe rty, John (JCDougherty@m intz.c om)
`<JCDoughert y@ mintz.com>; stephen.m atthews @dl apiper.co m; Kami netzk y, Benjamin S.
`<ben. kami netzky@d avispol k.c om>; Kami netz ky, Benjamin S. <ben .k ami netzky@ davispol k.c om>
`Subject: Re: The P.F . Laborato rie s, Inc
`Crick ets ..... no response !
`So Purdue sig ned the 2007 Oxyconti n ple a agreement and agreed statement statement of facts as the Defenda nt a new
`york corporation The Purdue Frederick Com pany, Inc. legally registered to use its alternative assum ed/Doing Business
`As Name The Purdue Frederick Comp any ........... but oddl y when you search the New York State bu siness Corporation
`database ..... ther e is no and never has been any NY cor poration com pany li sted as The Purdue Frederick Comp any, Inc.
`and als o ther e is no doing busin ess as name /legally registered alternativ e assumed business name The Purdue Frederick
`Comp any in the state of NY as the defendant s sig ned to on their 2007 Oxycontin pl ea agreement and agreed statement
`of facts with the United States of Amer ica in their Cri minal case .......... wow I really wonder if the doj han dlin g the Purd ue
`2020 Oxyconti n ple a agreement and agreed statement of facts knows about this deception .... I see in the cur rent
`pendi ng 2022 doj Oxyconti n ple a agreement it is cle ar the doj bel ieves different names are in volved here I wonder if this
`might void th eir pending doj 2020 Oxycontin criminal pl ea agreement
`Absolutely un bel ievably Purdue then in 2022 in di rect op position to the facts, tells the court ..... actu ally a related party
`subject to the pr el imi nary injunction in their ban kruptcy is the real defendant that pl ead guil ty in the 2007 Oxycontin
`criminal plea agreement and agreed statement of facts ..... this new company is name d The Purdue Frederick Company
`Inc. (N OT THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.) with a legally registered alternative assu med/D oin g Busin ess as
`name in ny THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY and of course ALL OF THAT IS FALSE the new New York Corpo ration that
`Purdue now clai ms pl ead guil ty for the 2007 Oxyconti n cri minal pl ea agreement and agreed statement of facts is THE
`PURDUE FREDERICK COMP ANY INC. but a quick che ck on that ny corporat ion com pany Shows mor e li es ... they are not
`doing business as/legally registered to use its alternative assumed name THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY because
`their legally registered al ternative assumed/ Doing Business As Name is THE* PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY NOT THE
`PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY
`19-08289-shl Doc 466-4 Filed 03/06/24 Entered 03/06/24 23:42:46 Exhibit 4
`Pg 2 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Well I guess if they're not looking to put together a release and settlement package I'm going to have to go to the press
`and let the doj know what these idiots are up to ........ .
`On Fri, Feb 2, 2024, 4:39 PM Fred Hill <fredhill70@gmail.com> wrote:
`Hello .... could someone please answer my question ... let me make it a little easier
`My New Jersey Superior Court case against The P.F. Laboratories , Inc for the damages in my NJ case is being reopened
`in nj as Defendant The P.F. Laboratories, Inc. Is the correctly spelled, properly listed Com pay in the State of nj doing
`business as NJ business entity id# 0100012583 listed in my NJ case .... l have searched for the related party listed as
`subject to the preliminary injunction Named The P.F. Laboratories Inc. but find nothing.
`And to be clear I have noticed several maybe wrong statements made to the court by Benjamin Kaminski in his
`pleadings to the court regarding my motion specifically, Ben maybe wrongly told the court on page two of eight in his
`debtors opposition to my motion that my personal injury New Jersey case is similarly situated to governmental
`claimants clearly that is false ...
`and again on page three of eight Ben maybe wrongly tells the court that my motion was to let me prosecute my New
`Jersey State Court action against one of the debtors' related parties, non-debtor The Purdue Frederick Company Inc.
`(The company ben will also call in his pleading "Purdue Frederick", and Purdue Frederick, and what ben calls a
`registered assumed name The Purdue Frederick Company ... a company whose name ben states from time to time has
`been identified using a comma before the word INC. or not using the word INC. In its name at all) ...... to be clear my
`New Jersey case clearly names on its face the Purdue Frederick company, lnc .... not The Purdue Frederick Company Inc.
`or The Purdue Frederick Company. (you don't have to be a lawyer to see the clear difference in the exact spelling of
`both company names as the defendant in my New Jersey case has a comma in its name while the company ben is
`listing has no comment in their name) Clearly this is wrong, I am not trying to prosecute my case against The Purdue
`Frederick Company Inc. as ben tells the court.
`Then Ben goes on in page six of eight to wrongly tell the court that I appear to believe that the injuries (listed in my
`New Jersey lawsuit caused by the unrelated party, non-debtor, non-subject to the preliminary injunction The Purdue
`Frederick Company, Inc.) were caused by the conduct to which The Purdue Frederick Company Inc. allocated to in a
`2007 Oxycontin plea agreement... this is completely wrong as seen in the attached 2007 Oxycontin plea agreement The
`Entity named throughout the entire 2007 Oxycontin plea agreement that signed the 2007 Oxycontin plea agreement is
`in fact The Purdue Frederick company, Inc. exactly as listed as defendant on the face of my New Jersey lawsuit not The
`Purdue Frederick Company Inc. or "Purdue Frederick" or just Purdue Frederick as Ben calls them ..... to be clear the
`related party subject to the preliminary injunction The Purdue Frederick Company Inc. is not listed in my
`case .... although this name appears similar to the defendant in my case .... in no way did The Purdue Frederick Company
`Inc. that Ben also calls "Purdue Frederick" and just Purdue Frederick plead guilty to the 2007 Oxycontin crimes plea
`agreement.
`Ben goes on at number 15 bottom of page 7 of 8 to wrongly claim to the court the 2007 Oxycontin plea agreement was
`case captioned United States versus Purdue Frederick Co. that is wrong the fact of the matter is the 2007 plea
`agreement case caption shows United States of America versus The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc. case number
`1:07CR29 not the United States of America versus Purdue Frederick Co. as ben maybe wrongly States .....
`2
`19-08289-shl Doc 466-4 Filed 03/06/24 Entered 03/06/24 23:42:46 Exhibit 4
`Pg 3 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Now benny really gets going on page 7 of 8 ..... Ben States wrongly my motion appears to be arguing that The Purdue
`Frederick Company evaded consequences of the 2007 Oxycontin plea agreement because the caption signature block
`of the 2007 Oxycontin plea agreement includes an errant comma, according to Ben .... and identifies the legal entity as
`The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc.
`clearly this is wrong ... it is Ben talking about The Purdue Frederick Company evading prosecution for the 2007
`Oxycontin criminal plea agreement... all I said was the name on the 2007 plea agreement is The Purdue Frederick
`Company, Inc
`This of course is completely wrong my motion argues The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc is the proper name
`mentioned throughout the 2007 Oxycontin plea agreement and 2007 opinion and Order and is listed also in the caption
`and signed signature block of the 2007 plea agreement... ........ despite Ben wrongly telling the court that the comma in
`the 2007 plea agreement defendant's name was just an errant comma in just the case caption and signature
`block (completely omitting the fact that The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc. is listed in the first paragraph of the 2007
`Oxycontin plea agreement and also throughout the plea agreement including the plea agreement case caption block
`and signature block) and maybe wrongly stating to the court that the real 2007 Oxycontin plea agreement defendant is
`actually The Purdue Frederick Company Inc. with no comma in their name .... despite my motion including the 2007
`Oxycontin plea agreement naming exactly The Purdue Frederick company, Inc in it's first paragraph of the 2007
`Oxycontin plea agreement with a comma, and also in the case caption and signature blocks obviously Ben is not
`correct... but I am starting to notice a pattern here ..
`Ben goes on as seen in Pages 7 of 8 to say wrongly that my motion argues I should be able to prosecute and pursue my
`New Jersey state lawsuit/state Court action against The Purdue Frederick Company .......... this is false my motion was so
`I can pursue my New Jersey state case against defendants who were not related parties subject to the preliminary
`injunction named in my New Jersey case The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc
`Then on page 7 of 8 Ben goes full Rudy claiming it's not The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc listed as defendants
`throughout the 2007 Oxycontin plea agreement and 2007 opinion and Order ............ and benny claims wrongly that the
`legal entity The Purdue Frederick Company Inc. (no comma) is the entity/company that pied guilty to the 2007
`Oxycontin plea agreement.. .. (not the company actually listed throughout the 2007 Oxycontin plea agreement or in its
`case caption and signature blocks) ....... Ben goes on to say wrongly to the court The Purdue Frederick Company lnc.(no
`comma) is legally registered to do business using the alternative assumed id name The Purdue Frederick
`Company! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! . ..... to be very clear Ben wrongly told the court that the 2007 Oxycontin plea agreement
`defendant was The Purdue Frederick Company Inc. legally registered to do business using the alternative assumed
`name THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY ..... and Ben goes on to say that this company's name has been identified from
`time to time using a comma before the word INC in their name (example The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc.) or no
`word INC. in their name (example The Purdue Frederick Company) being very clear about punctuation used in the
`names (none of which use an asterisk) ..... but none of this matters .... The Purdue Frederick Company Inc. legally
`registered alternative assumed name is not The Purdue Frederick Company as Ben would like the court to believe ..... .
`the listed related party subject to the preliminary injunction The Purdue Frederick Company Inc. is properly and legally
`registered to do business using the alternative assumed name THE* PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY a name that
`includes an asterisk that Ben and no one else in this bankruptcy has shared with the court ...... This real legally
`registered alternative assumed Name ID number is 347106 ........ But none of this matters as The Purdue Frederick
`Company, Inc. is not named as a related party subject to the preliminary Junction/But is listed in my New Jersey
`complaint that lists defendant The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc not The Purdue Frederick Company Inc
`When you look up The Purdue Frederick Company Inc. in the New York State business incorporated business
`database three companies pop up ... first is Dos number 30111 The Purdue Frederick Company it merged out of
`existence 5/07/ 2004 and was created June 29th 1917 ... its legally registered alternative assumed name is Purdue
`Frederick Research Center assumed name number 3545
`3
`19-08289-shl Doc 466-4 Filed 03/06/24 Entered 03/06/24 23:42:46 Exhibit 4
`Pg 4 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The second name that pops up is dos #163116 The Purdue Frederick Company international, Inc.
`Merged out of existence May 6th 2004 created January 21st 1957 with no legally registered alternative assumed names
`given
`The third and final name that pops up is dos id #3105222
`The Purdue Frederick Company Inc. domestic business Corporation section of law being 402 BCL - business Corporation
`law
`created September 22nd 2004 and its registered legally assumed alternative name THE*PURDUE FREDE RICK COMPANY
`legally registered alternative assumed Name ID number 347106
`certificate of merger file number 040923-00619 showing the constituents The Purdue Frederick Company and the
`Survivor result entity The Purdue Frederick Company Inc. To be clear none of these companies ever say they are The
`Purdue Frederick Company, Inc
`I'm sure old Benny's a very good lawyer .... but I guess it's possible that this company that just misleads and lies and
`omits facts and commits fraud and gets convicted of it over and over may have misled Ben as to what the facts are of
`this case .... well this is what I know as of now ..... I will find out more. To be clear I am not saying that Ben is a liar or
`lying to the court I'm sure he was just misled but that's why I'm writing this letter to find out the truth so hopefully
`you'll speak up Benny .... I wouldn't want to get the facts wrong before I present them in court
`the bottom line is clear the defendant listed in my case The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc and The P.F. Laboratories,
`Inc are not a related party subject to the preliminary injunction .... and I will be moving forward with my case against
`them in New Jersey immediately as I can't believe anything that the lawyers in this bankruptcy said after seeing all of
`these false statements and lies and omissions .....
`And oh yeah by the way mare, I did just happen to see a couple of your email responses from the last couple days ...
`they are not very clear ..... they don't make a whole lot of sense but what I can tell you is this ..... the oral argument you
`say that I had was a sham .... I was unable to hear or see or make out anything that was being said and when I tried to
`state that and specifically correct it.. .. I was completely blacked out and could hear nothing more of the case so .... if
`that's your best shot at referencing what has happened you really need to try again ... like I told you I heard nothing and
`when I asked the court for a transcript they refused to provide it ...... maybe you can provide me with a link to it .... but
`for me to be able to get on the internet I have to be in the library and I am unable to find anything like that on public
`equipment .... and oh yeah as I said considering that The P.F. Laboratories, Inc. Nj business entity id#0100012583
`company listed on the face of my New Jersey case is not listed as a related party subject to your preliminary agreement
`this isn't just about The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc anymore .....
`I am sure I am going to find out a lot more and will definitely be letting the press and everyone else know exactly what
`kind of misrepresentations are being made here about the defendants in these matters ...... unless of course somebody
`who is not listed as a related party or subject to the preliminary injunction settles with me quickly and gets me to sign a
`release where all this just doesn't matter .... we'll see ... that's why I've been asking you guys who the lawyer for the
`defendant in my case against The P.F. Laboratories, Inc. is
`And again most of your assumptions about me are absolutely incorrect. I am not looking to jump ahead of other
`similarly situated claimants in the bankruptcy case ... I am going to get a settlement in the bankruptcy case if it goes
`through and I'm also going to settle with the parties who are not related parties subject to the preliminary injunction
`listed in my New Jersey lawsuit.. .. count on it
`4
`19-08289-shl Doc 466-4 Filed 03/06/24 Entered 03/06/24 23:42:46 Exhibit 4
`Pg 5 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`And by the way it can't be very helpful to have any drunk former or current lawyers for Purdue spewin g all of the facts
`I've referenced in this email to an yone who wi ll buy him a dri nk just saying .... if I got anythin g incorrect.. ...
`Please advise
`Fredrick Hill
`On Thu, Feb 1, 2024, 4:1 2 PM Fred Hill <fredhill70@ gmail.com> wrote:
`Also ... Can anyone tell me who The P.F. Laboratories, Inc named Defendant in my New Jersey Super ior Court case
`lawyer is??? Marc Tabak from Davis Polk has al ready told me that The Purdue Frederick Com pany, Inc Defendant in
`my NJ case is represented by Mr. Dougherty and his colle agues at Mintz lawfirm .. . does Mintz also represent The P.F.
`Laboratories, Inc??? Please advise
`Fredrick Hill
`On Thu, Feb 1, 2024, 3:58 PM Fred Hill <fredhill70@ gmail.com> wrote:
`Hello all,
`5
`19-08289-shl Doc 466-4 Filed 03/06/24 Entered 03/06/24 23:42:46 Exhibit 4
`Pg 6 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Soooo ... The P.F. Laboratories, Inc a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New Jersey
`having a place of business at 1 Stanford Forum 201 tresser Boulevard Stamford Connecticut 06901 is listed in the
`August 28th 2018 settlement agreement versus assertio and in the stipulated dismissal attached ..... clearly this is the
`same Corporation listed as The P.F. Laboratories, Inc. exactly as it is named in my New Jersey Superior Court as
`Defendant.
`clearly this defendant The P.F. Laboratories, Inc is not listed in the bankruptcy as a related party subject to the
`preliminary injunction.
`but, again they have listed a similarly looking named company as a related party subject to the preliminary
`injunction but that company is a different company named The P.F. Laboratories Inc.
`To be clear ........... this is the same The P.F. Laboratories, Inc. that just recently sold it's building at 700 Union
`Boulevard Totowa New Jersey for $20 million
`I believe I have detected a pattern here clearly defendants in my New Jersey lawsuit have been acting as if there's
`some sort of a misunderstanding ...... as several companies were listed as a related party subject to the preliminary
`agreement does not include a comma in its name but it's the exact same name as the defendant in my New Jersey
`case but without the comma a company can either have a comma before Incorporated in its name or not you'd have
`to see when the business registered its articles of organization whether they use the comma in their name or they
`did not I believe these are denoting two completely different companies and I'm moving forward in New Jersey
`Superior Court against the defendants in my lawsuit who have not filed a bankruptcy petition and are not a related
`party subject to the preliminary injunction
`6
`19-08289-shl Doc 466-4 Filed 03/06/24 Entered 03/06/24 23:42:46 Exhibit 4
`Pg 7 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`