A business lender is seeking more than $2 million in damages after claiming that funds provided for working capital were diverted for unauthorized purposes by the borrower and its affiliates. The complaint was filed by QUIQ Capital LLC in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 9, 2026, naming US ATM Atlanta I Investors LLC, USATM Group LLC, and Peter S. Handy as defendants.
According to the court filing, QUIQ Capital alleges that Peter S. Handy orchestrated a scheme to defraud the company out of $1.6 million through false representations about the financial condition and intended use of loan proceeds by entities under his control. The complaint states that Handy represented himself as the sole owner of USATM Group LLC—a company purportedly engaged in acquiring and operating automated teller machines (ATMs) across various states—and claimed substantial assets and profitability.
The background detailed in the lawsuit describes how Handy presented written resolutions indicating that US ATM Atlanta I Investors was an affiliate of USATM Group LLC and provided financial records suggesting assets totaling about $26 million with annual income near $18 million. In one cited email from February 4, 2022, a representative of ATM Group described a potential loan from QUIQ as “very low risk” due to “strong cash flow [and] high level of profitability.” Based on these assurances, QUIQ Capital agreed to lend $1.6 million to US ATM Atlanta I Investors on March 23, 2022.
The transaction was formalized through a Loan and Security Agreement accompanied by a promissory note and unconditional personal guaranties signed by both Handy individually and USATM Group LLC. The term sheet specified that all funds would be used for working capital by ATM Investors.
However, according to the complaint, after receiving the full amount from QUIQ Capital, ATM Investors made only some interest payments before defaulting on further obligations and requesting extensions on repayment deadlines. The plaintiff alleges that neither ATM Investors nor its guarantors—Handy or USATM Group—have fulfilled their contractual duties or repaid the principal or accrued interest.
More seriously, QUIQ Capital claims that none of the loaned funds were used for their stated purpose as working capital for ATM Investors. Instead, it is alleged that Handy took control of the money personally through his management roles in related entities and used it to acquire ATMs under another entity named US ATM Atlanta I LLC (referred to as “ATM ATLANTA”), which he also controls.
The complaint further asserts that ATM ATLANTA is now attempting to sell these ATMs but has informed QUIQ Capital that proceeds from any sales will not be used to repay the original loan because ATM Investors—the official borrower—is now defunct.
QUIQ Capital brings several causes of action against the defendants: breach of loan agreement (against ATM Investors), breach of unconditional personal guaranty (against Handy and USATM Group), negligent misrepresentation (against Handy), intentional misrepresentation (against Handy), conversion (against Handy), breach of fiduciary duty (against Handy), and unjust enrichment (against Handy). The plaintiff argues it relied justifiably on representations made by Handy regarding both the purpose for which funds would be used and the financial stability of his companies.
In its prayer for relief, QUIQ Capital seeks damages no less than $2 million; special damages against Peter S. Handy; exemplary or punitive damages where allowed; preliminary and permanent injunctive relief barring further profit from assets acquired with its funds; recovery of legal costs including attorneys’ fees; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and any other legal or equitable relief deemed appropriate by the court.
Attorneys Lawrence C. Hersh (Rutherford, NJ) and Louis F. Teran are representing QUIQ Capital in this matter under case number 2:26-cv-02481.
Source: 226cv02481_Quiq_Capital_LLC_v_US_ATM_Atlanta_Investors_LLC_Complaint_District_New_Jersey.pdf
